Christians?

@@jasongallman2032 exactly

'Evolution' is the biggest hoax of our time, debunked again and again with big amount of irrefutable evidence.The truth of Intelligent Design has started its triumphant march to victory over the 160 old pseudo scientific theory created by an ignorant undergraduate who knew nothing of genes, thermodynamics and information science.

@@jasongallman2032 "Christians" Facts are facts, even you can't change the truth. Evolution will go down in history as the worst joke ever. You have no proof for evolution or we would have seen it by now.

@@ZackMaddox-gd1zk So show us the proof already, you lot keep telling us there is mountains of proof but i've yet to see any. Tell us what came first in cell construction?

I visited the channel and was impressed. I've subscribed. Thank you for the heads-up.

Anything that promotes creation is automatically horrible

If you understand this and find it compelling I urge you to check out Forrest Valkai or Gutsick Gibbon 👍🏽 we’ll get that brain unwashed my fellow ape

@@betsieswartz "Anything that promotes creation is automatically horrible" - That's due to anxiety of the preachers whose god is called the 'Almighty Happenstance' 😎

@@jounisuninen We know today that if there were only 8 people on earth just 4300 years ago, the world would look much different than what it does today, and genetics would dramatically demo that fact, and that there werent only 8 people then And what I said there does not in any way dispute the existence of God. It just disputes the stupid dogma you insist upon believing. You are making "the word of God" things which obviously are not the word of God

All efforts to prove the birth of life by naturalistic, unguided processes have failed. The 2nd law on thermodynamics is unbribable ... There neither is any realistic hope for succeeding to prove it in the future. The same goes with evolution of course, because evolution could only occur if abiogenesis was true. These facts should already be enough for a sincere searcher to believe in God. Personally I prefer believing in something that is NOT scientifically proven non-existent (God) than believing in something that IS scientifically proven non-existent (abiogenesis and evolution). The Old Book inspired by God tells everything that man needs to know. Of course it doesn't tell anything unless you read it. But if you read it, you learn that Bible predicts the fate of mankind and whole universe while the inept secular science is only painfully starting to understand it. Like all laws of physics, entropy is set by God. We know that entropy rules on earth and the sun can not produce enough energy to stop entropy. When this is told in Bible, why should we not believe in God's existence? Bible tells that all visible is made of non-visible and human science found this fact only in the 19th century. Bible tells that the universe is not eternal but will vanish. Bible also tells how God created the earth and the universe. One of the issues that concern many people, who wish to adopt young-earth creationism as a valid view of earth history, is the question of how stars can be seen many millions of light years away if only a few thousand years have passed since they were created. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a previous researcher at ICR, spent years working on this problem and has developed a creationist cosmology that seems to resolve this question. A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1 | The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org/article/new-creationist-cosmology-no-time-at) We’ve long known that the Space contains timeless zones like e.g. the event horizon around black holes. We also know that the distribution of mass (stars, planets etc.) controls the fabric of space, the fabric of space controls the speed of light, and the speed of light controls time. Time is sped up or slowed down throughout space according to the distribution of mass in space. According to the creationist theory the construction of the Universe started within a Creator-made expanding black hole on the 4th day of creation of the Earth. That explains why time stopped inside the black hole while stars and planets were created. The Creator masters everything He creates, so the black hole started contracting in the speed of light after the galaxies were created. So in the end the stars became visible on earth suddenly. When the sphere of timelessness reached zero radius and disappeared, the earth emerged, and immediately the light that had been following the contracting sphere reached earth, even the light that had started billions of light years away. The stretching of the fabric of space had been occurring continuously all along the light trajectory, thus red-shifting the light wavelengths. On earth, it was still only the fourth day. An observer on the night side of the earth would have seen a black sky one instant, and a sky filled with stars the next. The discovery of DNA destroyed Darwin's evolution theory. DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution are found to be inconsistent with the fossil record and comparative morphology of the creatures. www.irishtimes.com/opinion/evidence-does-not-support-the-theory-of-evolution-1.318354 Accumulating mutations quickly degrade the structural and thermodynamic stability and function of protein folds. Stable Tertiary Structure is lost long before the mutations in question could generate a novel protein fold. 3-15 mutational trials and errors are enough to destroy a DNA section while different possibilities for error are counted in millions. A succesful evolutionary process is practically impossible. Specific genes and signaling molecules interact to form an integrated circuit that controls and directs cell differentiation and organization during animal development. ”Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any we’ve ever created.” (Bill Gates) Trial and error -method can't work in DNA. Only intelligent design works.

