Well, right, it has already blown your mind :D

We truly cant completely comprehend Gods power and abilities. I mean the simple thing of oxygen which we breath....how that come to be out of nothing?

@@darthbane2669 Who told you, that it came out of nothing? What a nonsense. Before you start to discuss such things you should better spend a few years learning the basics...

Brett , I'm going to blow your mind with this ; Imagine being in , let's say in NYC , it's massively crowded , , , how many are going to believe in GOD as you described ? Ok , the rest who don't , try to imagine the greatness of GOD having grace & mercy on every single person that none should perish , , but that yet it is within each person to make that choice to believe or not believe , Then try to imagine any parent who has lost a loved child prematurely in their life , the grieving for that child or other loved one to be there , to not not be there to be a continuous part of life , Now , try to grasp the heart of GOD yearning for every single person to want to come to the cross , to come to know JESUS for the forgiveness of sins , to look forward to the day they will be reunited with their FATHER in Heaven , Imagine the same on the scale of the whole world's population , everyone living & dying , each in their own cultures & customs , a lot don't even know anything about who GOD really is , only what they get raised to believe even if it's blatantly opposed to GOD , Yet , GOD is there waiting to be revealed to them if only someone could get the message across without getting killed for violating their pagan rites , And too , GOD suffers for each one who perishes without knowing HIS SON's life & message of the gospels , I'm saying this to you that you might truly appreciate how wonderfully you are made in HIS image , every bit as every one , I get no greater joy than to talk about GOD , about HIS SON JESUS who lived as a man that even HE knows what man endures on this side of life , I hope this catches you on a good day , that you'll appreciate , Love , in JESUS

I dunno if there was anything fearful or wonderful about your parents having sex. The image of the invisible is invisible.

Satanism has had it's run long enough "evolution theory" I say it's well past time that Jesus Christ is put back in schools where he belongs, to teach children the truth.

@@patldennis explain? I’m interested to understand why you have stated that a law against this mans knowledge is a good thing?

It should be an elective in schools. This is a secular democracy. Separation of church and state. This is a nation of inclusiveness and of law. I, personally, thoroughly enjoy this documentary. But it should never be my right, or anyone else's, to mandate that anyone else must view it.

I thought that too. Every Atheist should watch this who believes in “science.”

AAAAAAAAAAMEN!

You should see 2 girls one cup.

I've said many times in Sunday School, as people bring up prayer requests for health issues, that we don't realize just how fearfully and wonderfully we are made until we see all the things that can go wrong.

first time for everything... Continue Expanding your intake for more mind-blowing info😅👍

He is a wolf in sheep's clothing leading you astray with his false anti-evolution doctrine.

@@theTavis01 Dr. Carter lives to glorify God by celebrating God's exorbitantly ingenious design. Just the opposite of a wolf in sheep's clothing. The wolves are those who seek to diminish all that God has done by propagandizing for the atheistic belief in microbes to microbiologists evolutionism.

@@livinginthespirit407 "Dr. Carter lives to glorify God by celebrating God's exorbitantly ingenious design" But evolution is the strongest and best evidence of design, because it is the process and not just the end result. So by denying evolution he is failing in this noble quest. Evolution is not an "atheistic belief" any more than the science of gestation is an "atheistic belief." Atheists will claim that gestation is a blind unguided process resulting from the a chain reaction of molecular interactions causing a single cell to gradually turn into a human. Do you equally apply your anti-intellectual fervor to gestation? I doubt it. Psalm 139 tells us God knit us together in our mother's womb, but science doesn't say anything about knitting needles! Whatever will you do?? A mature Christian will look at the science of gestation and use it to show how miraculous the process is and therefor showing God's glory in it. If you're not willing to do the same for evolution, don't talk about it. Robert Carter makes nonsensical statements like at 19:20 when he claims that "you cannot build high technology step by step" when in reality we know for a fact that all technology can ONLY be made step by step, and the evolution of technology is well documented and studied, showing all the salient characteristics of biological evolution. Robert Carter is bearing false witness. He claims it's impossible for complex systems to evolve over time. How did we go from a wooden cart to a Ferrari over centuries?? Why do we see a clear series of transitional forms along the way?? Like I said, evolution in biology is evidence of design, because we see it in all human designs.

