These Scientific Papers Destroy Evolution
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 05. 2024
- Is evolution an undisputed fact? Or is there more going on behind the scenes that the general public isn't aware of? What does the scientific literature actually say on the subject?
Hosts Trey and Lauren delve into this fascinating topic with Dr. Mark Stengler and Mark Stengler, Jr., in episode 16 of Creation.Live.
Here are the studies mentioned:
phe.rockefeller.edu/wp-conten...
phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-su...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
---
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every fourth Friday to catch the next episode on CZcams. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Google Podcasts. Or visit our website to find us on other platforms: www.icr.org/podcasts
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Thank you for watching the Creation.Live Podcast!
---
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: store.icr.org/
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/donate
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycenter.icr.org/ - Věda a technologie
Here are the studies mentioned:
phe.rockefeller.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced-002.pdf
phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347?via%3Dihub
Thank you!
I would have to strongly disagree with the guy who said it's not the parents or the Churches fault that kids are going into colleges unprepared.
It's have to say that's exactly whose fault it is.
I'm not condemning them, because I am one of them.
But if you have children, it's your duty to prepare them spiritually for adulthood.
Oh yeah... And that was a great video. Thank you for sharing!
And I have been saying for years that evolution was dealt its last fatal blow the minute we discovered the complexity of the cell.
There is no naturalistic explanation for how hundreds, thousands, even, of extremely specific chemical, information-rich, and electrical internal connections could have been organized and implemented to integrate with trillions of other cells to facet the whole of an anatomically diverse but completely functioning creature such as humans, bears, blue-footed boobies or any other creature you can name.
laugh·a·ble
so ludicrous as to be amusing.
@@lederereddy Yep. The cell is NANOTECHNOLOGY.
I was a member of this Institute before 30years ago. I admire your program .God bless you !!
Democrats have owned science for some time,
that is why it is all messed up.
After a Democrat names something a Theory,
they IMMEDIATELY call it a fact.
After that 97% of extorted scientists agree on the
new fact (let's call it global cooling, no lets call it
global warming, wait a minute, lets call it CLIMATE CHANGE.
Later this new FACT, all scientists MUST AGREE
or they lose their incomes mostly in the form of
grants, then they lose their positions, their homes, and cushy lifestyle.
Kinda how we play the Climate Change game and then it is
unleashed onto an unsuspecting middle and poor class
as they watch their money inflate and erode.
Then everywhere looks like a city in Venezuela
or worse yet another Democrat city.
“Evolution’s dead. Evolution’s dead, Dave. Evolution’s dead.”
- - Red Dwarf pilot episode
That is a pretty wild premise for Science Fiction!
Going to have to say brown dwarf
. Too small for fusion
***yes everything dies, everything that born will die, one poet once said "...the universe is always change taking a new quality every moment...***
The deeper they go into the building blocks of life the more complicated those building blocks become.
And?
@@JewonastickAnd follow the science of chemistry to the logical conclusion, abiogenesis is impossible.
@johnglad5 - human from dirt looks like abiogenesis. So it is possible
@@johnglad5 Science cannot conclude that something is impossible when the exact requirements are unknown....
@globalcoupledances Please show me dirt becoming human. Politely while being facetious. In the creation event God made man from dirt, matter.
Abiogenesis claims matter became life. Goes against the LAW OF BIOGENESIS.
Scientists have been trying to make life for decades using every concoction they could imagine. Basic chemistry and entropy show this to be false. The more we know about life the bigger the problem becomes.
Just the CODE OF LIFE written on DNA screams intelligent design. PTL
"If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along." C Sagan
True. Except that we're not allowed to question the efficacy of covid vaccines.
@@KenJackson_USThe efficacy, do they prevent, is obviously false. And to make it worse vaccines have been shown to cause damage in some. It may be a small percentage but if you're in that group it doesn't matter. And to top all that the drug manufacturers have immunity by law from damages done. Grace
Ask away, seek and you will find. Some things are unknowable. My God tells me to test all things and one way is to listen to all opposing views. Evaluate what they say with reason and common sense. Unfortunately many do not believe they have either. Blessings
It’s too bad Carl didn’t take his own advice.
