So you're saying science made you turn away from rationality? Yeah that checks out especially for Christians.

WHICH GOD?

​@@blackkman1324 The Emperor

​@@blackkman1324Orthodox Christian God. For more details look into the Transcendental argument for God or "TAG" explained by people like Jay Dyer

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. God creates science and commands us to gain knowledge and wisdom. Those who do not believe in Jesus remain as they are. Those who do, become more and more like him. Seeing that he is the good guy, I have decided to follow Him.

Of cours you got your Y cromosome from your dad and your X from your mum you sad little person And if you are a girl you got one X from your dad and one from mom, and it as not a thing to do with your nonexsistant god

Be careful about such tests. This information can be shared with the devious government agencies who support the agenda of the New World Order for their nefarious ends. God bless you.

Scientific challenges on Twitter? I have heard some stupid things in my life but you are a special case.

Real scientist publish papers for peer review But some of my favorite scientists do wear bow ties so there is some truth yo that

@@CaptainFantastic222 and because you are an atheist we are just supposed to believe you? The people at AIG have PhD's. Where do you work at? McDonald's? Why should anyone listen to you?

@@CaptainFantastic222 and you are a "real" scientist?

@@RobertA-oi6hw Although I studied STEM extensively in high school and at university I am not a professional science. That is not my main job. You don’t have to publish findings to be considered a “real scientist” but this is an important step in the scientific process. I have also done further research and add Jeason has indeed published some articles.

@@CaptainFantastic222 really? What university?

No, that's not what biologists do. It's more complicated than that because most mutations don't persist. They occur, and most are lost subsequently, so the rate of accumulation isn't equal to just the rate per generation x number of generations. This has been directly documented.

@@CreationMyths Jesus Christ spoke this world into existence roughly 6,000 years ago.

LOL

I would like that too. Listening to it is like being on a roller coaster, sometimes the words come so fast that there isn’t time to absorb it, other times it’s slower and more measured. It’s a lot to take in. What is harder still is the constant connections of references to previous videos, or as stated in his book. So I get lost before I begin. Combine that with references to charts that are too small to see clearly, and have no key for the abbreviations. (PUY, JMZ, AQP, who are we talking about? But he’s onto the next without taking a breath.) Not easy to follow. I’m unable to afford his book, but I’m interested in the topics. He’s had years working on them, this is my first view, confusing. This is intended as constructive criticism as he is a brilliant geneticist. I simply wish it were easier to comprehend. Hoping that this can be accomplished.

Keep up the fantasy world! Very exiting! Ignore all critical thinking and deny all the facts!

@@TheDancefreak35 You follow man’s religion if you want, your choice. Let’s see where it gets you on the Lords day of Judgement. So thankful I’m no longer in your shoes!

@@debbiewareing1178 that's just it sister. There is a judgement day coming and if a person has not given their life to Jesus, it is going to be a very bad day for them.

@@TheDancefreak35 Funny, because all you evolutionists are always saying to publish papers on this stuff, and this guy did. But you don't actually care about science. You care about being right.

@@zerosteel0123 Of course, believe in me, or you will regret it. They call that a dictator. There is also one in North Korea. Do as I say or else.... Anyone who chooses to kiss the feet of a fantasy figure forever is out of their mind. If he existed of course. But by now we know better since that hateful, self-contradictory, and dictatorial clown isn't real. Religion is the poison of the world. But good news, luckily it's only getting less and less.

All of the church fathers lived before science was invented

@@CaptainFantastic222 Science wasn't invented... it was discovered.

@@CaptainFantastic222 What an ignorant comment. I am pretty sure Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Galen, Aristotle, Eratosthenes, and Thales all lived before or during the Church fathers and are considered some of the most important scientists ever.

@@elcidcampeador9629 thank you! They lived before the scientific method was created! Important correction. Great catch!

The pope of the heresy called the Catholic Church has endorsed evolution and even claimed that there is no hell. No surprise there. Catholicism is a long way from the first century Church established on the Day of Pentecost.