​@@smitty121981 Smitty: "But evolution is the strongest and best evidence of design, because it is the process and not just the end result. " Living in the Spirit: Actually Evolution(ism) is the antithesis of intelligent design. It is taught to the school children as a way for an intelligent designer to be completely unnecessary. Smitty: "Evolution is not an "atheistic belief" any more than the science of gestation is an "atheistic belief." Living in the Spirit: Richard Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Note that he was referring to microbes to mankind evolutionism that made this possible, not gestation. The way microbes to mankind evolutionism is taught to the school children, it is indeed atheistic and it provides Atheists with a belief system they can be passionate about, most especially the most anti-theistic among them such as Dawkins and other anti-theists such as Aron Ra. Gestation is known observable and repeatable phenomena just like the variation and adaptation of life which is contained within every model of origins (both mindless design and intelligent design). But these observational phenomena are completely unlike the never once observed belief that all life evolved from microbes via a mindless process. Do you really not see the difference? Smitty: Atheists will claim that gestation is a blind unguided process resulting from the a chain reaction of molecular interactions causing a single cell to gradually turn into a human. Do you equally apply your anti-intellectual fervor to gestation? I doubt it. Psalm 139 tells us God knit us together in our mother's womb, but science doesn't say anything about knitting needles! Whatever will you do?? A mature Christian will look at the science of gestation and use it to show how miraculous the process is and therefor showing God's glory in it. If you're not willing to do the same for evolution, don't talk about it. Living in the Spirit: Your comparison here between observable gestation and the never once observed belief that mankind "evolved" from microbes is incoherent. And your belief that microbes ever evolved into anything besides microbes is science denialism, pseudoscience, and fraud. Smitty: Robert Carter makes nonsensical statements like at 19:20 when he claims that "you cannot build high technology step by step" when in reality we know for a fact that all technology can ONLY be made step by step, and the evolution of technology is well documented and studied, showing all the salient characteristics of biological evolution. Living in the Spirit: You have taken his comment way out of context. He was referring to the need for irreducibly complex, multiple inter-dependent component systems to be comprehensively designed by an intelligent mind and they can not cobble themselves together step by step via a mindless process. An example would be the cardiovascular system. You can't have an organism with miles of blood vessels but no blood within them or no heart to pump blood through them. Another example would be Windows 10 which did not and could not arise via a fortuitous accumulation of copy errors. Smitty: Robert Carter is bearing false witness. Living in the Spirit: Actually his witness is true and yours is false. He is glorifying the intelligent designer and you are glorifying the belief in mindless processes and accumulated copy errors as the designer all of which is perfectly compatible with atheism and anti-theism. Smitty: He claims it's impossible for complex systems to evolve over time. How did we go from a wooden cart to a Ferrari over centuries?? Living in the Spirit: Ferraris did not "evolve over time" via heredity, copy errors and other mindless processes, rather the Ferrari is an excellent example of intelligent design just as is is also true with DNA, molecular machinery, biological systems, etc. Smitty: Why do we see a clear series of transitional forms along the way?? Living in the Spirit: In the case of the Wooden Cart and the Ferrari, each of these intelligently designed innovations serve a separate purpose and both continue to be intelligently designed today. As to how the Ferrari is more sophisticated than the Wooden Cart, intelligent minds grew in knowledge and became more accomplished as engineers. Nested heirarchies exist for various intelligently designed products and this does not mean they arrived via heredity, accumulated copy errors, etc. The important take home lesson is that an intelligent mind was necessary to build both the wooden cart and the Ferrari, they did not "evolve" via mindless naturalistic processes. Smitty: Like I said, evolution in biology is evidence of design, because we see it in all human designs. Living in the Spirit: Specified complexity and irreducible inter-dependent components within the systems of biology provide various life forms with the front loaded capacity to vary and adapt. All of this is powerful evidence for intelligent design, not for the supposed blind and mindless process of "microbes to mankind Neo Darwinian Evolutionism".

​@@livinginthespirit407 "Richard Dawkins said" I don't care what some atheist said. I care what the Bible says and what the peer reviewed literature says. "The way microbes to mankind evolutionism is taught to the school children, it is indeed atheistic" Well then maybe you should stop being a lying little weasel and start proclaiming God's glory in evolution!!! Christians are so spineless that they let atheists have full reign to interpret evolution as they see fit! Young earth creationism is a total abject failure which is driving people away from Christ and you are perpetuating it. "the never once observed belief that all life evolved from microbes" Is a total boldface lie. It is easily observed, by looking at the fossil record, which at this point is comprised of hundreds of millions of carefully measured and catalogued fossils from around the world. The overall progression of life seen in the chronology of the fossil record is blatantly obvious to anyone. To claim that a single flood can somehow better account for the physical evidence of chronological succession of fossils is so incredibly dishonest that it makes me want to vomit even thinking about it. "each of these intelligently designed innovations serve a separate purpose and both continue to be intelligently designed today." THE SAME IS TRUE IN GOD'S CREATION!!! "He was referring to the need for irreducibly complex, multiple inter-dependent component systems to be comprehensively designed by an intelligent mind" and since we KNOW that God is sovereign over all of creation, then this is NOT an argument against evolution!!! SHEEESH!!! You are seriously going to sit there with a straight face and claim that God can create a fully functioning adult body in a single 24 hour day, but doing it over a longer period of time is simply asking too much???? For real??? You could claim that a smartphone has "multiple inter-dependent component systems" like a circuit board, processor, antennae, battery, etc. And yet we KNOW that the smartphone evolved from a large wooden box with a mechanical crank that had no battery or circuit board or processor or antenna. Your excuses fail immediately as soon as you consider evolution as being under the sovereignty of God. "Windows 10 which did not and could not arise via a fortuitous accumulation of copy errors. " You're arguing against a strawman. Gird up your loins like a man and grapple with the TRUTH. "you are glorifying the belief in mindless processes" No I am glorifying GOD by showing the ways in which evolution reveals God's characteristics. The modification and diversification of forms over time shows God's creativity. The selection and extinction events show God's judgment separating the wheat from the chaff. The length of time shows God's long suffering patience. The way in which God used evolution to terraform a barren space rock into a lush garden perfectly suited for human life - from the air we breathe to the food we eat to the bodies we inhabit - shows an extraordinary level of foresight and wisdom. "provide various life forms with the front loaded capacity" Is fallacious pseudoscience nonsense. Nothing even remotely like this is supported by any actual data. Your acceptance of this over the vast mountain of science pointing otherwise shows an extreme level of dishonesty and cognitive bias. "this does not mean they arrived via heredity, accumulated copy errors, etc. " um.... yes it does!! You SERIOUSLY think that technology does not "inherit" its blueprints from the previous generation, with some modifications??? And again, the science does not say that evolution must happen through "copy errors" that's a dishonest strawman. The biological fossil record shows EVERY salient characteristic of the technological record, so if this proves that evolution cannot happen through blind chance it means that EVOLUTION GLORIFIES GOD. It does NOT mean that evolution is somehow falsified, in any way whatsoever and to claim otherwise is just absurd. All you falsified is an outdated and widely criticized hypothesis for a possible MECHANISM of evolution. The mechanism is NOT the same consideration as the OCCURRENCE of evolution, which is undisputed outside of creationist circle jerks. "All of this is powerful evidence for intelligent design" Right.....and to pretend like design somehow implies that evolution never happened is incredibly dishonest, especially in light of the fact that human technology follows the SAME pattern of development over time. Are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me with a straight face that a single flood event is a BETTER explanation for the meticulously catalogued fossil record???

