by who?

Before the first children were born to Man, we were already living with lies.

@larrycarter3765 By the authors of textbooks that are taught as virtual fact. And who ever with holds known truth. But it's okay if you think placing one's head in the sand is reasonable. J

EVERY BODY KNOWS THIS YOU NOW WAKE UP

We live in a world where they try to denounce God. Take a look around you... abortions, transgenderism, etc... I am just wondering how far God will let this go on.

Everything in this video is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

It's not an awesome christian video, it's a gross misrepresentation of everything in it, which a tiny little bit of research would soon tell you if you bothered to look.

No, RNA was first. mRNA, rRNA, tRNA and amino acids made protein. DNA if mRNA was for a _Reverse Transcriptase_

Amen

Wrong. If you actually bothered to take the time to understand the Geologic column and the fossil record, you would know your statement is false.

@@jonathanrussell1140 if you actually took time to read the Bible you would realize that your statement is false

​@@samuelrodriguez9199the fossil record proves you wrong I'm afraid. The presence of junk DNA proves you wrong. The presence of cancer in newborns proves you wrong. Miscarriages prove you wrong. The recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe prove you wrong. Everything proves you wrong. Radiometric dating proves you wrong. The Himalayas prove you wrong. If the bible were the infallible word of god it would say "In the beginning was the word. And the word was me and the word was with me.". But it doesn't , does it, because it is the fallible word of fallible men designed as a political tool to promote shock and awe.

ICR - Dumbing down America

Honest scientists reject Intelligent Design, they only accept the truth: natural selection

Man 9maghione thinking this is even a real argument. Science is based on evidence and facts, but si8nce you have neither, you rely on nonsense like "this does look possible to me" yea tht is becvause you do notz underhstrand evolution not because evolution is wrong

Yes, cells are amazing. They did not get that way overnight. Evolution works its magic over time, a VEEEEERY LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. Things that are complex today came from much simpler ancestors billions of years ago. On a football field symbolic representation of earth's existence (4.5 billion years), humans have been here for about 1/8 of an inch, and human civilization has been here for about the thickness of a light bulb filament (old-fashioned incandescent). There is no sign of intelligent design outside of our own wishful thinking.

I'm going to look up that animation. Thanks for sharing that.

All it shows is cells are replicated - with all the good information and junk information replicated along the way. This contradicts intelligent design before you're even out of the starting gate. Unless you want to state that god created RNA and DNA, in which case evolution still stands. *AND HAS NEVER BEEN DISPROVED*

You're a "biology nerd"? - so scientifically inclined and therefore skeptical? *THEN DIG A LITTLE DEEPER!!!!*

Adam is a Hebrew Golem spell, Moses is entirely fictional, the Global Flood never happened - it's borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, people don't live to ripe old ages of 200+, snakes and donkeys don't talk - which bits are actually true?????

Don't you find it odd that the title is "...biological evidences..." when biology is based on evolution?

@taylorthetunafish5737 So you think you're related to a tuna fish huh? Which part of you is most tuna like? Have you ever fished those things early morning from a tinnie trolling at 5 am and seen how fast they are? Perfect design. You guys think we have a set of remnant gills- I still can't get over this. Comedians.

@@UserRandJ So you think you're related to the number 77? Which part of you is most 77 like? Biology is based on evolution. How is there biological evidences for creation when biology is based on evolution? Why does such a simple question put you on the offense?

@taylorthetunafish5737 Your reply had little to do with showing a connection to evolution- I asked about a tuna fish because you guys think we came from fish. Not because of your channel name. But you were too frightened to discuss remnant gills, and sidestepped with a poor effort of trolling/ offensive. Flapping your gills at mW for some reason- but it's all bluff.

@@UserRandJ You did ask me because of my handle. There's no need for you to lie about that. I'm not frightened of any of your queries. What ever made you think that? You asking me how much I'm like a tuna fish is the same as me asking how much you're like the number 77 because it's in your handle. There's no bluff here. You may just be too dim to think about my questions before answering. How is there biological evidence for creationism when biology is based on evolution? I think this question is the only real problem here for you. There's no way to justify or prove creationism with biology when evolution disproves creationism. Are you too frightened to answer? Does the answer conflict with your absurd beliefs?

You might not have heard of the 1925 Scopes trial in the US. Back then, belief in evolution was rife supported by what is NOW known as falsified evidence. Based on that evidence, the judge backed evolution. Creation was forced out of the classroom, atheist organisations argued and won to force the Bible out of the workplace, and a movement in the 1960s forced prayer out of the classroom. No such prohibition was placed on any other text. Back in 1883, it was decided by a few they 'wanted Moses out of the classroom.' That was always the aim. There was a purge of creationist thinkers, philosophers and sciences in 1912. Virtually overnight their membership of academic bodies was cancelled by niche atheist groups, and have been largely deciding what does and does not get published ever since. There is a herd mentality to gang up on science they don't like and don't welcome. That herd mentality produced the educators and Professors since the 1950s. And here we are, the theory has fallen, and they're closing ranks around it against allcomers.