It's in Arabic, so you may have to set your default language to Arabic.

Always remember as well, that much of what we have as evidence for our faith, many will refuse to accept. Many people simply don't want to come to God the way God wants them to. Many more don't want God to exist at all and nothing will convince them.

@@Bomtombadi1 You didn't actually watch or listen, did you? Okay, how about this: What's your position? And what would be a few examples of what you believe to be compelling, empirically verifiable, scientific evidence FOR your position?

@@Bomtombadi1 #1 God has given us free will to choose. God is not going to violate that and choose for us. #2 he has given a specific way to come to him and that is through faith in Jesus Christ. If it's some other way you choose then you will not find Him nor will He receive you. It's as simple as that.

@@Bomtombadi1 While your god is the magical god of "naturedunit", right?

@@jessebryant9233 "naturedunnit" lol I like that

If this guy would be debating actual genetic scientists he would be roasted harder than the Hindenburg disaster victims.

@@Jewonastick in journals after a study is published, the letters section would have questions or concerns from the community, and over time a good back and forth dicussion (if done in good faith by at least one side) would lead to better understanding for all (or some anyway). Since he's talking about specific research and specific studies, he could have valid points regardless of broader implications of what he's saying. The points he raised about discarding data that doesn't fit the conclusion happens too often. I haven't looked at the papers he mentions to know what was said in them, but it happens too often. Too many worry about risking future funding by straying from the expectations of those doing the funding.

I would also love to see a detailed response the the virologists criticisms. (I am the virologist. Dr. Jeanson did not mention that I'm actually an evolutionary biologist; my focus is viruses but my actual field is evolution.)

@@CreationMyths Interesting, I guess he could say you are in (though around may be better) virology or something like that. I guess I should look at your own videos but I'm wondering what studying evolution involving viruses (which could have a few meanings) considering they are so hard to isolate. But when I was in school they were not considered alive, so if that was still the case evolution would be the wrong word.

@All About Britain People who have been raised to think trolling people who believe differently than them is a healthy way to spend their time.

@@allaboutbritain3367 Including the Church of Secular Humanism that YOU were raised in?

@All About Britain everyone here knows what the OP meant. You just trolled the comment. Stop playing games.

​@All About Britain No actually Globalist setup John Dewey (Atheist Marxist) "Father of Modern U.S. education" who's curriculum was first implemented by Stalin in Soviet education then here in the U.S.

@All About Britain I'm sure you'll get over it

I agree, whoever does the thumbnails is making them inflammatory. I get that it helps attract views, but that doesn't seem very Christlike to me.

There has never been a shred of evidence for the existence of a god. Not from your favorite god and not from all those other gods either. The only thing that works is the scientific method, whether you like it or not. Jehovah's Witnesses have also been claiming since 1914 that the end of the world is near and here we are, over 100 years later. Faith, the word says it all, is based on faith alone. Science is based on evidence. The Bible provides as much "evidence" as Harry Potter.

@Dance nation "never been a shred of evidence for the existence of a god" Yet you are the one invading our space proving Romans 2:15 accurate. You want proof study the history of the nation of Israel, only the true GOD could perform that miracle, study Romans 10:9-10 or suffer the consequences, it is totally up to you.

@@markrobinson9384 You study from books that provide information about events that actually happened and are therefore also verified. The Bible only contains claims of events. Even worse, supernatural occurrences. In other words, magic. The arrogant attitude that your god is the only true one is absurd. Animism is the oldest religion in the world and originated because people sought explanations for things they did not understand at the time. It is no different with your god. Those who believe in Christ can already disagree with each other, which is why there are Catholics and Protestants, for example. Of all the many beliefs in the world, would you have the only correct one? Maybe you should study a little better yourself and not just accept everything you were taught in the past. A sane person wants nothing to do with that hate monger. And rightly so!

@@allaboutbritain3367 well apparently he did.