God created humans for fellowship

That's factually incorrect, evolution happens at every level from single-cell organisms to humans.

@@aspacelex a lex, A dog cannot turn into a cat (macro evolution). The fossil record doesn’t show it, nor have we ever seen it. Micro evolution does occur within its own kind. This is proven and seen. I hope that distinction helps.

@@johncastino2730 Evolution says a dog can't turn into a cat, if a dog evolved into a new species, that species would still be a dog, just like humans are still apes and chickens are still dinosaurs, which the fossil record does show. Micro and macro evolution is the same mechanism, you can't deny one without the other.

@@aspacelex NeoDarwinists claim that all life came from non-life. Our top scientists say they have no idea how life/DNA originated from simple matter. And we find ourselves in a world that is finely tuned to a degree that is impossible to have occurred by chance. My studies of the various sciences led me to conclude that the scientific evidence proves beyond doubt there was a Creator. - how did life come from non-life? - how did so many kinds of life originate if dogs stay dogs and cats stay cats? - where are the transitional fossils? Even one top atheist scientists said “if I knew of any transitional fossils I would offer them. But at this point I cannot find even one clear example of a transitional fossil”.

@@johncastino2730 Terms like "evolutionist" or "neo-Darwinist" exist exclusively in religious extremist echo chambers, the rest of the world doesn't deny evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with how non-living matter converted into living matter. That's a lie, they successfully recreated RNA in the lab from its basic components more than a decade ago. What about this universe is fine-tuned? There's zero support in any branch of science of the laughable notion that magic is real. - This has nothing to do with evolution, but we've produced life from non-life in the lab. Chemicals that are alive aren't that much different from chemicals that aren't. - Evolution states that dogs stay dogs even when they evolve into different species, like humans are still apes and chickens are still dinosaurs, which in no way contradicts the fact that species can evolve into different species. - I don't care about some guy's feelings, the transitional fossils are all there.

@Michael Fritsche - You've said nothing. You've heard researchers with different ideas that agree with your ideas so they must be right. Have you considered the evidence *right here* in this video? Stop using other peoples heads and use your own head. That's why God gave it to you.

@Michael Fritsche - I could really not care less about your "scientific consensus." I could not care less about your ivory towers. Haven't you got your own brain to work with? You still haven't said anything.

@Michael Fritsche - Did I not make myself clear? I could care less about the consensus of the scientific community. Truth is not decided by concensus. You still haven't said anything. Three strikes, you're out. You get no more responses from me.

@Michael Fritsche Hephaestus was a pretty cool dude, making stuff in the volcano all day long and getting his heart broken by the hotties. But the difference is that the God of the Bible is incorporeal and exists outside of Creation. Even the vast Hindu pantheon has some sort of Ultimate deity at the top. And so the patheon then just becomes archetypal ways of understanding certain energetic qualities within Creation. Don't let all these blasphemous fools turn you off with their ignorant rantings about evolution. God is sovereign over all things including evolution, and if you look you will see it. Seek and ye shall find, as Jesus said.

@@rubiks6 The evidence in this video in no way invalidates evolution. Not for a single second.

The Bible is poorly plagiarized from a dozen older religions, it's fiction.

YOU HAVE TO READ THE BIBLE 3 TIMES OR MORE TO GET THE OVERALL PICTURE, THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE ARE ON EARTH NOW AS HAS ALWAYS BEEN, IT'S JUST THAT TIMES ARE DIFFERENT, IT GIVES A PERSON INSIGHT ON HOW TO READ PEOPLE AS YOU MEET THEM, AND BE ABLE TO TELL WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO TO YOU, AS FAR AS YOU CAN SEE THEM COMING. THE ADVICE IS THERE TO BE USED FOR INSIGHT. EACH TIME YOU READ FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END, THINGS BECOME MORE CLEAR. DON'T SKIP AROUND, IT'S HARDER TO GET THE OVERALL PICTURE.

if the design is Devine way so much variety -is it not the best plan that need t be reproduces over and over again? like in a factory ?and way there are birth defects -is god is imperfect?-is god crule ?when you go to the amazon and every few km you find a new speasis off beetle just a bit deferent than her neighbor was god extremely artistic ?

we are designed to be the library of the universe.

@@moodist1er if it's copied is irrelevant because it's true. ;)

Just because one cannot think of a solution to a hypothesis, doesn't mean there isn't one. It might mean it's beyond human comprehension entirely.

@Michael Fritsche Really,a proven fact eh.......lol

@Michael Fritsche Proven fact? A proven fact needs laws and regulations to prohibit the teaching of creation in public schools????

@Michael Fritsche Well looks like you have convinced yourself,nice job skippy.

@Michael Fritsche did you even watch this video? Some people ignore the obvious when its sitting right in front of them. Keep searching my freind.

I find having large scale dreams like this makes real sleep impossible, I feel like I been running a mile when having lucid dreams of this nature and it happens far too often, and I remember many of them lividly.

Well those that believe will live for an eternity where foolish atheist wont...so you ponder that.

Yeah. Scripture is awesome. "Earth is centre of the universe" - awesome. Easy to see really, looking up. No wonder the guys who wrote the scripture thought it a safe claim.

Truly! As a molecular biologist, I can vouch for this. Everyday I am marveled at how little the human brain can undertake and perceive this wonder of our genomes. Darwin honestly didn't know what he was doing. He contradicted himself after his first book. If you read up on his life and stuff, you'll feel silly to believe what he stated. Also, look at the history of genetics. What we know today is so complex, the older theories are getting outdated.

Darwin thought some one that can after him would fix his theories like filling in holes in Swiss cheese! And our schools have audacity to teach this crock. Darwin is still scratching his head trying to figure out the Cambrian explosion. I suppose Darwin is similar to a single cell organism.