Urey - Miller in 1952 is about as far as the origin of life progress has come and several other essential amino acids were not produced. Nobody has ever identified a natural scenario where that can be proven to happen - the repeatable results require human intelligence. Amino acids are downstream, the predecessor bio chemistry is far more complex - listen to James Tour on this

Not with the amounts of misinformation in this video, though.

@@voiceofreason162 So what othere texts where there in the classrooms that should have been included ? None of the evidenmce in the scopes trial has been debunked and since then evidence supporeting evolution has grown exponentiaqlly, stop lying it violates the religion you supposedly support

@@daftwulli6145

Absolutely not to be combative but I don't feel depersonalized by the word everyone. Actually i think everyone refers to every single individual listening/watching this presentation. God bless

Is Nathaniel Jeansen the best you could dredge up? He is a joke.

Dr John C Sanford, Dr Rob Stadler, Dr Christopher Hayes, Dr Change Laura Tan, Dr James Carter, and Dr Sye Garte are all biochemists and medical engineers that have made vast breakthroughs in their respective fields and became creationists through their own research having been atheists before. There are many other examples but the evidence is quite stunning when you begin to look more into it.

@@pigzcanfly444 "Vast breakthroughs" is a bit of an exaggeration. And whether or not they were atheists before or not is immaterial; evolution makes no claim as to the existence of a creator god or about how life got started. It does offer the best explanation to date for the vast variety of plants and animals on the earth. It only conflicts with religion because it tends to make a literal reading of the Genesis story seem unlikely.

@@stevepierce6467 you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. Darwinian evolution has been falsified. John C Sanford is the inventor of the gene gun which is used to generate crops at nearly double the rate we used to make them. Rob Stadler invented devices that deal with the cardiovascular system for patients that have heart problems particularly like arrhythmia and palpitations. You aren't even using the word immaterial correctly. When all is said and done you will slowly come to realize that the things you were taught as a child throughout school were all lies used to propagate a belief that specific groups desired for your to believe to their benefit.

Or purchase one of his books there very informative.

It's like Ken Ham said. It's not an issue of data, it's an issue of the heart.

You do not (by accident or on purpose) understand evolution. Evolution makes no claim whatsoever concerning the origins of life or the universe. It only seeks to explain the mechanism by which we came to have this dazzling variety of plants and animals today. The only problem I see for god-believers is that it makes a literal reading of Genesis less believable. Nowhere does evolution deny the possible existence of a god.

@@travisbicklepopsicle The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion....so...

​@@travisbicklepopsicle actually according to Plato Stanford this conflation of agnosticism and atheism appears to be based purely on a desire to remove the burden of proof from the modern atheist. It's quite clear to anyone that has seen these discussions that atheists are not merely skeptics but are actually cynics that hold their position regardless of evidence or logical arguments. The other problem with your assertions of "lacking belief" is that this is akin to calling yourself an inanimate object like a rock or a water bottle because this would be a claim of brain state rather than a simple disposition. Furthermore if one rejects a position as basic as the existence of God then it's a pure dichotomy which entails intrinsically that you at the very least believe that it's possible that all things came into existence from nothing like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus have openly admitted. There is no in-between with these types of discussions.

@@travisbicklepopsicle so basically you're admitting that atheists constantly commit category errors and use fallacious logic on a daily basis to uphold their beliefs? Thanks for letting us all know that you haven't really taken much time to think things through. If you want to be in the category of that which "lacks belief" then say nothing as you aren't even qualified to enter a debate about the topic in the first place by that admission. If you actually go look into the origins of the word and it's original use you will see that it's not until very recently that atheists began calling themselves those who lack belief in God or God's because they specifically deny that they hold a burden of proof for their beliefs. This is of course untrue and completely sleezy by I digress. Don't enter the arena if you aren't willing to back your beliefs.

Great info , thank you for breaking it down like that !

Is there a source for this information, other than "from memory"? Where can we learn more?

@@michellestrebchuk4781 It's all from doing searches for the various haplogroup maps and information online. I became interested after I did a DNA test and then I did a Y chromosome test. The SNP markers are used to try to establish the out of Africa belief but it works out better the opposite way since we all came from Mesopotamia and the Eurasians are the oldest and Africans are the youngest. Neanderthals are most like Eurasians to begin with, not Africans.

It's a good thing that it is not by physical descent who are God's children.

@@paulbriggs3072 It's by following the leading and conviction of the Holy Spirit.

The one thing he lacks.... Is research. Unless you count quote-mining...