@All About Britain aha! here we have a conflict in worldviews. I have faith in the unchanging Creator of everything (Mal 3:6), and you have your faith in your god (the ever changing creator of itself, Naturalism/Humanism aka "science"). Creation by an Infinite Designer is plain to see, even to you, but you are suppressing the truth in your own ingenuity and idolatry. I shared your world view once, but I am so thankful to the Eternal Creator God for His wonderful grace. I don't know you, but as a fellow human being I would ask you to look to the Creator. :)

@@allaboutbritain3367 Disingenuous how?

@@paulmiller7775 what is the brilliant thing in his presentation? He doesn’t even seem to know how to do a scientific prediction…

@@paulmiller7775 Hilarious. One uses the Scientific Method and one is a multi million dollar a year for profit creationists business

@@mattikaronen7728 how do you do a "scientific prediction?"

"Evolution, making sense of life" by Zimmer and Emlen. I was referring to the book as the source of the figure on that slide, not as the basis for the point I was making. Jeanson is not accurately representing my critique here.

@@therick363 No need to debunk evolution….there isn’t any actual evidence

I'm pretty sure the core principle, the literal foundation, of biology and genetics, is not going to go away just because certain people, due to their personal beliefs, think it isn't real. Any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms through successive generations is evolution. Agriculture, medicine.. the hard work conducted by evolutionary biologists is what has led to, and leads to, many advancements in these and other areas that affect all of our lives. Give me a heads up when Nathaniel goes through the proper channels and publishes his work in a relevant science journal.

We have to remember that there is no main stream until it is created through information (valid or invalid)to the masses which gains followers. If you are caught up in either side of this struggle, Jesus Christ can free you from both sides with a relationship with him which sounds foolish to most but when God shows you the future and it actually happens several times over (because you ask Him each day) then a transformation of understanding happens.

I am not really surprised because they also minimize the flood which Peter predicted. I think there is a motivation to be intellectually included among the cool kids and not be seen as a Bible thumping, ignorant, fundie with all of the ignorance and credulity it requires to believe the plain meaning of Genesis. It has been a matter of interest to me to watch the shock waves in evolution over the last three decades. For example when people like Stephen J Gould and Colin Patterson explicitly admitted that the fossils do not support gradualism or descent with modification. The failure of molecular homology. The fraud of Haeckel’s embryos. The collapse of so many ape men stories. The relatively recent discovery of viable soft tissue and RBCs in dinosaurs and DNA in amber entombed insects. Jason Lisle predicted the the James Webb Space Telescope would find mature stars and galaxies deep in space, before it was launched and so far this is what the data is showing to the astonishment of the Big Bangers. Scientists at ICR have tested their own YEC hypothesis in a RATE study looking at helium in deep, hot zircons and found an actual diffusion rate that is so high, that no helium should remain given the supposed age of the rocks. We are bombarded on every side by evolutionary assumptions from cradle to grave such that it becomes difficult not to accept their dogma even for Christians. Dinosaurs have become a meme for evolution even though there are human depictions of them that predate Darwin. When you add the presence of soft tissues, and C 14, it begs for an explanation that is rational. Deep time is the magical black box that allows time and chance to make everything and to challenge it is to try to touch the pupil of the eye of materialists.

@All About Britain coming from an atheist we should take that as a compliment. Lol

@All About Britain it doesn't bring it into disrepute. It draws people to the bible narrative and you don't like that. That is why you don't like young earth creationism.

@All About Britain our worldview is that God exists and he is revealed through his word. Your worldview suggests the opposite so they will always be in conflict. If you think you are going to change our beliefs in God by coming here and attacking it, you are sadly mistaken. God has proven himself to us, so there is no need to even try.

@All About Britain the churches in decline are already prophecied in the bible. Jesus said this would happen. Why? Because of the increase in evil. Not because "all about Britain" thinks that the bible isn't true and it's all mythology. This is called the "great falling away." You see nothing takes God by surprise.

Ignorant people are easily convinced.

@@TheDancefreak35 so anyone who doesn't share your worldview is ignorant? You seem to not be able to accept the fact that not everyone in the world is going to share your opinion.

Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

@@akkafietje137 And guess what, you are one of those few. Just like everyone else.

@@TheDancefreak35 Since when is a few equal to many ?

@The Rick you can't cite one study, all you can do is make an asserted claim it has been demonstrated. Put down the x-men comic and show us something that doesn't result in deformity or simple variation of genetic expression, because that's as far as science has actually been able to demonstrate in decades long studies.

@The Rick I think you missed my point about the flaws in evolution. If not then, who is being the hypocrit? Not the one restating the flaws, you gave me no flaws in my argument just an assertion of what you believe. Ad hominem noted and as an adult ignored as invalid

@The Rick you're missing the fact it's not a fact and has zero data to support it. Just a lot of handwaving and imagination. It doesn't qualify as a scientific theory it is at best an unproven hypothesis. It is wholly a philosophy not science

The Darwinists look at theological evolutionists as chumps.

AMEN. Nobody is debated into heaven!

@@Diniecita true. Information is good but only faith leads to salvation. The only thing information can do is help break down the walls of stubbornness but the cure for stubbornness is humility.

Yes, they will explain it away just like they have with genders, there are only two but they insist on their being many more genders! However when people get gender reassignment surgery, once again there are only two options! The medical world 🌎🙏🏻 has gone insane! Satan 👹 is the Master of Mayhem and CHOAS!

But, if you don't debate them with truth and facts, how can you break through the walls of stubbornness to share the Gospel? Yes, of course, we are to share the Gospel at all times with everyone, but as Paul said, "I am made all things to all, that I might by all means save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22) For some people's sake, we must become debaters.

@@pugnaciousnoobeginnings8997 I have learned in life, that the only way a person is receptive to the gospel is after they have been through a hardship of some kind. If you're humble, you become teachable! 💜🌷🌸🙏🏻🌎

@All About Britain yes, we already know your bias against creationism

@All About Britain "Genesis is NOT TRUE." Explain in detail what you believed happened.

@All About Britain "Earth, it and the other rocky planets were formed from the dust created by supernovas - this dust can be directly observed both in space and especially around supernovas we can see." So, you believe this "dust" - came from what exactly? And it began to spiral to form a cosmos/galaxy, and that individual planets from this "spinning dust" all formed? Really?

@All About Britain So, let's be clear, everything was spinning in the same direction, and all of a sudden, some bits managed to spin together, and form the planets? That's what you think? Then puddles, pond sludge, and bacteria, coupled with lightning strikes, fairy dust and stardust made dinosaurs? So how did man get here?

@All About Britain So you can't tell me. Two planets spin backward, so the planets forming the way you believe is nonsense. Explain how man got here. With all your theories, it should be EASY. Go...

You cant prove gods scientifically. Science has no mechanism for investigating the supernatural. It is literally incapable

claire etc: Go and watch the Creation Myths channel where Dr Cardinale explains Jeanson's errors. The irony of you comment "... cannot agree with or they will lose their anti-God way of life" is astonishing. Jeanson is OBLIGED to spin these stories as long as he wishes to work for this organisation. That should give you pause for thought.

This channel is Answers in Gensis. It must have originally been posted on another channel or website.

Theories are facts. You don't know what the word "theory" means. During math at school you also get math according to theory because it works and has been tested. This applies to all disciplines. Don't pretend to think critically because that's the last thing a Christian does.

@@TheDancefreak35 From Livescience's website: "In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts." If theories are facts, then why are theories regularly disproven? Disproven theories include the heliocentric theory of the structure of the universe (that the Sun is the center of the universe), The theory of phrenology (that study of the skull can indicate mental and personality traits), or the miasma and humor theories (accepted explanations for the cause and spread of disease before germ theory.). Are those too old? How about Einstein's theory of a static universe? Or, the recently disproven (or at least radically altered and amended) theory of Cerebrospinal fluid diffusion to remove waste products from the brain with the discovery of lymphatic structures in the brain (that were thought not to exist until 2015). Might want to try thinking a little more critically.