They can’t because it’s wrong

They can't be sure. There is literally zero evidence that it is right.

Be honest with yourself. In which do you recognise yourself as a conscious, living, feeling being, your condition and the natural environment in which you live and upon which you depend on for life, the Genesis poem of Creation or in the idea that life on earth is a meaningless chemical spill to which you are merely accidental? I'm not asking which is true, I'm asking in which do you recognise yourself. Think you can be honest?

The Bibles version is very thorough, not only telling us the dimensions of the Ark but also that it was covered in pitch. When the Ark became grounded, the Bible tells us Noah had a look at the ground and saw it was too muddy to walk on so he stayed on board another 2 months till it dried out enough to support not only humans but also larger animals, imagine cattle getting stuck in the mud cause Noah let them out too early. The epic of gilgamesh does nothing like this, it is not as specific or thorough as the Bible and is likely a copy written down after hearing about Noahs Ark by word of mouth. My guess is gilgamesh was trying to take the lime light for himself. Though it is believed the gilgamesh version is older, we must remember today's methods of dating artifacts is not precise, many wrong dates have been taken as faithful when in fact they were not.

Well done

Time does not magically change anything. #1 You have to have mechanisms in place that cause something to occur and #2 those mechanisms have to have everything go right for it to even be feasible. #3 There has to be nothing making it impossible and there are too many barriers for evolution to be possible. Time seems to be a magic recipe for evolutionists but there is more to the story. It is literally impossible for evolution to occur.

Now try that without intelligence. Try to argue for a complex system of information conveyance to be *_drafted/created_* without any intelligent being doing the drafting. There is no statistical likelihood of random chance producing even the shortest strand of (functional) DNA.

22:20 watch the video

"First we do not live long enough to observe that, but we see little changes and if you add them together, they made bigger changes." - There however is a strict genetic limit how far that can reach ... In their "slow step by step by step " - evolution, evolutionists forget that they should be able to explain the genetic mechanism which could produce such slow gradual transformation. Time itself does not create anything. What is genetically impossible now has been impossible in the past as well. Millions of years don't change that. Uniformitarianism means: "Earth has always changed in uniform ways and the present is the key to the past". Uniformitarianism happens to be one of the basic assumptions in evolution theory ... Adaptive variation ("micro evolution") occurs within a species' own existing genome during the gene recombination. No new information needed. Evolution ("macro evolution") in the Darwinian sense would need a continuous flow of qualitatively new genes to generate new life forms. Where would those genes come from? There are no such new genes floating around to be picked and used. Science has never proved that adaptive variation (micro evolution) could lead to evolution (macro evolution). It is impossible, because "macro" would need new genetic information to the existing DNA. The mechanisms in the "micro evolution" and the "macro evolution" (if such existed in the first plave ...) are different and not connected. That's why "micro" can not lead to "macro".

Dog breeds are brought about by loss or recession of genetic traits, not the appearance of original ones. Evolution is the theory that life forms appear without line of descent.

"like if you slectively breed a species into another species thats not evolution?" - Right, it's not evolution. It is intraspecific variation or speciation. Variation happens within a species own genome. No qualitatively new genes appear to make evolution towards some other species possible. You can't breed a species into another species. Instead you can breed a species to a subspecies or to a new race that has the same genes as its stem species. The difference and also the problem is that the subspecies always has less genes than the stem species. Speciation can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution. Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the population. Natural selection (natural elimination) however delivers nothing, it just eliminate individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or become too rare!) which means that on population level everybody's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is far reaching adaptation, not evolution. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct. We can observe that natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution. What comes to dog breeding, we know that the hundreds of years breeding has led to alarming gene loss and genetic degradation in dogs. Darwinian evolution means new species emerging from existing species. That kind of "macro evolution" has never been empirically proven, neither witnessed in nature.