Check out Answers in Genesis Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson. From what I remembered, that is exactly how he is working to trace all civilizations back to the 3 sons of Noah.

Nah, you're not. This isn't it.

We don't know yet. But we've come a lot further than the 1950s which is where Tomkins wants you to believe we're still stuck😂 What we do know is that life did not begin with god making Adam from clay (Adamah means clay) and breathing life into him like an ancient Hebrew Golem spell. That much we know.

You know less than in 1950 because more is known of how intricate the “ simple” cell is ! Things like chirality-induced spin selectivity and protein folding have made chance all but impossible! There are less numerical particles( protons, neutrons) than the possibility many times over for chance!! The information required to produce this universe not including life is staggering and to say otherwise is foolish at best!

I thought Swedish people were sensible!!!

Men are liars, therefore = losers. "God is not man that HE should lie." ( Numbers 23:19) The Almighty will establish His king of kings on Jerusalem. Psalm 2

Because this is mostly nonsense.

And again... Self-proclaimed knowledge of the entire universe... Pardon me... now the wild guesses have us occupying the "multiverse" 🤣🤣🤣.... Saw a video yesterday telling me we don't "fall down"... The earth falls up towards us! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Just can't make this stuff up people! (Well I guess actually you can 🤣)

​@@jimhughes1070may i ask, how old do you believe the Earth to be?

@@d8dknee8rjdje8 how old are you think it is? 🤣🤣 See how Goofy that sounds? 🤣... Anybody that cares to look at the evidence and knows that radiometric, carbon 14, or any other ancient dating methods are "everything" ...except reliable 🤔... the age of the Earth has nothing to do with how complex life is... Or how fragile it is.. (appoint curiously left out of every "origins" debate I have ever witnessed (and that's a bunch)... All of the speech is directed at the absolute impossibility of chemicals turning into life... And that's good 😍... But no one ever addresses the painfully simple truth!... Let's say The atheist professor is correct... "Give us one miracle and evolution will take care of the rest" 🤣🤣🤣.." Ludacris" , I know!... But stay with me here.... How long does it take a single cell wall, to degrade and break apart, killing the organism? Alright, I'll wait.... Not really. 🤣 Any idiot that has observed them under a microscope, knows that it requires "almost nothing"!(water's pretty devastating in a lot of cases)... And yes, I know they're idiots out there with phds. Claiming this "miracle cell" existed, with superhuman abilities to live for a million years(within a bubble).... While it continues to subdivide, presumably deciding on a body plan on the way! 🤔🤣... Protected, Inside of some bubble, but still able to find food 🥑😳😁... And in case I didn't make my main point clear... Continue to live! Far beyond the life expectancy we see in laboratories! Regardless of what you "believe" could happen under those circumstances... That is one hell of a belief system! 👍 Billions and billions spent for the last seventy-five years trying to prove that it "happened".... And all they've done is prove that it is far too complicated to ever happen by "luck"... 🤔 Wait a minute luck and good fortune are associated with false gods... I forgot the preferred term is "accidental"... I almost forgot. how old did you say you thought the Earth was? I still remember when they told us several hundred thousand years... And when it approached a million... And when it jumped up to 3 million... But we were already laughing our asses off when they got to a billion 🤣🤣🤣 scientists are some freaky dudes ain't they!?!?... It's going to be great when they finally realize what their job is... Doing actual science. 😁 Instead of insanely wild guesses, in order to get people to believe in their religion!... Have a wonderful day now

Then there's the Heat Problem which reduces the earth to a ball of radioactive plasma, destroying the ark and all life in it and sterilising the earth for millennia . Guess again.

... And lose

Prove that man was made from dirt.

What???? Not all species have to evolve into new species. Not all species have to go extinct. Horseshoe crabs clearly didn't need to for whatever environmental reasons persisted throughout their existence. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that species have to behave the way you seem to want to argue. Your post is irrelevant. And in any case once a horseshoe crab, always a horseshoe crab, that's always been the case, whatever new species it may or may not evolve into, if it evolves, it will always be a horseshoe crab. It will always have horseshoe crab as one of its many ancestors. You display a typical YEC misunderstanding of what evolution actually is. Beware Hovind Syndrome. It's incredibly toxic. Bear in mind that the extant species on this planet give us a snap-shot of where we are now. The fossil record and the geologic column combined give us a host of different snapshots of where creatures were then. YEC is the wrong hill to die on. It's not even a hill. It's a molehill.

The coelacanth is another example of a "living fossil", although the fossil record does show that coelacanth today do differ slightly from their ancestors.