There is a difference between skepticism and "Skepticism."
The first is healthy thinking, the second is the religion of nihilist humanism.
It would appear many people have left comments without listening as extensive reasons and scientific studies were mentioned. But not everyone is comfortable with open discussion and evidence.
It would appear many people left comments without actually reading the study... Not just the parts they picked out
Today the pastors are about tithing and being popular, it’s sad that they have set aside the power of the word or of God. Thanks for sharing.
I'm curious. From the paper ". Several convergent lines of evidence show that mitochondrial diversity in modern humans follows from sequence uniformity followed by the accumulation of largely neutral diversity during a population expansion that began approximately 100,000 years ago. " Doesn't this 100,000 years time period conflict with the Bible's 6,000 year old world or do we ignore that part of the research paper?
@@sciencerules8525maybe it's because you don't really understand the science.
The 100,000 years is arrived at by using the phylogenetic rate-they use it because they assume common ancestry with primates.
When they instead use observable mutation rates in humans (as 1 of the speakers in this video clearly said), the date lands at around 5000 years ago. This was the date that mitochondrial mutation rates initially showed, but they didn't like the results (we all know why) so they decided to use the "Monkey" rate because that gave them an age they'd like
But for argument's sake, the 100k age is granted because it's still a huge blow to evolutionary theory if all life emerged at the same time
@easyminimal_6130 Funny they refuse to consider the basis for their science is contrived.
@sciencerules8525 Did you just miss the part that says your science is based on assumptions were from chimps? Those papers are secular, and they won't budge from that atrocious starting point. But at least the papers show your views have to adjust significantly.
Could not predict that at all!
@mirandahotspring4019 Nah it does not- because it's still a secular paper that
believes were from apes and fish.
Get real dude. Mutations can't make a compost heap let alone specialised life. You're oxygen depleted or something.
@sciencerules8525 Mate, I don't care what it says, that was just my comment. Validate the context. Let's call them primates. It did not occur, and so why should it be incorporated into a study result? No transitional fossils that aren't fragments of filed down frauds.
Great video! But...
The first study seems to disagree? Haven't read the study yet, but they write the following in the header:
"Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution,
including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or
"Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events. "
Authors notes: Despite contradictory evidence we still hold our personal beliefs.
This is peak evolutionary science.
😂😂😂
The NDE prove Consciounesse to be not a brain process. That destroys Evolutionary theory. The Consciounesse can exist outside of physical body.
The organic chemistry proves that aminoacids cannot randomly build lifes relevant peptides. Never.It simply doesnt work.
Miller Stanley experiment, highly regarded by secular science,never took place in the reality. The earky earth Atmosphere were never reductional. Paolo Sossi and Team have proved that after they conducted old rock analysis .
The summary on the first page says, “almost all animal species have arrived at a similar result consequent to a similar process of expansion from mitochondrial uniformity within the last 1 to several hundred thousand years.”
All ANIMAL species came around 1 to several hundred thousand years. Not millions, saying humans came from fish.
I would even say Darwinian Evolution isn't dead, because it was never alive to begin with. i.e something can't be dead if it never lived.
@@travisbicklepopsicle I'll respond properly tonight , but for now I'll state that No1 is grossly wrong. That there are vastly more people alive today than in Darwin's time is proof of this.
Darwinism is a virus, like influenza. However your immune system gets rid of this poison, a new variant will always emerge to attack reason, logic and scientific, empirical research. It's zombie science.
Forgive me if I missed something, but I'm still confused about COI barcoding. It makes sense to me that it's useful to identify a species, but how is it used to date them? And how do they come up with a 100,000-200,000 year age for almost all the species they examined? That overshoots the creation model by quite a bit. Is there a creation science explanation for this discrepancy?
@@sciencerules8525
Thanks for the reply! Another question if you have the time: how is it that they're able to observe mutational rates in mtDNA in order to make such estimates on a longer scale? I thought the studies on bacteria mentioned in the video determined that these mutations occur (if at all) over thousands of generations which would be unobservable for organisms with longer generations.