That's totally incorrect because the two are not mutually exclusive. It takes a *_LACK_* of faith for a Christian to refuse to look for God in evolution. Seek and ye shall find, remember? Evolution is the mechanism by which God Created all this amazing life.

There are many things in the Bible that have not been fully understood until the past few generations. Psalms speaks of pathways in the seas we now know there are ocean currents. The fountains of the deep mentioned in Noah's flood, there are mass amounts of water trapped in the Earth's crust enough to flood the entire Earth. If the laws of gravity were set higher or lower life could not exist anywhere in the universe. Somehow along the way they decided to make Darwin's "theory" of evolution known to the world as a fact and they're still trying to prove it.

God doesnt use random mutations to create life,he creates fully functioning beings,not sure how anyone can come to that conclusion? read the bible.

Amen Jake

@@theTavis01 So please tell us exactly how DNA evolved. Describe in detail the abiogenesis of life. You can not. Thus your belief in those things is faith. The bible clearly teaches that God made man in His image. If the bible is not true, then nothing matters. Christianity's chief cornerstone is Jesus who taught that God made man. If He is a liar then christianity is utter nonsense. If He spoke truth, then one day all will bow the knee before Him. You will bow the knee. If you are christian and believe in evolution, then are you are not born again and you will spend eternity apart from God with your fellow comrades who also call God a liar. My hope for you is that you surrender your life and heart to the Creator whose name is Jesus.

Yeah, it depends who reads it

@@andreidibre2289 No, it depends on who _writes_ it.

@Andrei Dibre it does indeed depend on who reads it.....I find it mark of sophisticated writing to have multiple levels of meaning in few simple words.....this allows engagement from readers with different levels of understanding

same author :)

Someone should submit it to peer-review to a biology journal.

Look up epigenetics. The cell wall is the information hub, the DNA codes for proteins in response to the cell wall stimulus. "Microevolution" It doesn't prove evolution from species to species. Quite the opposite. DNA is designed to allow the organism to continually change to it's stimulus, until we are overrun by sinfulness and abuse of our bodies at a point of no return. For instance, type 2 diabetes- completely due to lifestyle choices. We are only designed to take so much self-abuse before the body is overwhelmed. Also look up genetic entropy. The continual breakdown of genes in all species is a death nail to "upward evolution".

A scientific theory can't be disproven by a kook rambling on youtube.

Not if you know how evolution actually works

@@darkeen42 actually i was going to major in bio. i know how it works... and if you indeed knew how it the classic explanation of the theory you would now know that the complexity invovled just took a significant leap (orders of magnitude) up. The irony is that God has literally shown that one would need trillions of years (not billions) if not more to achieve, through random mutation etc, the genetic system as we now understand it.

@@saved2279 a complexity grows exponentially. The more complexity something has the more opportunities it has to increase its complexity I don't think you went to school for biology

@@saved2279 it sounds like you went to a Christian School who's sole purpose is to twist what we know about reality to fit the Bible to the point of breaking

A vile of malevolent poisin I'm sure

Complex systems should not be tampered with

That's it's good since vaccination is good.

@Samuel Lev No Republican president has won the popular vote in 20 years and without voter suppression they wouldn't've won at all. You don't get to deny science at the expense of others' lives in the middle of a pandemic, yes.

pretty sure trump made it

Man created god by poorly plagiarizing him from a dozen older religions. The Bible is bad fiction, like reading a story where nazis are heroes.

moodist 1er you gonna find out one day and boy will you be wrong.

@@moodist1er proof?

cards are for sinners.

Critical Argument I know I’m right. I know Jesus personally. Got all the proof I need.

Evolutionist or Atheist if you will, will simply deny anything you say cover their ears and eyes and butt hole and go LALALALALALALA!!! It's embarrassing to even see this on comments and on videos. They have been brainwashed so deeply they simply cant allow for anything else to be true for them. They are dead inside.

@Michael Fritsche The recurring problem is that the peers who review the journal articles have similar bias due to decades of being indoctrinated by our scientific system. This system doesn't encourage questioning evolutionary theory and the data that seems to support it. Michael you can argue that the 550 000 peer reviewed articles seem to support the theory, but I know from experience that nearly all reviewers have bias and are not encouraged to even question the accepted paradigm. The data can be questioned, but the overarching theory isn't called into question. Valid science isn't afraid to question long held theories and should remain open to new, challenging data. Sadly, this is not the way that all scientific disciplines function, in particular evolutionary science. I am skeptical of the theory after 3 and a half decades of studying and teaching it. Instead of throwing ideas like this away as fringe, crazy, non-science, we need to be open to new ideas and encourage scientists to be able to question.

“They are dead inside“ whereas you are full of fantasies of a supernatural being that you cannot observe, test or perceive otherwise.

Flawed arguments, revelation, scripture, tradition, ignorance and as a last straw, pseudo-science intended to reinforce the believes with scientifically illiterate…That’s all I ever got. Not to mention that this BS comes from all different religions. All in all not that impressive.

Evolution is built on a foundation of VERY loose sand.

Look up Steven Meyers as well.

And evolution is 100% the mechanism with which God creates.

@KAHANU ERMEYAS-TULU then what is your alternative mechanism?

@@theTavis01 The man called Adam was created when God “formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). ... He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” so was God talking to a adult man or a bacterie?

@@theTavis01 plus marco evolution has never been proven. So what are you even about.

@@x.r.d7744 "so was God talking to a adult man or a bacterie?" The science of evolution does *_NOT_* say that humans evolved from bacteria. We did, however, evolve from a single cell, which was just one step of many in the process of God forming us from the dust of the ground. A literal reading of Genesis 2:7 is a pagan ideology of a corporeal deity literally sculpting man with literal hands and giving it cpr. However the Bible explicitly tells us that this verse is *_NOT_* literal, by cross referencing Isaiah 64:8 and Job 10:9 where the *_EXACT_* same metaphor of God as sculptor is used to describe gestation, which scientifically starts as a single cell and slowly works upward to a human. Did God literally reach up inside your mom and literally sculpt you with literal hands? Nope. Does the scientific understanding of gestation cancel out God? Nope.