I also thought about this very question years ago, the conclusion i came to was that there were other dogs on board. We know there was a raven and a dove on board the Ark and likely other birds so why not several dog kinds?

Do your own research into genetics and you will have your answer. Heredity and mutations are the two process that make offspring different from their parents.

@@jounisuninen Hey buddy you might not realize it but you just admitted that due to environmental urgings that dogs genetics have changed.......??! Evolution??? Why is it that your belief in God depends upon disputing science? Science does not serve to dispute true belief in God 500 years ago your type was clamoring to burn Galileo and Copernicus at the stake. Bet that today, you accept that heliocentrism is reality. What gives?? Or do you? Science only serves to dispute a lot of the silly dogma of some people who pretend to believe in God, Examining the processes of creation is in no way denying creation.

Yeah...if only God had sent the Devil and his followers straight to Hell, so they wouldn't have been able to torment mankind. Kind of psychotic that He didn't.

​@@arthapeterson5239The devils are God's tools to sift the hearts of man. Is your heart sinking into hell or rising with Jesus to heaven?

@@kathleennorton7913 So you agree that God brought evil into the world to "test" mankind? If I believed in God, and He did something like that, he would not be worthy of worship. He's actually worse than the Devil, who is just following His orders!

@Artha Peterson Are you aware even the Angels have free will? How else could God have given us free will? Do you think God should have just made us like little bots? It is exactly how it needs to be, and yes, it is to determine who is entitled to eternity in the real life. I think it's amazing really. We learn here so much, our loves & values, which we take with us. But if you're just an ungrateful melodramatic person, you probably will have a long journey ahead. Jake

Your god and heaven, most likely, don't exist.

Lol what are you even talking about? The Bible was not provided to specifically mention every single detail of creation. It wasn’t given as a biological textbook to explain every possible fact of nature. Just because something is not mentioned doesn’t mean it’s unaccounted for. This is sophistry, my friend. As if Genesis is going to specifically mention each and every form of life including animals, plants, fungi, Protista, and bacterium.

God left humans many things to discover themselves.

⁠@@scottsponaasthe Bible is a collection of fairy tales

@@betsieswartz "the Bible is a collection of fairy tales" - That's not scientifically proven ... Abiogenesis and (macro)evolution instead are scientifically proven impossible. So we can call them fairy tales, right?

@@jounisuninen Yes, that is true, and we did discover many things. Why do you find it so necessary to dispute what we found? What is it that you are afraid of?

They've all been proved either ape or human through DNA. Don't forget your own founder Darwin was wanting the missing links and said they should be numerous. So your kinda up the creek without a paddle trying to justify millions of years. God said he would wipe humans off the face off the earth and as apes can cling to things that float like humans and also bloat and float in death and water it's not surprising not many were fossilized or buried in the flood

There are ZERO transition fossils. Genetics has totally debunked natural selection. If you want to believe in a nature god, that's your choice. I've examined both sides very critically for years, and I'll stick with my Creator. Inert matter doesn't come alive by itself.

No one's demanding complete or even multiples of transitional fossils. What is being asked for is any that can back up the claim of transition. Billions of years, trillions of living things, and not one to back up your claim? That sounds feasible to you?

....Which means that evolutionists have created their entire story based on a LACK of evidence. Not very scientific, if you ask me.