That is a really interesting idea. No plants does equate to higher erosion rates, but there is a problem with even trying to calculate that. Namely that 500MYA the moon would have been about 10% closer with about 23% increase in gravity. Tides would have been monstrous and the lunar cycle would have been shorter than now. Around 25 days or possibly less per month. All this adds up to the reality that there wouldn’t be any continents after a few hundred thousand to 1 million years. Everything would have been scrubbed down and washed into the oceans. And it wouldn’t have even mattered if there were plants covering the land at that time.

The earth was probably mostly land. We can deduce that from mammoths found at the pole. All that dirt was pushed around by tides and is pretty much the same as we see it now. If the earth was of old age erosion would have carried all the land into the sea. The river deltas would be evidence of time but they are tiny for an ancient earth. Grace

But they won't because the paycheck is better than in the real world, where their strapline would be "Do you want fries with that?"

For y-chromosome search picture World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png. You can even see the influence of Genghis Khan

Why cant they be rejuvenated

Abiogenesis doesn't forme cells you literally jump the RNA problems of resistance and the complexity elements

Nobody knows.

@@rubiks6 just as nobody can explain consciousness J

being dead... There are videos showing what happens to a cell when it dies... It degenerates completely.... Just like in the supposed "abiogenesis", there is nothing to "come alive".... After 70 years there has still no mechanism been discovered to bring the necessary components together to build a single cell... Let alone bring it to life. "The more you know"😂🤳🙏❤

Do you really believe the entire earth was entirely populated by the same incestuous family twice over?

Evolution has been established as fact for well over 100 years now. It's well proven. There's overwhelming evidence for it. There's more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

Maybe...but how is it provable the egg came first? That's one of the questions that seem to not have an answer. Something has to lay and egg. Otherwise there will be no egg. So...how did an egg form and from what?@@travisbicklepopsicle

LOL. My lack of understanding? Ok, that's fine. Science changes often as more information is discovered. Science is never settled. There have been scientists that have studied the great flood and found there's reasonable evidence it did happen and explains many things like big rocks that appear where they aren't expected. Remember once the earth was believed to be flat. The earth was also thought to be the center of the solar system. The question of evolution vs. creation isn't settled. You can believe what you like based on your understanding of science same as everyone else. You might be right, but you might not be. The greatest minds would tell you there is much more to learn about the history of earth and the universe. Otherwise, they'd stop searching for more information. Nice talking to you, but to assume I'm wrong because of my lack of understanding is off base. Would be the same if I assumed that about you.@@travisbicklepopsicle

@@danielhanawalt4998 There were egg laying animals around millions of years before chickens existed. In that sense the egg did come first.

How so? An egg laying reptile laid a chicken egg? Some velociraptors evolved in to birds? Sorry, I don't buy that. If that were true, then a bird and a horse could mate and produce a flying horse. Or a cat/dog. While there have been those who bred two different dogs and actually made a new breed of dog, no one's made a cat/dog breed. Every animal, fowl, fish, etc. reproduces within their own kind. @@taylorthetunafish5737

Either Scientific research labs to've existed 'in the Beginning' or God the Creator both of eyesight & timeline!

Nope - because they are not real people.

You mean how did all races come from apes No apes have kinky hair or slant eyes or blonde hair So what would make ape turn to man Diet or learning to throw a stick And man still cant make a grain of sand

I don't think Genesis mentions any other children. But it does say that from Shem, Ham, and Japheth "came the people who were scattered over the whole earth."

They are now saying the human footprints are other dinosaur footprints. They now look altered, eroded.

Dr. Carl Baugh hasn't been silent at all my brother... Creation evidence museum is located just above the bank of the river... Near Glen Rose Texas... In fact his model of creation, are the world before the flood) is displayed and taught there. And with many other phds in association. 38 years ago you could actually walk in the human footprints. Alongside and some within dinosaur tracks.😂🙏😍

​@@wms72they weren't that eroded 38 years ago.... And probably still aren't.... Somewhere actually destroyed by an atheist, who just couldn't have other people seeing them!🤣 Don't forget. You have an enemy that lies continually 🤳🙏

The main reason big YEC orgs don’t endorse them is because the evidence is scant and the documentation isn’t any better. Some of them are actually convinced that the prints aren’t human. I’m somewhat on the fence about it myself. Doesn’t matter to me because the evidence the we do have is very, very strong with or without human and dino prints together.

@@mmaimmortals yeah everything was done under official documentation... Of course the evolutionists aren't going to endorse... Can't be messing with their cash 🤣 they dissected at least a couple of the rocks containing both dinosaur & human footprints.... They are clearly authentic... I've walked in them myself, along with about forty others in our group. (Probably 35 years ago now)

I believe they did mention it. I’ve seen a few of these with Trey so I may be mistaken, but I think they did cover it in this video.

You assume medical science, food production, weather, natural calamities and other factors were consistent or was existing respectively for thousands of years. If Putin decides to nuke Ukraine and NATO decides to nuke Russia and Iran, China, and North Korea joins the game; world population become ZERO.