The reason most scientists, especially biologists, today don’t see it is because they have been systematically trained NOT to see it. There is a PHILOSOPHY masquerading as “science” that has taken over. That philosophy goes by many names: Philosophical Naturalism, or ontological scientism, or physical reductionism. But they all share one core assumption in common: Only things comprised of matter/energy in spacetime exist. Given that starting assumption, then everything that exists must only be the product of matter/energy interactions in spacetime. Which is why they don’t even allow the notion to be considered that an intelligence guided life. They rule that out. Heck, they even rule out the existence of intelligence itself… at least in terms of saying that we do not even exist as individual self-aware entities. We are nothing more than a collection of memes that we have collected, and those memes merely drive every thought we think we have. Many evolutionary psychologists honestly believe that they don’t exist. That the self is a pure illusion.

@@robertpreisser3547 yes well Christians have failed miserably to proclaim God's glory in evolution, choosing instead to obstinately lie about it, so atheists gladly filled the void with their own philosophies.

@@smitty121981 Well, the issue isn’t really that it’s not possible to come up with a parallel theory where God has guided the development of life from simple to complex, but that is not “Evolution.” Evolution is an umbrellas term that includes any and all naturalistic explanations for life’s development and diversification, but expressly forbids the idea that life is actually designed, and not the product solely of undirected natural processes. The good news is that naturalistic evolution is a truly falsified theory many times over, speaking from a purely scientific perspective. I can name dozens of explicit predictions made that have been falsified. For just a few examples: (1) The genetic code would be universally shared by all living organism, because once established mutations to the code itself (NOT mutations to DNA but mutations to how it is interpreted by the cellular machinery) will be invariably harmful. This was a direct prediction by Sir Francis Cook, and has been proven false. There are 24 known variants on the universal genetic code. (2) That the fossil record would be filled in with the literally millions of predicted transitional forms showing a gradual transition between common ancestors and descendant new species. In all the time since more species have been discovered in the fossil record without any transitional fossils connecting them to any ancestor. The fossil record shows the opposite pattern than what was predicted: species appearing all at once fully formed and remaining static until going extinct. (3) That highly complex organs or coordinated integrated behaviors involving numerous organs (e.g, echolocation) would be inherited from a common ancestor as the odds of such complex integrated systems arising by undirected mutations more than once was recognized as being prohibitively low. And yet there are many examples of highly complex systems and behaviors arising in diverse species long after they supposedly diverged from their last common ancestor. (4) That millions of years is more than enough time for species to diverge and grow in complexity. However, the time it takes to fix nucleotides in a species’ population has been calculated multiple times in various ways, and even the most pro-evolution figures are still prohibitively long. For example, for hominids alone the time to fix just two mutations exceeds the time available, and our DNA differs from chimpanzees by literally millions of nucleotides, not just two. (5) The mechanisms of random mutations acted on by selection can produce all of the complex systems used by life. However the cell alone is full of numerous complex systems that all work together to provide a selectable benefit (and even to keep the cell alive) that could not have arisen by a succession of smaller mutations. The electron transport complexes I - IV and ATPSynthase all work together and if any piece is not only present, but extremely tightly designed, the cell cannot metabolize carbohydrates and in turn produce ATP used by all other energy-dependent processes. These are just a few of the most recent articles coming out of the scientific community that have convinced me that the theory is not scientifically supported. More importantly, that the very same evidence points strongly to actual and not apparent design of life. And so you can reconcile the progression of life from simple to complex with the guidance and direction of God, absolutely. But Evolution itself is explicitly a naturalistic theory that forbids up front any actual design or any designer.