"In all of the time that the assassin bugs have lived on Earth, only 50 fossils have been found to date. Do you expect transition fossils? " - Of course we don't because transitional fossils are a fairy tale. There is no fossil evidence to prove evolution. You only have the blind faith to evolution. " For hominin fossils, only 6,000 have been found to represent 3 million years of evolution. Do you seriously think that you would see a smooth transition between them?" - Of course not! We know fossils don't give any kind of evidence for evolution. "To demand that there should always be transition fossils to show evolution in the past is to deny the fact that the fossilization process is very rare." - We do NOT demand that there should be transitional fossils, because we know there aren't any transitional fossils in the first place. Transitional fossils can only be found in the Neo-Darwinist imagination. In 1980 Stephen J Gould (evolutionist!) said ‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’ [ Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119-130 (p.127), 1980. ] The ailing geriatric leaders of the scientific society and the 2nd class scientists still flag for evolution. They do no want to lose their bursaries, their professorships, neither their face.

Evolution is beyond credibility 😂 Evolutionary theory is all but dead as discussed at the Royal Society's conference "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" in London in November 2016. Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller said there, “the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.” In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose. Source - evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/ Evolution is a dead theory based on atheism. There is no science in it. It is taught in schools only because evolutionist researchers want to keep their scholarships, want to keep their bursaries and don't want to lose their face.

"Evolution is true beyond question" - But how to prove it? All we see is intraspecific variation ("micro evolution") but never new taxonomic species emerging from the existing species ("macro evolution").

@@jounisuninen The same things can be asked about the things which you accept as truth. You live 80 years. Considering earths claimed age, 100 of those 80 years is still basically nothing. The fact that you or I dont see things happening does not mean it isnt happening

Five minutes without sustaining chemistry kills living things. Time is not on the side of evolution. If we give it enough time the 1927 Yankees will reappear

Evolution is about the development of life since life started! It explains the bio diversity of life on earth! You need to educate yourself before making a twat of yourself!

​@@timothykeith1367 The core of Darwinist evolution theory is this: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA)". UCA is also called the "First Cell". Nobody has seen it. From the scientific viewpoint UCA is a purely hypothetical assumption. But if we ASSUME there was a UCA billions of years ago, it would've had the strange task to produce evolution while working against the evolution theory. Namely, the theory tells that evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variations in the organisms, so that the fittest survive and the non fit expire. The UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction means no variation, which means nothing for nature to select = no evolution. It doesn't look realistic that UCA could have existed. The mutation-based idea of evolution doesn't work in the real DNA-world. Accumulating mutations quickly degrade the structural and thermodynamic stability and the function of protein folds. Stable Tertiary Structure is lost long before the mutations in question could generate a novel protein fold. Some 3-15 mutational trials and errors are enough to destroy a DNA section while different possibilities for error are counted in millions or billions. Specific genes and signaling molecules interact to form an integrated circuit that controls and directs cell differentiation and organization during organic development. It can't take many errors before collapsing. A successful unguided evolutionary process to create DNA is to all intents and purposes impossible. Atheists are of course ready to grab even the faintest chance which seems to make evolutionary explanation possible. This tells of the blind faith in atheism against all scientific evidence.

Life does create itself each time a simple cell divides. Life does not design itself. It simply adapts, sometimes very quickly as in the common cold virus, sometimes over millions of years. Mankind has, in well less than a century, has made self replicating molecules that use energy in the process. It's probable that life will come along well before a century has elapsed. When that occurs, will we be gods or simply duplicating natural processes? The latter-day, I should think. No gods or magic needed.

In pantheism we see the universe as God prima facie since we know we're made in stars. In England the BBC science unit conducted an experiment using the microwave background radiation to see whether the universe is unbounded or bounded in the four dimensions. The result was indeed a cosmos without limits in the three dimensions of space and one of time. It did not begin and has no edge. But pantheism is democratic. It doesn't exclude the idea of a Godhead in other forms. It just looks for evidence. Nothing is written in stone. Evolution fashions life forms in a kind of trial and error way. That would explain deformity, disease and death. After all, a benevolent omniscient omnipresent God wouldn't create pathogens, would He?