Caused by invention of agriculture

@@globalcoupledances Population explosion was more than likely the result of not having so many wars, catastrophes, plagues, etc. And people settling down into more civil civilizations. The Egyptians were quite efficient at agriculture long before the agricultural revolution.

@mmaimmortals - Hunters/gatherers and other nomads don't build pyramids

I think those are creationists, though.

Because that is NOT what evolution teaches.

@@MrJones1972 Explain please.

@Breas-pt7vi 😂

@@rollingstone3017 very easy. Nowhere, in the theory of evolution does it say, or even imply, that a human gave birth to a non human.

+ *Rolling Stone* How does a baby become a toddler? There's no hard line, but at some point what once was a baby is then a toddler. Really, all that's happening is the same gradual change they've always experienced. That doesn't really matter, though. As long as we know babies become toddlers, or that proto-humans become humans, we know that there's some sort of transition.

And?

@@richardgregory3684 23 pairs= 46 /48 pairs ÷ 2 = 24 so the theory is one chromosome fused . yes? So in the ape line one chromosome mutated and it had now 23 .yes? (Assuming male) then a females gnome mutates and leaves her with 23 and now we have a breeding pair . Whose number of chromosomes after a successful coupling will birth one with 46 ..Yes? Does that make it human? And what are the odds of the same mutation happening to both male and female. and be within the area to meet and during their lifespan. Or was the mutation a virus that effects all of the species?

@@richardgregory3684 let's suppose your math is correct...and one pair is the mutation . Which pair is it and what does that pair govern?

@@richardgregory3684 what about the extra single (trisomy) or(monopsony) or the theory that genetic mutations can't develop normal form and function!

@@richardgregory3684 fusion is certainly a mutation .

Devoid of info, quote-mining and putting the pre-supposition before the evidence. EVERY. SINGLE.TIME.

This is how Stanley here remains ignorant

Yes, "junk" science. Just like the "junk" science that made the internet on which you are commenting. Or made the stable structure of the house you live in. Or filtered the water you drink. Or developed the infastructure for the electricity you use to power the appliances you need. Or cured diseases and developed medical science. This is all obviously junk

​@@captaingaza2389So you are here listening to truth, facts, and conclusions and all you do is throw insults. Noone including myself wishes to live in ignorance. Politely and seriously do enlighten us. Convince me evolution is true. In my prayers.

@@johnglad5 If you think you are listening to truth and facts in the clip then you are beyond help because you didn’t arrive at your current belief through truth and facts. Calling someone ignorant is not an insult, it’s a response to ignorant claims. Evolution is true, wether you believe it or not. The fact remains We are an evolved species Maybe you should try reading more than one book

@@captaingaza2389 I asked for scientific proofs of evolution. Just more insults and the montra its true. I have come to the conclusion evolution is false from over 50 sources, pro and con. So it seems you've read something and it fits your paradigm so you are locked into a belief. I have looked into the science of genetics and concluded that the Tree Of Life is false. I'll go through a recent evolution and request a rebuttal. Humans have evolved from some apelike ancestor with 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46 so this is a reproductive barrier. So this first creature, the progeny of apes had 46 chromosomes and Noone to mate with. For the species of man to go on this must have happened twice with the outcome producing opposite sexes. This had to happen at the same time and place and they had to mate and produce all of humanity. This scenario seems quite impossible. Do you think this is possible? Or is there a flaw in my scenario. Grace

NO it's not - it is millions of years ago.

@ Enoch was 14000 years ago and the 7 generations from Adam of Seth. Noah's grandfather was nine hundred and change before the flood and . Noah had daughters and started the ark © 100

@ccConcerts: DNA

@@tommerphy1286 what's your point? If you're claiming young Earth and that only male lineage that survived was Noah passing down his y chromosome to his sons then no other y chromosome should exist past the 4,000 year mark when Noah and his sons were the only male survivors.

@@tommerphy1286 the age and descendants of everyone pre Noah should be irrelevant to any y chromosome discussions.

@ Adam to Noah=over 6000 years.

Of course humans did not come from chimpanzees. Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. The chromasomal fusion happened *after* this.

@@richardgregory3684 Humans and chimps have a different number of chromosomes...meaning the progenitor of humans cannot be chimps. It is simple enough to understand. It a myth that man came for chimpanzees. Even the fossil record attests to that ...Evolutionists should just keep looking for those missing links and let the real science be done by those willing to follow the science where it takes them. Evolution is 19th century conjecture masquerading as 21st century science.

​@@richardgregory3684 There is no common ancestor between man and apes...the fossil record and genetic incompatibility prove that.

@ Thought is where wisdom is born

@@tommerphy1286 wisdom comes from knowledge, personal experience and the willingness to learn!