@@robertpreisser3547 "But Evolution itself is explicitly a naturalistic theory that forbids up front any actual design or any designer." That's not true, and it's a completely faulty premise. Psalm 139 tells us that God knit us together in our mother's womb. Must we then be compelled to deny the science of gestation since the science of gestation is looking at the naturalistic mechanisms??? That's your exact logic, and if you don't equally apply it in both circumstances your argument is proven to be invalid. Obviously both Psalm 139 and the science of gestation are true. They are looking at and describing the exact same phenomenon, yet do so in completely different ways. Atheists will argue that the science of gestation proves it to be a meaningless random process. Should we just throw up our hands in defeat? Shrink in terror from any talk of embryonic development? Tell boldface lies about a sperm and egg? Or should we, as Christians, proclaim the ways in which the science of gestation reveals God's glory? Hmm..... tough one...... does God want us to act like liars and idiots or does God want us to glorify Him..... hmmmm......I guess I'll need to pray for discernment! LOL 1) "The genetic code would be universally shared by all living organism" The genetic code *_IS_* shared. You appear to not be up to date on the science. If I'm not mistaken (you gave no reference) your figure of 24 "separate" groups comes from a study which looked at the genetic sequence of a single protein, done for a whole range of organisms, and then comparing the results. It's worth noting that this paper made divisions among prokaryotes and still classified all eukaryotes as having a single common ancestor. (ooops!). A newer study, which looked at 16 proteins rather than just one, was able to do a much higher resolution comparison and concluded that indeed all of life shares genetic descent and they were able to sort through the prokaryotes with incredible detail. You can read this research by searching for a paper titled "A New View of the Tree of Life" which is available in full for free online. Also, it's quite notable that you presented the 24 separate ancestry hypothesis as if it were settled science even though it was only ever presented in a single paper that was later refuted, you apparently didn't actually read it, and you made this claim while simultaneously crapping on nearly all settled science in regards to evolution as if it can't be trusted. Ever heard of a thing called "confirmation bias"? You're drenched in it. 2) The fossil record *_IS_* full of transitional forms. Evolution happens with a tempo of punctuated equilibrium. New species emerge rapidly and then enter relative stasis for long period of time. The broad development of body plans over long periods of time is excruciatingly well documented with countless transitional forms. The place in which transitions are generally lacking is in the rapid emergence events. When we look at human technology, like a telephone, we see a clear series of transitional fossils as the phone evolved from a giant wooden box to a rotary phone to a touchtone phone to a smart phone. Each form rapidly emerged and then entered relative stasis. There are not a million half rotary half touchtone phones gradually going from one to another. So the fact that we see this in both technology and the fossil record is simultaneously evidence for both evolution and God. Because, like I said, evolution glorifies God. "The fossil record shows the opposite pattern than what was predicted" wait.... so because a human prediction was wrong, that suddenly means that we can throw out all of the evidence? That's not honest. A scientific paper studying the evolution of human technology made the exact same error: "The results contradict the prediction of a single S-curve. Instead, technological evolution seems to follow a step function, with sharp improvements in performance following long periods of no improvement." Does the fact that the prediction was wrong magically negate the fact that the technology evolved? No, not at all, and no one would ever make such a claim. 3) you're arguing against a strawman. The current scientific consensus is that "such complex integrated systems arising by undirected mutations" is NOT possible and scientists are currently looking into other areas like epigenetics. However, the question as to HOW evolution happened has no bearing whatsoever as to the fact THAT is happened. "A central challenge in evolutionary biology concerns the mechanisms by which complex adaptations arise... what looks like an optimal organism design may not be attainable by a series of adaptive mutations.” Nature Microbiology 2018 4) "That millions of years is more than enough time for species to diverge and grow in complexity" wait....wait.... so a million years isn't enough time according to you.... and yet you're going to tell me with a straight face that even with millions of years not being enough time for God, you have no logical problem whatsoever with animals and plants all magically poofing into existence fully formed in a single instant? Cool story bro. If God can do it instantly, God can do it over time too. And again, your "math" is based on the flawed assumption that point mutations are the sole driver of evolution, an idea which has been criticized in the peer reviewed literature for well over 40 years now, and is also an idea that is totally incompatible with God so it makes no sense for you to adopt it. "We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework-the natural selection of random mutations-is insufficient to account for evolution... We propose, therefore, that the intrinsic dynamical structure of the epigenetic system itself, in its interaction with the environment, is the source of NON-random variations which DIRECT evolutionary change" Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1979 5) As soon as you drop the "random" strawman you will see that evolution is the STRONGEST evidence of design, since it looks at the process and not just the end result, and the human technological record bears all the salient characteristics of the biological fossil record, including a) microevolution b) macroevolution c) inheritance and diversification forming nested hierarchies d) development over time through modifications made subject to selection forces e) punctuated equilibirum

@@smitty121981 Your Paragraph 2 //The fossil record IS full of transitional forms.// Depends on what you mean by “full.” Remember, the theory predicted there would be transitional forms between every single extant species, showing a gradual transition from one species to the next. Yes, there would be some gaps in the fossil record due to the nature of the conditions needed to fossilize animals, but Darwin predicted that future discoveries would continually fill in the gaps in the record. The opposite has actually happened. We have seen the majority of all of the major body plans arising all at once in the fossil record during the Cambrian period, without any transitional forms or clear predecessors in the Pre-Cambrian period. And yet, there are fossils in those layers. This is actually what is well documented. In fact, this is what led Stephen Jay Gould to propose the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, to explain why the fossil record did NOT show the gradual transitions from ancestor species to descendant species that was predicted. In fact, the picture painted by genetics doesn’t actually support a picture of gradualism, as mentioned above in the quote from Gerd Muller’s paper. *Gradualism:* “When mutation of individual genes or even smaller entities of DNA is taken as the predominant source of variation, it seemed inevitable that phenotypic modifications should be small, because larger changes were deemed to be disruptive and unlikely to produce adaptive outcomes. The supposed randomness of genetic variation further contributed to this view. Today, all of these cherished opinions have to be revised, not least in the light of genomics, which evokes a distinctly non-gradualist picture [40]. “ And so we really have a catch-22, here. If you want to claim that the fossil record is full of transitional fossils, then that is not what the modern genetics would predict. If we don’t have transitional fossils, then gradualism is itself falsified, but that is still part of the Modern Synthesis view. Either way, the fossil record itself paints the exact opposite picture of Darwin’s branching tree of life from “one or a few forms” into all extant species. The Cambrian Explosion turns that on its head and shows novel body plans coming into existence without prior transitional forms. //Wait, because a human prediction was wrong, that suddenly means we can throw out all of the evidence?// You have raised a Straw Man, here, in two ways: (1) First by saying I’m talking about a “human” prediction. I am not. I am talking about the necessary consequences that flow from the truth or falsity of a given theory. Heliocentrism was adopted over Geocentrism because the latter made certain predictions that did not align with observations. However, it took centuries to do this because rather than throwing out Ptolemaic Geocentrism, they just kept adding ad hoc assumptions (in the form of additional Epicycles) to account for literally any possible stellar and planetary motion. In the same way, any time we don’t find what we ought to find if a given theory is actually true, we can do one of two things: (a) Add more assumptions or corollaries to make the theory align with observations better, or (b) Replace the theory with an alternative explanation that does account for the new evidence better. But what we can’t do is ignore the evidence that contradicts what we ought to see if the theory were actually true. That is not scientific. (2) The second way you are raising a straw man is in saying “we can throw out all the evidence.” What does falsification mean to you, as Karl Popper proposed as a key to formulating proper scientific theories such that are capable of being proven false? Falsification to me is exactly what I have described: Theory A, if true, predicts that we will find certain evidence, and that we will NOT find other evidence that directly undermines the theory. When we don’t find the evidence the theory predicts, but do find the evidence that directly contradicts what the theory predicted, then we do throw out the THEORY, but not the EVIDENCE. Well, “throw out” is probably a bit strong. At the very least, we DO need to re-evaluation the assumptions and mechanisms of that particular theory whose predictions have been falsified. At the very least, the THEORY must be reworked to account for the new EVIDENCE that directly contradicts it.