@@sciencerules8525
I see. Thanks again!
It's because the people who conducted the study believe we came from primates. Once you ignore that their data shows evolution is a myth.
36:08 Saint Augstine is celebrated today orthodox, non-heretical churches. It is his 'feast day'-- think of a party. Imagine Christians celebrating your life and contribution to civilisation in the year 3,700!! His nationality? -- Algerian (in modern terms).
@@sciencerules8525You said it, you're an ape.😂
Where can I find the paper they are referring to so I can show it to people?
Look up dna bar code study done in 2018.. if that's the one your asking about... I read that one a while back it's a good eye opener.
@@vikingskuld How do I find the video interview with the scientists that did the study where they say they were surprised by the results? Is it on CZcams?
@@teslasnek sorry not that I'm aware of. I have seen others talk about this paper and say the same thing. Your best bet is to look the paper up and read it yourself. Doing that allows you to know what's in it and that there is no exaggerated claims. It's going to take you what a half hour to go through it. You can skip around in it if your in a hurry then come back and read it. Do you honestly think a group of evolutionists would make it so easy for you they would read that part out and basically make evolution look bad? Sorry they are not typically going to do that. I'm just glad they have been as honest with the results as they have been. Yet several in that community say well its just a bottle neck and they obviously didn't go back far enough in time to see the common ancestors. That it's not going to show them over a few thousand years. So it's all about mindset noone is going to change beliefs by one paper. Best if luck to you
We've pinned a comment with links to these studies.
@@vikingskuld
Dude logic science 101
Law of contradiction A=B impossible contradiction
Non life caused the effect of life? Really? Lets check
A non life caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of life
As a scientist I must test a hypothesis for A=B impossible contradiction that will render the hypothesis as impossible not possible
A non intelligence caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of intelligence
Dude, logic science 101 doesn't lie.
A no brain organisms prokaryotes caused evolved = B brainiac organisms like a worm
EVOLUTION is a impossible contradiction, really dude? You believe EVOLUTION is true contradiction? Your intelligence was caused by intelligence not non intelligence.😍👍😎
As shown by your own link to their paper, Stoeckle and Thaler emphatically disagree with this misinterpretation of their research. They added a comment to their paper:
Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
I think the point is that regardless of what the scientists say, the evidence isn't showing that to be true. You can agree or disagree with the video, but that seems to be the fundamental assertion. If Science has been gripped by a religious cult, you certainly won't figure that out by asking their opinion, right? Mosts cults will say they have the truth on their side, even when they're clearly delusional, (Branch Davidians anyone?) so what people say isn't a good indicator of objective truth, even if they've been labeled as a Scientist.
Thanks as always ICR. Your videos are extremely helpful.
@@TheHairyHeathenMuch truth was divulged in this video. It would be wise to make conclusions from it.
@@TheHairyHeathen Until evolution can be proven, a mechanism is needed, it should be put in the shadows of science. Thank God creationists did the Encode Project and falsified junk dna. Genetics would still be in the stone age if not for Christians.
Every time evidence comes forth that disproves evolution changes to it are made. 60 million year old blood and vessels are the latest discovery. We constantly find OOP artifacts. We find Orfan genes which have no ancestors. Fossil find after find claiming to be the Missing Link are shown to be fabrications. In geology we find immense layers of sediment in the wrong sequence. PTL
Much like many subjects interpretation is based on a consensus that is ruled by finance social and political pressures that are known to distort.
The real challenge is challengeless when people dont challenge others beliefs.
I enjoyed the discussion, but would really enjoy a more advanced discussion of the concepts and study findings. Maybe labeled as such to alert some who would feel bogged down with that, but so that others who are interested in more genetic or biological concepts could watch them.
I'm certain we can find the study online. I plan on reading it for myself. I think he said it was from The Journal of Human Evolution from 2018.
they can't afford to go into detail, because that would expose their dishonesty. They are lying. They are not representing the science accurately.