@@Georgia-Vic I repeat wisdom is BORN in the mind . Pain makes man think thought makes man wise wisdom enables man to endure

@@tommerphy1286 yes,I agree but we all have a choice at any given time, to go either way.Everything begins with a thought and decision is made to either, do or not do what stems from them. Pain can make you stronger or like my younger brother told me "meaner!" He chose to take that road, while I chose to take the other. One is productive and the other leads to despair. Pain has made me the toughest S.O.B. that I know.I could have easily allowed it to make me depressed and cynical (and there for a while I was!) but there comes a time to grow and learn. I'm also the most stubborn person that I know and by doing that I have made my progress slow in the process. I'm not perfect by any measure.I allow my own progress. There's no such thing as control but learning how to divert the continuous flow of negativity or positivity in one's life. The idea of "control" stems from the ego wanting to selfishly dominate the environment and therefore is never content.The trick is to acknowledge that, adapt and learn how to navigate those treacherous currents in the rivers and find the calmer areas; to find a haven, to relax and regroup until we are ready to, once again get back into the "stream" of life!(please excuse all of the puns and analogies!)

​@@tommerphy1286I believe the point she was making is that a mind began everything we see and even the things we can't see.

I would agree with your characterization of creationists that act like there is no good evidence for God but I'd say you are doing the same thing in reverse.

@@blusheep2 excuse me.....where did I say anything about creationists acting like there is no evidence of a God? I'm saying they act like there is no good evidence for evolution... And thank you for that last part of your comment, I'm certainly acting like there is plenty of evidence for no need for a God...because it holds 💦

@@rickallen9167 It was a typo. I meant to put "no good evidence for evolution" there and not "no good evidence for God." Being that "good" evidence is subjective then I wouldn't brag about it. That is all they are doing. They are discounting all the "evidence" for biological evolution because, in their mind, it is unconvincing and so they say its not "good" evidence and if its not "good evidence" then it isn't even evidence in their minds. You do the same thing and this is not something you should win an award for. Its the opposite.

@@rickallen9167 Trial and error in DNA construction doesn't work even in theory. Mutations can't do it, there is no way. 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 successful 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. I happen to know the intelligent designer is Lord Jesus 🙂

There is a possibility that evolution is God.

I have to ask how you can possibly believe a super giant black hole has been around for 4 to 14 billion years and has not yet eaten the galaxy? Your very own secular scientists just recently said hmm that's not what we expected to see out-of the model of the big fart we hold to. So they had to go back and rethink things. How do you also get planets spinning in opposite direction if it all came out of the big bang. How do you get soft tissue on dinosaur bones that are supposed to be 65 to 250 million years old. Seriously there is NO KNOWN MECHANISM to allow soft tissue to last that long. You guys have many little things to explain that can't be explained very well. That's not even getting into the genetic evidence showing life appears to have all came about at the same time fully developed. So there is no transitional forms. No known early simple cells. The simplest parasitic cell we know of uses half a billion pairs of dna and parasites itself to live. There is still no known form of abiogenesis. They can't even begin to really understand how life came about. Your the one that refuses to look at evidence for the truth. You want it to validate your system of belief and that's all your looking for that validation. So it doesn't matter what I or anyone else shows you. You'll just smugly deny its true and believe what ever rescue device you can find.. that I am very sorry for. I hate it for people like you, you just simply won't admit or see evolution has so many problems its obviously not true the way its taught.

@@vikingskuld I didn't get a notification of your reply. I only saw it by checking out the comments. When they say "super-giant black hole" you might think it's half the size of our galaxy. It's a tiny dot compared to the size of our galaxy. It seems that it being large that much of the galaxy "has" been pulled in, but, the fact that our galaxy has spiral arms indicates that our galaxy has absorbed at least one minor galaxy. This you would get from theist scientists...the secular scientists aren't "mine", lol. Planets spinning in opposite directions? Possibly from prior collisions from moon large moon sized bodies. The Coriolis effect, like what you see when the water in a bathtub drain, usually only spins in one direction. However, it can be manipulated by an external force to spin in the opposite direction. With the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones, the material found in those dinosaur bones is not the original material. In certain conditions transformative processes occur. That's already been addressed. It was a hopeful hype for the young earth creationists. It's been a couple of years since I've focused on this so I'd have to dig up the specifics again. A book, "Dinosaur Bones and the Age of the Earth" by Fuzale Rana goes into what is happening on the chemistry level over time. Polymers (the soft tissue) breaks down over time and new cross-links form into graphite like structures which are much more stable (yet still soft). The book was published in 2016 and is just over 70 pages. At that time the debate on this was still young but now, from what I understand, there is more info to confirm this. You said, "You guys have many little things to explain that can't be explained very well.". That's just false. You just haven't heard the right person explaining it. I agree with you that God created the diversity of life on the planet fully formed. Evolution can't explain it nor the origin of life. You said, "Your [sic] the one that refuses to look at evidence for the truth.". You don't know what I've looked at. You haven't asked. You even assumed that I embraced evolutionary theory without asking. Please be fair. You said, " You'll just smugly deny...". You're a jerk, lol. Why don't you explain what we see in the galaxies that I addressed or the nebulae instead of telling me that I'm looking for "whatever rescue device you can find.", and "I hate it for people like you". What kind of people do you think I am? An Ignorant atheist?