Your house surely is not a University

Jesus Christ is the truth, and evolution is true. Deal with it.

@@theTavis01 Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Facts! Evolution from one kind to another has never been demonstrated. Prove me wrong...

@@yaspereliyahstone5700 You're right about Jesus and wrong about evolution. Can you handle that? Evolution does *_not_* predict a "change of kinds" this is a fake strawman. Evolution predicts the *_diversification_* of "kinds" which happens solely at the species level, and speciation *_has_* been observed.

@@theTavis01 I believe that you are confused about the difference between biological evolution and biological adaptation... May I suggest asking Google for the definitions? Cheers 🕊️

I feel the same way Comeon!

What's a god?

@@aspacelex An uncreated, immaterial, powerful, personal, intelligent, self-conscious, necessary being. If God were not ALL of those things, the universe could not have come into existence.

@@robertpreisser3547 We have a pretty good idea of when the character of Yahweh was created by humans, what were their inspirations, and how the concept has evolved over time. How can you detect something that's immaterial? Every single instance of intelligence, personality, and self-consciousness that's ever been observed has been a function of a material brain. What are the functions he performs that make him necessary? The universe didn't come into existence, it started to expand.

@@aspacelex No, we don’t “know” the things you claim we do. We know when Yahweh began interacting with mankind, but you are merely *assuming* that those reports are invented by human beings. Based on what evidence? Mere similarities? All of the supposed prior influences are (a) fundamentally different in crucial ways, and (b) where similar, can be equally well explained by all humanity starting with knowledge of Yahweh (through Adam and Eve if not Noah as well) and then diverging. Mere similaritiees don’t prove any were made up, let alone all of them were. Any more than stories of the Titanic sinking can refer to actual real world events despite the similarity to a previous story about a ship named the Titan that was thought unsinkable struck an iceberg on its starboard side, and lost most passengers due to an insufficient number of life rafts. Thar story was published years before any newspapers wrote about the Titanic’s sinking. Second, you are assuming that the mind that possesses intelligence is equal to the physical brain. But that is quite simply not possibly true. All attempts to reduce consciousness to purely material processes in the brain have failed. There are fundamentally different aspects of mind states that differ from brain states in fundamental ways. The fact we can have abstract thoughts about thoughts contradicts physical reductionism, as well as the fact that reason itself cannot exist if the mind were nthing more than the brain. Every attempt to ground the mind solely in electrical impulses following an endless string of cause-and-effect events renders reason impossible. What you “know” is true would not necessarily be true. Merely what your brain happened to think at the moment, which could change completely tomorrow given different conditions. Every person who tries to make that claim is actually saying their own reason cannot be trusted to deliver actual truth. But you are also making an invalid leap of logic in any case. First of all, even if it were true that “all” examples of intelligence we know of correlated with the presence of physical brains (and it’s not true), that does not at all prove that the brains were solely responsible for the intelligence observed. That would be like saying because every single telephone conversation involved a transmitter and a receiver and wires in between those things were solely responsible for the conversations themselves. Or take this conversation: every comment thread ever recorded on KZfaq involved computers of some sort on either end. Therefore you are clearly not a human being but must be a computer, right? Of course not. But that’s the same logic error being made by concluding that since all examples of human intelligence involved a material brain, intelligence itself can only be material. That logic is invalid on multiple levels. How do you detect something immaterial? By observing it’s effect on material things, of course. Simple. All one needs to do is find some effect that is not what normally happens in the normal course of events when matter-energy interact unguided. Then it becomes a simple matter of determining if the event happened as claimed, then ruling out unguided material causes. At thar point, the intervention by an immaterial agent becomes clear. The universe didn’t come into existence it started to expand….needs clarification. What, exactly, existed prior to the onset of expansion? If, as you claim, the universe aways existed, but at some point 13 TYO “began” to expand, then that leads to the same end result. After all, if all of the matter and energy in the universe existed FOREVER prior to expanding to form our universe, then something OUTSIDE the universe had to intervene to make what had existed for a literal eternity WITHOUT expanding begin to expand. That still requires a beginning caused by an external agency’s involvement. Not even “quantum fluctuations” can save you, because if those fluctuations had failed to cause expansion for an eternity prior, they were incapable of EVER causing inflation. If there was ANY possibility of fluctuations leading to expansion it would have happened an eternity ago. The whole notion is actually nonsensical.

Yes it is. It has to be to continue to provide the elements we need.

The question is are you plugged in to the Body of Christ who is very much alive, who is the Wisdom of God the Father -or- the Body of the Beast..the collective consciousness of men, dead in trespasses and sin..unbelief!

You should have spent one afternoon learning about epistomology.

I know religious creationism is a lot more reliable !

jesus kills 25,000 children everyday through his many lethal diseases. Praise

You have no way of demonstrating that this God is even real. How about starting with this? Or is your believe in God simply faith based and your not interested in how things really are? Then anything goes!

@@derhafi do your homework, check out 'Cold Case Christianity', Dr Hugh Ross and Dr James Tour.

@@dawood121derful 'Cold Case Christianity' is intelectual vandalism. I feel really sorry for you that you listen to those fruds and liars and don't see tham for what they are.

@@derhafi really? and what are you purporting as the the "truth"?