@@melanielinkous8746 they are pinned in the comments
Yep. We need actual devil's advocate-level discussion. In a quick search I found biologos had a response to the way creationists view the first article. If we're going to cite these kinds of articles to unbelievers or even take them into account ourselves as evidence, we have to be able to dig deeper.
@@davidrobinson5180
you just have to represent the papers honestly - in which case they would be useless to creationists because they affirm evolution.
Creation science and intelligent design was debunk in 2005, Dover vs. Kitzmiller. A real court case.
Newton was a creation scientist who discovered the laws of motion. Galileo discovered the motion of the earth around the sun. Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction. Need I go on.
Do you therefore believe in stupid design? Do you believe that a watch could come into existence through natural promises?
The consensus of scientists believed in bloodletting, junk dna, and abiogenesis. All have since been proved false.
Cause we all know "science" is what a lawyer decides. 🙄
So great, thank you, shared bigly!
There are only two articles here (1 and 2 are the same) where is the third?
The third isn't an article, it's the Long Term Evolution Experiment.
At the 5.29 mark you state the study said there was no inter genetic relationship among species as you would expect with the Darwinian model.
But this talk on your channel:
czcams.com/video/HHfvfgjTLDk/video.htmlsi=XpDC5ECe6UejUPI-
says at the 17.51 mark that there is an 84% similarity in DNA between humans and chimps/apes which he goes on to further explain it is impossible to evolve a human from an ape, you'd need 99% similarity.
Can you please explain are you both saying the same thing because the first talk says there is no similarity.
It's not just scraping life, but a replicating life form.
Quick question - if any scientists have actually debunked/destroyed evolution then where is their Nobel Prize? I understand that there is much peer review when it comes to scientific Nobel Prizes - or even ground-breaking scientific discoveries of any kind - so what kind of time frame are we looking at for this important news to change evolutionary theory as we currently know it?
What observation do you think would falsify evolution? If there is no possible observation that can falsify evolution, then it is pseudoscience. Real Science is falsifiable. Pseudoscience is not falsifiable.
Evolution requires: something from nothing, life from non-life and DNA adding new information, none of which have any proof. If evolution were true it would disprove a lot of engineering science including the laws of Thermodynamics!
That's a good question. Why have the elite refused to give out that noble prize? Sarcasm. The answer is or should be obvious.
A corresponding question - if any scientists have actually proved evolution then where is their Nobel Prize?
”A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
How many times has evolution been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method? Answer: Zero times.
Evolution theory has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical evidence has proved that evolution does not happen. Tens of thousands of generations have been used in tests, simulating millions of years of alleged mammalian evolution back in time. The tested fruit flies and bacteria can only produce more fruit flies and bacteria. No new body plans, no new species, no evolution. Only variation within the tested species.
Adaptive variation ("micro evolution") occurs within a species' own existing genome during the gene recombination. No new information needed.
Evolution ("macro evolution") in the Darwinian sense would need a continuous flow of qualitatively new genes to generate new life forms. Where would those genes come from?
Science has never proved that adaptive variation could lead to evolution. It is simply impossible, because "macro evolution" would need totally new genetic information to the existing DNA. The mechanisms in the "micro evolution" and the "macro evolution" (if such would exist) are totally different and not connected. That's why "micro" can not lead to "macro".
A white rabbit out of a top hat had been repeated
Does ICR ascribe to a literal 24 hour day, six days to of creation?
Yes, they do.
Excellent. Thank you
The paper your referring
Called “ Why mitochondria defines species” states at the top: Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution,
including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or “Eve” or catastrophic event, so where in the article does it show the Biblical creation story
That is just saying that the fact that these findings about evolution are coming to light does not automatically mean the belief in God. The middle way is better than just saying everything about revolution is wrong and vice versa
They don't care, they simply jerry-pick any scientific study to make their claims that "evolution is dead". They've been making that claim for years. They thought they "killed" evolution when they came up with their Intelligence Design claim. Which went know where & was proven to be simply creationism to be used to push the Christian god (and only the Christian god) in schools.