@@TheGuy.. hey first off soft tissue is one thing I have really spent time looking I to. It's definitely not biofilm. Next iron poyermerization can cause as much or more degradation as supposed preservation. The other side of thar argument for me is the ostrich blood was used. The cells were completely destroyed to release the iron. Was that done chemically were preservatives used to store the blood. I don't think Mary got her blood from an ostrich out back. So was there shelf stabilizing chemicals used in the blood. We don't know. Also last count there have been over 120 different soft tissue finds In an age range of over 250 million years now. Yes actual proteins like collagen and Many others have been found. Nerve fibers tendons and other soft tissue has not just been found but proven beyond a doubt to not be bio film. Also if you look at some of the experiments preformed you will be able to see there is no way that stuff can last over a million years at the very best. So no there is absolutely no known way you can cross link anything and make It last 65 to over 250 million years. The discoloration from one of the cross linking papers isn't found in any sample so even drying the sample out with heat doesn't help preserve it that long. There just as of now no known way to preserve them that long. Plus the entire slow process of replacing the bone and layering of the fossil is proven to be crap. Also I am sorry if I read into your text. I will absolutely apologize for me being a jerk. I probably should not read and reply in the middle of the night. Best of luck to you

@@TheGuy.. Don’t extrapolate. Especially extreme extrapolation over deep time. Sometimes it “appears to give you the ‘right’ answer”, but more often than not it leads to absurdity. For example, Dr. Lisle has extrapolated the rotation of galaxies using real physics (he’s an astrophysicist) and shown that they can’t be even 1 BYO because the spiral arms would have blurred completely out after that much time. If you extrapolate today’s erosion rates, the continents would be completely washed away in just a few million years. If you extrapolate earth’s magnetic field you get the earth and everything on it being fried to ashes about 10k years ago. Or you get the need for another alleged reversal within the next 3k years per secular geophysicists because of how weak it would be, especially when referencing how strong it should have been just 3k years in the past. And there are many more. You covered a lot of ground on galaxies, but you talked as if you had actually seen them form. The actual observable evidence doesn’t demand hardly any of your claims. On dino soft tissue, you are absolutely categorically incorrect on this. The proteins and DNA fragments that have been found were tested using binding agents that only bind themselves to specific molecules. The tests were completely unambiguous. And these are secular scientists doing this research. Add to that the fact that C14 has been found in dino fossils in a specific gradient that indicates that the fossils themselves are the source of the C14. This is documented by Korean scientists and is available on YT. These aren’t short lived hypes for YEC, they are legitimate problems for deep time. And the Bible still says that the Lord created the earth in six days, Adam was created on day six, the stars were given to discern times and seasons, and Adam’s genealogy is documented all the way to Christ.

@@vikingskuld No problem on the jerk moment, lol. Looks like you thought I was some atheist jumping in to cause trouble. No, I'm a Christian with a different conclusion of the Genesis text and the record of antiquity of the earth. I like to always see the best of both side of an argument and to have my views always open to critique. I see God leaving us with a mountain of evidence to see in creation, as Psa 19 declares, to see a record of what He has done, to His glory. I see the little bit of evidence, that I mentioned to you, through astronomy plus more in astronomy which I haven't mentioned yet plus the evidence from radiometric dating, erosion rates, cratering rates, lake varves, sediment varves, tree-ring sequential overlapping, successive fossil deposition, geology and more and then occasionally, anomalies like the Schweitzer soft tissue finds in dinosaurs that seem to give a different story on the age of the Earth. You mentioned biofilm. That is such a dated hypothesis and I would never mention that today and I didn't. What I did mention is cross-linking. There are several ways you can get cross-linking bonds. Some are more durable than others. Multiple crosslinks also make for a stronger and longer lasting structure. In an accumulative way you get much more stable connections of polymers as they break down which still leaves them soft...a graphite "like" structure. Anyway, I agree with you that there is no way to keep the amino chains from breaking down with all of the different ways (mechanisms) in the environment acting on them. The question is whether or not there are other things happening to mimic its preservation. From what I've read, I see that to be the most plausible since there is so much showing an ancient Earth. Radiometric dating has been done on this material. Sounds like you probably know that the limits of C-dating is from around 800 to 50,000 years. If the dinosaurs existed 3000 to 6000 years ago then the dating would suggest that. Instead we are getting dates of over 35,000 years. Two things there. If the dinosaurs were millions of years old, then it seems we wouldn't see ANY C-14. Well, we know that there are contaminations that deposit trace amounts of C-14 everywhere so now you would expect to find at least some. Next, Young Earthers claim (without Biblical reference) that God sped up the physics during the first 3 creation days and also during the flood by an order of millions. Well, if that was the case, we would find only trace amounts of radiometric materials of any kind. That's not the case though. Anyway, we can disagree here. But I'm curious of you view of my points on galaxy collisions and the formation of nebulae.