If so can you explain why penguins use their wings to swim underwater? Thats a mutation right!? :-)

​@@twosheds1749 Either it was a mutation that destroyed the wing producing gene, or the penguin has always had flippers. There's no fossil evidence of gradual transformation in penguin's body plan. In both cases penguin has never been anything else than penguin = no evolution. If penguin had wings in the past, it lost them because of a gene loss, not because of some new gene. Penguin evolution would need new and different genes but all different genes are elsewhere, in other species' genomes. Penguins can't get them. We can observe that natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution. Evolutionists try to cover this problem with a mutation theory. In this theory mutations bring new information to the genome, thus creating new body plans i.e. evolution. This theory is against everything that science knows of mutations. Scientists know this well: ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.] Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.]

Wrong

That is just flat out wrong and is yet another example of creationist lies.

@@twosheds1749 There is no evidence that I am aware of that penguins were ever capable of flight. It appears as though they were fashioned from the beginning to fly beneath the sea. If, perchance, I am wrong about the this, a penguin is still a bird....making it a case of Adaptation within a species .....and not evolution.

What did you find funny? It's funny how athiests have zero evidence in their favour- can you produce evidence for abiogenesis? No you cannot. So what is that funny to you? Jake

@@UserRandJ _"It's funny how athiests have zero evidence"_ You spelled theist incorrect...

⁠@@UserRandJNo proof? Yeah I guess if you just discard the entire human genome project, the constant research and refining of the mammal family true which received a large help thanks to the breakthrough in genetic science, several fossil specimens of early man/apes, the fact that we share 98.9% of DNA with apes, the fact that we can observe behaviors and body parts consistent with prehistoric animals that are also consistent with todays animals then I guess there’s no evidence supporting evolution.

@@UserRandJlike there’s so much evidence for creation

@@UserRandJ The funny thing is that to believe in God, you seem to need to believe that there was no process to creation, and that an ancient creation poem is literally true today What you are saying is that on a date just 6000 years ago God decided He wanted a Buffallo on lil ol' planet earth, and he thunked a thought and presto, a Buffalator appeared out of thin air on Earth. That is your Creation narrative, And if creation of the species on earth includes another process, your beliefs are threatened. You have an INCREDIBLY fragile belief in God. Why do you believe in heliocentrism? 500 years ago you would be thoroughly disputing heliocentrism, (because you believe in God!!!😃) but today you blithely accept it, and have moved along to other foolishness.

You don't see evidence for a creation because you are basically dead - unable to perceive. That is why you believe in Darwinism mythology. Only God can give any person life to cause them to see what you are unable to perceive. "in their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" 2 Corinthians 4:4

"It is the actual generational Improvement of the genome." Honestly, the opposite is true 🙂 ”A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory How many times has evolution been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method? Answer: zero times. Evolution theory has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical evidence has proved that evolution does not happen. Tens of thousands of generations have been used, simulating millions of years back in time. The tested fruit flies and bacteria can only produce more fruit flies and bacteria. No new body plans, no new species, no evolution. Only variation within species. Fossils neither give evidence for evolution. There is not a single scientifically proven chain of transitional fossilized forms. The gaps are huge. Mutations can produce only non-structural changes like sickle-cells, lactose tolerance, wingless birds, antibiotic resistant bacteria, changes in metabolism etc. 1. Mutations Science doesn't know any evolutionary beneficial mutations that would’ve transformed the body plan (basic structure) of any given organism. That means no evolution. So they are in fact just intraspecies adaptations due to loss of genes. All so-called ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like dealing a deck of cards). Qualitatively new genes do not exist and it is not scientifically proven that mutations could produce them. These facts make impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution. Scíentific observations: ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.] Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.] 2. Gene duplication Gene duplications make only copies of existing genes. They do not bring new genetic information, and evolution can't happen without new genetic information. Read: No evolution. 3. Recombination Recombination happens after fertilization, when parents' genes form new combinations. However they all are existing genes, not qualitatively new genes that would bring new genetic information to the embryo. Recombination produce different superficial traits to the embryos but recombination can't create new body plans. Read: No evolution. 4. Genetic drift Typically, genetic drift occurs in small populations, where infrequently-occurring alleles face a greater chance of being lost. Once it begins, genetic drift will continue until the involved allele is either lost by a population or is the only allele present at a particular gene locus within a population. Both possibilities decrease the genetic diversity of a population! It's not difficult to understand that genetic drift produces devolution, not evolution. 5. Gene flow Gene flow - also called migration - is any movement of individuals, and/or the genetic material they carry, from one population to another. Gene flow includes lots of different kinds of events, such as pollen being blown to a new destination or people moving to new cities or countries. If genetic variants are carried to a population where they previously did not exist, gene flow can be an important source of genetic variation. - Again genetic variation, no evolution! Evolution would need qualitatively new genes but gene flow is only gene swap within species. "Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics." - That in fact in NOT evolution, only intraspecies adaptive variation where no new species, genus, family etc. appears. From evolutionary viewpoint, the problem in your "process of gradual change" is that it is limited within each species own genome. An individual gene can never "evolve". This means that no new and different species can evolve from the existing species. Natural selection could produce evolution if it could deliver to survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the population. Natural selection however delivers nothing. It only destroys individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or become too rare) which means that on population level everybody's genome gets specialized. This is adaptation, this is good for a while, but the specialized genomes are more one-sided than the original gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct. Indeed over 90% of all species have gone extinct already and extinctions continue because entropy doesn't give in. We can observe that natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution, not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution. Evolution is a dead theory based on atheism. There is no science in it. It is taught in schools only because the evolutionist researchers want to keep their scholarships, want to keep their bursaries and don't want to lose their face.