I find that one of the most compelling arguments *against* the idea of an intelligent designer (i.e. God) who created all the species as they are is the way the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve looks like in different animals.
The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain with the muscles of the larynx. In humans it does so by going from the brain down to the chests, looping around the heart and going all the way back up again to the larynx. Why that big detor? The theory of evolution can give a perfectly conclusive explanation for this. In fish the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain to the gills by also looping around the heart, but in fish that is in fact the shortest route. When fish went on land and evolved into amphibians they grew a neck and their gill arches turned into the larynx. A truly intelligent designer would have scrapped his old design from the fish, toss out the looping around the heart path and connect the nerve directly from brain to larynx. But that's not how evolution works. Unless there is sufficient evolutionary pressure the process of evolution never goes back and changes existing structures. Making the nerve just a bit longer is not enough of a disadvantage to do so. So that's what happened. All the way up to the giraffe, whose brain is 6 feet (1,8 meter) removed from the heart so this nerve has to be twice that long to go all the way down to the chest and then all the way back up again to reach their voice box. Intelligent design proponents can give no explanation for this insanity, except "God works in mysterious ways".
i cannot explain why the laryngeal recurrent nerve is designed the way it is. but can you explain why the fossil record does not document the evolution of this nerve from one organism to another?
@@hatchet3755 It's very, very rare that delicate soft tissue like nerves are preserved in fossils. It does happen, look up '520 million-year-old fossilised nervous system' for one example, but I'm unaware of fossil samples were this specific nerve was preserved. But when one is found I would be very surprised if it wouldn't show the nerve using the same needlessly complicated path it does in modern animals. Except for fish, where it is still the most sensible path.
Edit: Look, it's good to believe in God! I do. Faith gives us the stability and hope we need in our lives. I believe God is a genius with a masterplan who laid the foundations of life billions of years ago and used the process of evolution that gloriously lead to our creation. Amazing!
What I don't do is take scripture literally. The bible was written by humans about 1,900 years ago. Yes, the various authors where inspired by the Lord, but except for the ten commandments He didn't dictate to them what to write word for word. So they interpreterd His visions of Genesis as best they could with the limited knowledge they had. They didn't knew about DNA, enzymes, mutations and all the other stuff about biology humanity only discovered millennia later. They only understood _that_ He had created them, but not exactly how. For them he really did work in mysterious ways. But we know better now. That is what I believe.
not understanding a design choice and not having any design are two different things, OP
@@bany512The thing is we do understand the why, because we understand the how. God used the processes of evolution to create all the plants, animals and ultimately us. Scripture says that creation was a proccess. God didn't just snap his fingers and poof, there everything was. No. Instead He commanded the earth/nature to make the animals. Inspired by the Lord the authors of the Bible wrote: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24). Only the old Hebrew didn't yet have the understanding we have to today. So they couldn't understand His full meaning. We now know that God used the workings of evolution to carry out his will. At least for that part we now better understand God's creation. We no longer have to say: It happend through God's mysterious ways.
The initial creation of life itself however still still eludes us. But over time we will figure this one out as well. After all He gave us the free will, curiosity and ingenuity to understand the world around us. So we shouldn't squander those gifts by getting stuck on the level of knowledge from 2,000 years ago.
@@uzul42 I am confused, you started your OP with "most compelling argument against ID" and now you are talking about theistic evolution ? which is it ? do you believe in God or not ?
lastly, I dont care about any form of macro-evolution since we can not see/replicate or otherwise prove it.
How is this study with 120 species the largest genetic study? In terms of comparing different species? Cause on a gene per gene level it must have been a quite simple study if it only compared the mitochondrial genome which is only 20 genes in humans compared to nuclear genome which is at least 20000 genes.
So glad I found this channel. You should interview Dr. Kurt Wise!
Why are we mammilian? I would have expected God to have created us in our own unique class and not have to share the same category as Apes, Pigs, Sheep etc
Yeah, why wouldn't God ask any of us "What we think about how we should be created?".