And?

@@richardgregory3684 why you have said a librarys worth of knowledge and wisdom in a single word. How does it feel to be the smartest person on the planet?

@@richardgregory3684 24 +24=48 (apes) yes? One pair from each donor combine ( fuse into one) leaving 23 of each donor's chromosomes . Yes? The fused pair goes where?

@@richardgregory3684 is your position ( the fused pair is assimilated by one of the original 23? ) Thereby = 46! Yes?

@@tommerphy1286 Not assimilated. Two of the pairs fused end to end.

Chromasomes come in pairs. The fusion means two _pairs_ fused together, i.e. 48-2=46

@@richardgregory3684 apes : 48 pairs one from each didn't fuse they vanished 48-2=46 Fused =1 ... 48 -2=46 left and one fused. pair am I following you? So the new one is expelled? If not does it have double the DNA? fused = combined.. no?

@@tommerphy1286 I'll try again. Humans have 46 chromasomes in 23 pairs. Other apes, including our closest relative the chimpanzee, have 48 chromasomes in 24 pairs. This is the result of two chromasome *pairs* fusing. Thus, 24-1=23, or 48-2=46. Chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans have almost identcal DNA sequences in separate chromasomes as are found in human chromasome 2. It is also the second largest chromasome in humans.

@@richardgregory3684 48 - 2=46 the two that fused equal one.no? 46left + one fused equal what? 48 -2 =46. 1+1 fused=ONE fused 46 +1??

Male=24 female=24. One of the female s fused. 23 (f) + 23 (m) ,yes? What happened to the fused pair? And since they are a mutation which are they known by.

Obviously they're different definitions of simple.... After trying for 70 years, still no success at this simple problem😮😅

Yeah this is a greatly oversimplified description. Its not just the chemicals, its the arrangement. Its the fact that RNA dissolves in water, in a relatively short amount of time. Its the fact that RNA is no small molecule. It in itself is more complicated then a protein. Protocells and RNA Self-Replication (Pub Med) Gerald F. Joyce1 and Jack W. Szostak2 They describe it this way, "The general notion of an “RNA world” is that, in the early development of life on the Earth, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA, and RNA molecules were the chief agents of catalytic function. Assuming that all of the components of RNA were available in some prebiotic locale, these components could have assembled into activated nucleotides that condensed to form RNA polymers, setting the stage for the chemical replication of polynucleotides through RNA-templated RNA polymerization." and ". The concept of a “protocell” refers to a compartment where replication of the primitive genetic material took place and where primitive catalysts gave rise to products that accumulated locally for the benefit of the replicating cellular entity. Replication of both the protocell and its encapsulated genetic material would have enabled natural selection to operate based on the differential fitness of competing cellular entities, ultimately giving rise to modern cellular life." So we can see that its not as simple as you present. Not only does RNA have to arrange itself into RNA, there has to have been a place on earth where all the ingredients were not only in a condensed space but also encapsulated by some other material.

@@blusheep2 that's a pretty accurate description of the theory my brother!! 🙏 Well done... Sadly, after 70 years and billions of dollars...... 👅 And then there's the other 10000 questions... Got to have DNA to make RNA... To make DNA to make RNA.... But first!!! You have to have the mega complicated cell wall to house it in... And all the other machinery contained within to keep it functioning and alive... And then there's the math 😳... Not to mention the incredible delicacy of a single cell... (no one ever addresses this seemingly insurmountable hurdle)... Millions of years,. 19 amino acids finally lineup to make a protein... 4 seconds go by... Oh sh! #$!! Aaaand we start over 😳... But that's just one protein... Not a cell wall... (Which is maintained by all of the organelles inside... Oh wait, I'm getting ahead of myself 🤣 they're not there yet 😭)...

@@blusheep2hi Nobody talks about what this ‘ Protocol life’ would eat! Only plant life can synthesise direct sunlight! And then there is the ever present inconvenient fact of DEATH! At the ORIGIN OF LIFE STAGE , that would be the end of the show! Shalom to us only in Christ Yeshua returning soon to reign over His Creation from Jerusalem forever.

Proto life