@@arichutfles9550 The essence of science is that it is always open to improvement. You talk (copy) about a scientific approach from a period (1917) when science was not as advanced as it is now. Later Einstein also admitted that he was wrong (you will not see that with Christians). Theories are models that work for what they were developed for, but are always open to improvement to be able to calculate things even more accurately. You have copied a lot without carefully reading what it is actually about. You're missing out because you didn't fully read Einstein's misinterpretation in 1917. As for the rest of the article, you have no idea what you are talking about. You just copied and pasted it without reading it. Again, science is indeed sometimes wrong, but by further research they come to better and more reliable conclusions. That's what science is. That still doesn't mean there is a god. It never appears in the list of possible options. Next time read what it says and not what you think it says.

I am so glad I am not an atheist anymore! the FACTS are overwhelming to abandon it!

@@therick363 scientific, mathematic and historical facts counter it

Get Replacing Darwin. Or watch his 2020 video series "new history of the human race." I agree, I love reading about these discoveries and I want more.

@@maxpeck1962I have the book, and it's my next read. I watched all the videos too!

@@globalcoupledances Was the review written before or after Herman Mays did a debate with Jeanson? Because I watched the debate and it was embarrassingly obvious Herman Mays had not actually read the book he was debating.

@@globalcoupledances How convenient. 🙄 He already lost his credibility by then.

@@globalcoupledances Jeanson *is* a scientist. Unless you are using the logical fallacy definition of scientist = only scientists who believe evolution.

Yeah, can't wait to see his first peer reviewed scientific paper..... Oh wait

And he no doubt be awarded the Nobel Prize

@@Jewonastick Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has been subject to scrutiny and evaluation by other experts in the field. This is an important part of the scientific process, as it ensures that the research is accurate, reliable, and free from bias. Dr. Jeanson's research has focused on a variety of topics, including the genetic diversity of different populations, the origins of species, and the age of the earth. His research has used a combination of genetic and statistical analyses to answer these questions. One example of Dr. Jeanson's research is his work on the genetic diversity of different populations. He has shown that genetic differences between populations are much smaller than previously thought, and that these differences can be accounted for by common ancestry rather than by separate origins. This research has been viewed as accurate by the scientific community because it has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and because other researchers have been able to replicate his findings. Overall, Dr. Jeanson's research can be viewed as accurate to the scientific community because it has been subject to rigorous evaluation and scrutiny, and because it has been published in reputable scientific journals. While there may be debates or disagreements about specific findings, the scientific community generally accepts that Dr. Jeanson's work has met the standards of scientific research. Source: chatgtp

@@RobShutt357 "Dr. Jeanson's research can be viewed as accurate to the scientific community" Dr. Jeanson thinks that the world is 6000 years old...... He's an insult to science.

@@Bomtombadi1 so how much evolutionary nonsense do you consume a day? Out of curiosity

@@Bomtombadi1 Nonsense? Is that what you label stuff you don't like?

Yep

No it doesn't. Even if you were to disprove the Theory of Evolution (which you obviously can't, or you'd be on the front page of every scientific journal in the world), that's still a far cry from proving creationism.

@@joshuakohlmann9731 "you'd be on the front page of every scientific journal" no you wouldn't. Proof? Creationist have already disproven it and that hasn't happened. Evolution is a religion.

@All About Britain You are misinformed. I suggest you read my article, "Examining the usage and scope of historical science".

Wishful thinking does not come wrapped in scientific evidence....

You don’t think people evolving from monkeys is ridiculous?

Most of them are not even aware of their presuppositions.

Speaking of which... "in a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for supernatural creation." The guy flat out says it! They dismiss the notion of anything other than nature, due to their a-priori commitment to naturalism, even though we know naturalism is impossible. The naturalists have far more faith then the creationists-as the naturalists believe DESPITE the evidence. 😥🙏

@@Bomtombadi1 Regarding your Darwinian faith? Simple, there is no one iota of empirically verifiable science that demonstrates that common ancestry of all living things is even possible, let alone true. What we actually observe is the OPPOSITE of what your faith requires. It's that simple.