ofc you can debunk it. see alchemy and SG

@rickallen9167 "You can't debunk evolution I'm afraid...." - Indeed. We can't debunk something that does not exist. "You see, evolution isn't an idea or a belief..." - If evolution wasn't a belief, it could be verified through empirical studies. It has never succeeded. Only intraspecific adaptive variations occur. We can call it "micro evolution" but evolution in the Darwinian sense it is not. Physics is the basis for natural sciences. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Evolution theory is against the discoveries caught from empirical studies of natural science. A scientific fact means this: "A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science Question: How many times has evolution been repeatedly observed or experimentally measured, getting positive empirical evidence? Answer: Not once! Evolution indeed has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical test has proved that no evolution happen. In a long test of 72 000 generations of bacteria the result was only more bacteria. The same goes with fruit flies. During 100 years and thousands of generations of empirical tests simulating millions of years of mammalian evolution ... Result: No new life forms, no new body plans, no new species … Read: No evolution, only intraspecific variation aka "micro evolution" which really is not evolution at all. "It is the actual generational Improvement of the genome." - No empirical study has shown generational improvement of the genome. Instead, it is empirically proven that species lose genetic information in the speciation process. Genomes impoverish. Dogs do not get new genes in breeding, the opposite is true. Every new dog race has poorer genome than its stem race. The same fact applies to all living organisms. "Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics." - That is true ... But sadly, it is not evolution. In (macro)evolution new species emerge from existing species. Many evolutionists don't even know what evolution means. Neo-Darwinists believe in two different processes called "evolution", while neither of them is evolution in the Darwinian sense. 1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution. (Wikipedia) 2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago. (Wikipedia) Point 1 is true, as long as it does not try to claim that new body plans and new life forms appear from the existing species. Science has observed only intraspecific adaptive variation, never structurally new species that could lead to a new taxonomic genus, family, order, class etc. Adaptive variation is sometimes called ”micro evolution”. No new genetic information is needed in the "micro evolution", since all changes happen within the species' own genome (gene recombination). Point 2 is just a hypothesis which has never been scientifically proven. It is usually called ”evolution” or ”macro evolution”. It would need such totally new genetic information that is not found in the species' existing genome. Since (macro)evolution is fiction, new genes of course are not needed either. This is fortunate, because there isn’t any qualitatively new "free genetic information" to be found on our planet. All genes are already fixed in their appropriate species. So we see that "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" are two different theories that have nothing to do with each other. "Micro evolution" is just intraspecific adaptive variation where existing genes form recombinations. "Macro evolution" i.e. "Darwinian evolution" instead would need qualitatively new genes, but all such genes are already fixed in other species' genomes. "Proving creation though, infers proving a creator, and a personal one at that." - Proving creator is easy. World is full of evidence for Intelligent Design. That evidence is called indicium and it is used in the courts of law. The existence of God is demonstrated by indicia. Atheist claim that lack of belief in God stems from the lack of evidence or empirical proof. However atheists seemingly do not know what means “evidence”. Evidence is an outward sign. Indication means evidence. Since normal people see indications of God, we have the evidence for God existing. If atheists are not able to see the indications of God, it’s rather their problem. Atheists neither do know what means “empirical”. Empirical means originating in or based on observation or experience. Since normal people observe and experience God’s work, God does exist. If atheists are not able to observe and experience God’s work, it’s their problem. For a logical mind the evidence of God is compelling. What do atheist have to put against Creator -theory? Abiogenesis and evolution. They both have been empirically proven non-existent! 'Evolution' is the greatest sham scientific world has ever experienced. The belief in evolution is against the laws of physics and the realities of genetics.