@@dawood121derful The truth is that there is no reason to think that DNA came to be by anything else than natural causes. Simply due to the fact that according to the available evidence, there is nothing else but the natural world. Nothing supernatural has a demonstrable correaltion with reality whatsoever. The truth is that Tour is a demonstrable liar, so is the entire Discovery Institute ilk. All they do is lie and cater to the emotions of their gullible and scientifically illiterate audience in order to promete creatinism disguised as ID. Which is pseudoscientific nonsese, creationism in a wig. That is what I propose as the truth according to the available evidence....everything else is wishful thinking.

Your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

best commenton this thread. yes, because atheists' minds are dark and they can't really explain anything but seek to imitate light to deceive people

Amen! Evolution brings much glory to God.

Alhamdulillah!

Aameen

@@think-islam-channel I suspect you're the one who liked my comment, just for the record, your version of Yahweh is just as unsupported as the Christian one.

@@aspacelex No it wasn't me who liked your comment. I don't like comments that are misguided and based on subjective unsubstantiated opinions

Hey Nosegrind... that is very interesting. I've never heard the phrase "glorious ruins."

@@criticalargument8667 does carbon dating work on living things?

Some would say Adam was the smartest man in the world...

@@shredhed572 radiocarbon analysis can tell you how many carbon 14 atom are in a sample. the rest is up to interpretation.

@@criticalargument8667 May God richly bless you.

ie.. the new "vaccine" and "crispr"

computers clearly evolved over time. There has been a drastic change from an old server taking up an entire warehouse, to a supercomputer in your pocket, with a series of well defined transitional forms inbetween, developed through a process of modifications subject to selection

Algorithms based on evolution are used to generate new designs.

fossils are included in "what has been made" so evolution glorifies God.

@@theTavis01 A view most likely held only by yourself

@@bobgriffith1810 Look up the BioLogos ministry. It was started by Francis Collins who is head of the NIH and led the Human Genome Project and they share this view with me. And you are making an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Truth has nothing to do with how many people recognize it to be true.

Agree , when we look into the details of creation we can actual see design, as science progress it become obvious that there is a designer , It will become harder and more difficult to deny

@@TonixCube But when design is used as an agument to dishonestly pretend like evolution didn't happen, the concept of design then makes denying Christianity easy and desirable. And if you are going to use that analogy of a designer, evolution is the *_BEST_* evidence of design, since it looks at the process of design and not just the result, and we see evolution in *_ALL_* human designs without exception. Intelligent design is not Christian either, it's a freemason concept being used to weaken Christianty by continuing to further the false belief that evolution and the Bible are somehow allegedly not compatible.

That's total nonsense. It does *_NOT_* take faith to admit evolution is real, because we can see fossils first hand. There is mountains of actual physical evidence for evolution, unlike God who no man has ever seen. Secondly, *_WHAT'S WRONG WITH FAITH????_* Why do you act like something requiring faith is a measure of it's weakness??? I really don't like what that says about Christianity.

@@theTavis01 Actually, is does take Faith to believe in evolution. Evolution suggests an ape mutated into a human...of course at the same time...an ape of the opposite sex also mutated and produced the human race. Yet, over the last 6000 observed years, we do not have apes mutating. I might add, you can't see the wind, but I'm going to assume you believe it exists. You only feel and and see the effects of the wind. Faith- the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. Kinda like the missing links (plural) in evolution.

@@ginadorsey8270 You've obviously never studied evolution at all. And, like I asked above, *_WHAT'S WRONG WITH FAITH??_*

God is always in control ---- Praise God

Please state your evidence. There is no evidence of a God, and god, especially a Hebrew God. You might believe the faith is your evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. The Bible might be your evidence. In that case, God spoke ancient Hebrew. God "chose" those Hebrew as his people, not contemporary Americans. Was the Hebrew Bible wrong? Early Christians thought so. Christians changed passages in the bible to support their Christology. Evidence? In Isiah, the Christian, written in Greek, version says the the messiah will be born of a virgin. The original Hebrew says the messiah will be born of a young woman. In Greek culture, miraculous births were a common occurrence in their literature. In Hebrew culture, only post menopausal woman giving birth were examples of miraculous births. Greek speaking Christians changed the text of the Greek Bible to make Mary a Virgin. Gods having sex with mortal women happens all the time. Sons of God is a Greek idea, not Jewish. Christianity is a Hellenistic religion. Jesus was a Torah observing Jew. Virgins so not give birth in the Hebrew Bible, the Torah.

@@markcasebier the evidence of the Creator is every where and you are a piece of it and you know that :) read the Bible please :)

mark casebier ..............................do you know what logic is?

Just because one cannot think of an answer to a question; this doesn't mean there isn't one. It might be out of reach to humans entirely - yet still that doesn't disprove it.

You know what is not simple? A God. How did that God thing came into existence?

@@derhafi For anything to exist, something had to always exist, to have the power of existence in itself. That's what eternal means, as opposed to merely infinite or unending: God always existed, beyond even anything for "always" to describe.

@@KalonOrdona2 For something to exist.... It needs a demonstrable correlation with reality. No God proposal ever managed to present any sufficient evidence in that regard.

@@derhafi Hello Rob,....You will find that reading HIS word....the fulfilled prophesy, the ability to applied it today, the clear knowledge of the evil in the heart of man and how it got there. The real Christian challenges and questions but doesn't go to "the world" for the answer. You will never find it there.....

@@TheGravitywerks You sir, with all respect this deserves…none…believe in nonsense.

Indeed yet somehow atheist just cant seem to comprehend this...because they never even honestly researched it, they are too lazy they rather they be told what to do.

Sure, what else? Should I use Happy Potter to verify that Hogwarts is a real place?

@@darthbane2669 Actually, as an atheist myself growing up my position was largely due to Christians insisting that evolution isn't compatible. I said, OK, well I don't have any use for the Bible then. You say "because they never even honestly researched it, they are too lazy they rather they be told what to do" and that is an *_EXCELLENT_* description of young earth evolution deniers.

@@theTavis01 would you like to show an example of marco evolution please?

@@x.r.d7744 Is your google broken?