@@allaboutbritain3367 Utter nonsense? How do you know that?

@@Bomtombadi1 The presup is that you know nothing? That's not true... And you are correct, nature is all you can study-and so you remain silent on the more fundamental questions, such as origins. (Even though you have a fairy-story to tell about that as well-that isn't supported by science.)

He has not. Direct tests of that hypothesis have repeatedly shown the opposite.

The long term substitution rate is derived from extrapolating the (supposed) time between humans, and chimpanzees diverging. If in part of the question being begged is whether, or not we did come from a common ancestor with chimps then you can't use a rate that relies on assuming that to be true. The pedigree mutation rates are observable irregardless of any given theory on origin. Long term substations rates, are not.

@@anthonypolonkay2681 That’s not accurate. There are a number of studies based on recent, known divergence dates, some of which are as recent as just a century or two, but still show a slower substitution rate. Dr. Jeanson himself highlighted two such studies in Traced. If you go to my channel and watch the response to this video that we’re commenting on, I provide references for seven or eight such studies.

@@CreationMyths hmm. I'm a tad confused then. Because doesn't the substitution rate mean the complete replacement of a given allele in a given population? I obviously haven't read the studies you'll provide yet, but having an allele completely substituted in any given population of anything in just a century, or two sounds like its wrong. You'd have to have such a small, geographically close population to accomplish that, that by that point it isn't a good analog to anything with any real population, or diversity. Besides that we haven't even known about the DNA molecule proper for even 100 years yet. Whatever methods these studies used will have had to use assumed divergence times rather than an actively observed event. Which if that is the case then we're back to the original problem of assuming the conclusion to justify dimisal of the pedigree rates in favor of substitution rates.

​@@anthonypolonkay2681 Strongly recommend you start with a more introductory source, but here are some references that are relevant (obviously I can't post links): Soodyall et al. 1998, "The founding mitochondrial DNA lineages of Tristan da Cunha Islanders" Friedlaender et al. 2005, "Expanding Southwest Pacific mitochondrial haplogroups P and Q" Merriwether et al. 2005, "Ancient mitochondrial M haplogroups identified in the Southwest Pacific" Soares et al. 2009, "Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock" Xue et al. 2009, "Human Y chromosome base-substitution mutation rate measured by direct sequencing in a deep-rooting pedigree" Fu et al. 2013, "A revised timescale for human evolution based on ancient mitochondrial genomes" King et al. 2014, "Identification of the remains of King Richard III" Helgason et al. 2015, "The Y-chromosome point mutation rate in humans" The key thing here as that all of these rely on groups with known, documented divergence times, either via family histories or recent human history. Timeframes, I will note, that are well within the YEC timeframe. For example, we know when the island of Tristan da Cunha was settled - about 1816. We can look at the current descendants of those original settlers (it was uninhabited before then) and calculate the rate at which mutations accumulate in those lineages. Despite being only about 200 years, we see a rate of accumulation that is significantly *slower* than the per-generation mutation rate Dr. Jeanson relies on. You can also check my channel - I've covered this in a bit of detail, and even tested Jeanson's mutation rate directly by comparing the actual mutation accumulation in an island population with Jeanson's predicted number based on the pedigree mutation rates, and Jeanson's prediction was too high by at least a factor of 5, and at worst a factor of 60.

Isn’t it interesting that although God explicitly says it was a day, morning and evening, and He does this knowing that He does not report creation of the sun and moon until a few sentences (and days) later, believers cannot accept, or even worse, have to go around thinking their Creator must have got this bit confused or mucked up or whatever. I have no idea how The Creator measured a day when the solar bodies weren’t in spin, but I have no idea how some things that weren’t, like time, like space, like matter, like atoms, like metals and gases and liquids and carbon came into being. The tragedy of it all, there is no credible explanation for it all, outside of the detailed narrative in the first few books of Genesis.