How does what you think of the ark story make evolution anything more than nonsense?

"... changed to all species we see today in a couple of thousand years... " That's called speciation. Speciation generates subspecies through gene loss, not through new genes. There are no new genes floating around to be picked and used for evolution i.e. to produce a process of a taxonomic species transforming to a new species leading to the path towards new taxonomic genus, taxonomic family and taxonomic order i.e. to evolution. No such process has never been proven. Speciation can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution. Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population. Natural selection (rather natural elimination) however delivers nothing, it just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or become too rare) which means that on the population level everybody's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is far reaching adaptation, not evolution. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct. We can observe that in the speciation process natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.

So tell us where are you hiding the trans fossils?

And, yuh, just 4300 years ago, only 8 people were alive on Earth. The science of genetics be damned.......... The hilarious thing is that whether or not evolution exists has nothing to do with whether a Creative Intelligence exists. Science only serves to deny the foolish dogma of their religions, and that is what makes them so butthurt. Funny thing is, only 500 years ago, the same yokels are running around with torches and pitchforks wanting to burn Galileo. Today, they just blithely accept heliocentrism, and have moved on to something else. If one's belief in God requires one to be dismissing science, and even near history, more than likely ones belief system is worthless, and it becomes time to move on

Evolution in the Darwinian sense is not real, but when it comes to phenotypic diversity, it is, because God programmed animals that way. That’s also why we have different ethnicities of people

"You should stick to faith, it's all you've got." Not really ... What comes to proving the existence of God, it is easy while using the abductive method. When the evolution theory (which, as an atheist religion, must rest on abiogenesis) and creation are set against each other we can successfully use the abductive method called Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. The most simple explanation is most probably the best explanation. For example, if in the forest there is a burn-out tree, it can be the consequence of a landing flying saucer or perhaps a lightning. According to Occam’s razor, lightning is the better explanation because it requires less assumptions. Using this method, existence of the Intelligent Design is easy to prove against the abiogenesis and thus evolution. Abiogenesis means independent emergence of life from lifeless matter. The impossibility of abiogenesis is known to anyone who has dug in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics i.e. the Law of Entropy. Because abiogenesis as a theory breaks the laws of physics, Occam’s razor cuts off abiogenesis as a possible reason for the birth of life - but it does not cut off the possibility of Intelligent Design. Since there are only two choices, only realistic possibility left is God. This is the kind of “reductio ad absurdium” -argumentation where a counter argument is shown poorly justified and thus implausible. Bible predicts entropy not evolution, and entropy indeed rules the universe. So why should anyone believe in evolution and not in Intelligent Design - especially as there is no third alternative? Atheism is missing logical basis. Atheists do not have the magic wand to make their "science" become reality. Instead, they use their magic wand to make themselves believe in their own fairy tale world where everything has created itself against the known laws of physics.

@@jounisuninen 'The abductive method' I think you mean the SUPPOSITIONAL method. However, It would be unfair to discuss this with someone so divorced from reality.

@@jounisuninen Occam's razor implies creation is the more complex one, thus making evolution the simpler one and the more likely one. Aside from the fact we have an abundance of evidence for evolution.

@stickyrubb But philosophy and supposition will not get us to the truth, only research and evidence can be relied upon.

"i love the way" Scientific findings? What scientific findings? Where is the trans fossils that are supposed to be everywhere? Wheres the life from non life? Prove the BB actually happened. Your whole theory is dead but you don't know it?

Yes it does. It is counted using the human generations presented in the Bible.

@@jounisuninen No It doesn’t. The Bible says that “man” was created 6000 years ago. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. THE END. It doesn’t say how long God spent in His eternity before He begin to use the earth again after destroying the kings, cities etc from the fallen angels. After that flood, the earth was covered with water. Dark and void. Wasn’t our business what happened between verse 1 and verse 2. So either God didn’t tell Moses to write it, or He didn’t explain to Moses. Lots of videos on KZfaq. Most Creationist don’t think anymore that God created the heaven and earth in 24 hours. Return email notifications are not available at this time.

Bible definitely tells that light and all life were created 6000 years ago in 6 days. However I personally am studying what means this: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." For me this could mean that perhaps the universe and our globe were created before the first day. I do emphasize that I don't know. I believe I'll find the answer sooner or later.

Wrong. Genesis 1 and 2 describe different creations. Calculating back to Adam doesn't tell the age of the earth.

@@jounisuninen et al You guys are putting WAY to much importance in a middle eastern creation legend., which you maintain somehow became "the word of God" . Where/when did God ever say that? FI, did you ever look up the meaning of "day" in a dictionary. or "morning" or "evening" The Native peoples in my land believed in the same God all thru history. "The Great Spirit". (Look to your Bible to see what the writers said God is -- a "spirit", correct?) Those "indians" believed in God. They also had Creation legends. But somehow, their creation legends arent to be believed, Simply because they did not write a book Oh how the stuff in that book became SO incredibly important To the point, we decided it was the Word of God. I am thinking God weeps over this folly.

You literally believe in a sky fairy

AND? if you believe in secular evolution then you have a much bigger problem... you have "nothing" acting upon "nothing" to create something and intelligence to boot.

@@navarrodragon25 That is the same problem with your God.

Only if you do not understand evolution. The natural processes for evolution are well understood and require no belief in magic.

@@navarrodragon25 Natural selection, mutations, and other evolutionary processes can hardly be described as "nothing". Non-intellectual processes can and do create new things. Evolutionary processes have been shown to create new features in microorganisms and natural processes create complex geometric shapes like snowflakes. Your comment displays a problem in your understanding of evolution, not in evolution itself.

At 32:31 where he claims that fossils in the act of either eating something or giving birth tells us Noah's flood is true about made me fall out of my chair...Seriously, you just arrived at that connection of cause and effect with out any other data? How do you know it wasn't some other extinction event? Again, you're just cherry picking biblical (a story book) references and saying they align to observed data. Talk about confirmation bias...

You must have heard a different lecture than I just heard. Nowhere did the guy I heard say that the evidence for evolution doesn't align with the Bible, therefore the Bible must be correct. He clearly stated what the evolution story claims, then what is observable in reality (which clearly does not align with the evolution story) and then explained why he thinks the biblical writings describe what we can observe and test in reality.

@@rayhemmele4915 What other extinction event could possibly explain the rapid burial and fossilization of millions of organisms all around the globe, if not the global flood described in the Bible (and 200+ other ancient cultures!)?

​@@majesticmalfeasanceThe video literally starts off with him reading Bible verses and claiming "God commands that we have strong apologetics countering claims of our age". You are staggeringly dishonest.

@@rayhemmele4915 Fossils in the act of either eating something or giving birth tell us of a sudden death in a sudden catastrophe, which quickly buried the organisms while they were still alive. Evolutionists are free to try some other explanation than the worldwide flood.