Fact of the matter is they would rather please man than God. That is why they compromise. We either take God at his word or man's word.

@@stephenbell-booth2648 Wouldn't a day have been what it is today-a single rotation of the earth?

@@Bomtombadi1 Until such time as evolution has an answer to anything, I would be more measured in what I call BS if I were you. I have been reading evolution literature and assumptions as well as critiques of macroevolution for decades and I have never seen so much equivocation, oversimplification, wild extrapolation, and outright deceit as origins science. One must essentially assume that either the finely tuned universe caused itself or something outside of time and space, greater than matter and energy caused it. It wasn’t until the 1930s that cosmologists had to deal with a universe that had a beginning but the first sentence of Genesis says that it did. Genesis says that everything was made according to its own kind and that is what the fossils, developmental biology, and breeding show. One does not necessarily have to believe in God to know that 1. Evolution is in crisis and 2. materialism fails to explains all phenomena like metaphysics, numbers, art, music, consciousness, or a foundation for ethics. Until such time as evolution can explain the origin of the universe, origin of life, or how natural selection acts on chemicals before life, I will stick with a creator and real science, not the metaphysical naturalism of evolutionary origins.

@@Bomtombadi1 you won't believe it regardless of what anyone says. You aren't fooling anybody.

Gravity would not be broken by God or angel holding the water bottle any more than it is broken when you hold it.

What does mixing breeds have to do with anything?

@@Bomtombadi1 Hm... And yet YOU believe that ALL living things share a common ancestor? I think you just argued against yourself. According to your mindless faith, ALL breeding is inbreeding... isn't it?

@@Jewonastick Well it cancels genes out or infuses them, causing mutations! Evidence shows that it cause ms health problems!

@@Bomtombadi1Okay I agree with that but my point is if millions of years then it is reasonable to believe we would be all the more susceptible to go extinct! Millions of years in mutations, just look at how things have gone in just 1000’s

@@jessebryant9233 this can be debunked by the fact that there is only ONE dog breed in the world that has an inbreeding capacity above 1 because of the age of the breed and the population, and that is, ironically, the Chihuahua, the very dog breed heavily memed as an inbreeding monstrosity. The Chihuahua can be traced back to the Aztecs royalty, and then brought to Spain. Most modern breeds can be traced back to a single ancestor back to the New World, but the reason why they are the only breed that has an inbreeding capacity above 1 (i.e. there is a very high likelihood that the Chihuahua you own can be mated with a Chihuahua with no worry for inbreeding depression) is because the population density AND the age of the breed, which is a 500 year old breed, is enough. The average age of the modern breed is 200 years old. If this is just how short it needs to avoid Inbreeding depression (less than 500 years old, i.e. 250 generations), yet a Chihuahua can still freely mate with other dog breeds and is still considered one 'species', then why, then, can we conclude that evolution, as it is being taught right now, will not consider the Chihuahua a subspecies of a dog? Heck, Chihuahua has virtually checked all the boxes needed to classify it as a subspecies except one (Chihuahua can still mate with other dogs and still be able to form a fertile offspring with no complication). Meanwhile, we consider two bears 'species' that are actually capable of crossbreeding and producing fertile offspring not as a singular species, but two different species (i.e. the Grizzly Bear and the Polar Bear)? This is why the definition of 'species' itself is being questioned altogether.

@All About Britain evolution is a myth and religious folklore. When Jesus comes back they will have to rewrite it all.

@All About Britainapparently their peers are too busy denying the evidence against them because they don't want to accept defeat and the possibility that they may spend eternity in hell.

When evolution gets a tax free status, let me know.

@@stevenbatke2475 that's your evidence for scientific truth, eh? About as good as a supposed "neanderthal tooth."

@@therick363 it wouldn't be a scientific theory? Or maybe the scientific community is so biased towards it that no matter what evidence comes out against it they will hold onto it. Anything they can do to deny God.

The idea of the Big Bang first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. So you are sorely mistaken.