"God created man in his own image"...apparently
@@Emiliocab47 beauty is in the eye of the beholder, apparently
His image is more than physical. Smart one.
Who had buildings and shapes the land with ideas, expresses themselves and can guide some animals to replicate it.
Knows right from wrong as animals simply exist not really knowing until humans teach them...
Like an ape will rape a man and to it... it's just what it does as an animal even if they can think kinda like us. And that actually happened to a man at zoo.
A dog...They just hump whatever even girl dogs do it which does nothing.
Will even mate with things they can't impregnate and don't have the concept of it or just don't care.... Could even be a non living teddy bear...
Humans are nothing like the animals that so many want to be equal to.
People condition themselves or get conditioned to not respond to the thoughts saying stop doing that it's wrong or bad....
Animals get conditioned to be orderly and follow right as wrong may be viewed the same.. Doesn't like it but doesn't care like humans either...
Camels even chew cactus needles like they don't notice. They do they just don't care it gets water and food and they can handle it. Sort of sometimes not great going through...
@@Blazeww Some animals look after their young, mourn their dead, look after their injured family/group. They don't need a God to do these things
I love love love this!
Mics are way too close to the people's mouths. This is such a great discussion, but the mouth noises made it super hard to listen to.
It's fun to listen to: Grown ups trying to skew science to fit creation. LOL
Question: why does the first paper state this at the top:
“Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.”
How can they come to a different conclusion than Mark? (I’m not educated enough in this topic to read the paper and understand it, but I can understand how Darwinian evolution would be impossible.)
I read the same text on the article. I posted that 3 days ago because I had missed your comment
A fact is that the imaginary First Cell (Universal Common Ancestor/UCA) could not have had enough genetic information for millions and millions of new life forms.
@jounisuninen - 1/64 of mutations create new genetic information
Why dont he say that dinos are just lil lizards that are 1000 yrs old to be dino size. . That 1000 yrs cant happen in evolution. .
Public education did its best to convince me that Darwin and evolution was true. However, before I even became a born again Christian I found evolution to be unscientific and ridiculous. In High School Biology class I recall my teacher giving a brief summary of how the universe and life began and he made no mention of God. I raised my hand and asked him about where God fits in and he mumbled a bit and said something like well: we can't talk about that in class. Wow, what an eye-opener that was for a teenager to hear.
Fake story or idiotic teacher?
@sciencerules8525 Still living with your parents and playing pokemon it seems. Wow
@@sciencerules8525 Except # " we don't know" is not evidence you can be proud of either.
@@sciencerules8525 If you want to learn the scientifically verified facts go and study science instead of listening Darwinist preachers in government financed schools.
@@sciencerules8525 "If you want to learn the scientifically verified facts..."
"A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science
How many times has evolution been repeatedly observed or experimentally measured, getting positive empirical evidence? Answer: Not once.
Evolution has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical test has proved that evolution can not happen. In a long test of 72 000 generations of bacteria the result was only more bacteria. Nothing else but bacteria. The same goes with fruit flies. During 100 years and thousands of generations of empirical tests simulating millions of years of mammalian evolution - no evolution, no new body plans, no new species, only intraspecific variation.
Of the three studies mentioned, the first two are just two references to the same study. Here is how Stoeckle and Thaler prefaced their study: "Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years. This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or "Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events."
The last "study" noted is by a couple of mechancal engineers. Now, that by itself doesn't mean their study is junk, but one does wonder why the Institute for Creation Research searches out these studies, while ignoring studies by biologists and geneticists.
A programme on the tacit, unspoken presuppositions that underlie all dating, distance, etc., measurements would probably be the most effective bombshell you could drop into evolution.
Just watched something like that- I think Answers in Genesis did that. 3 main suppositions that can't be verified/controlled for
Keep whistling. The evidence for evolution is vast and overwhelming.
Creationists have been mewling for decades about its immanent demise...it's still here and going nowhere.
@@travisbicklepopsicle You don't understand that Aristotle is the foundation of biology. So 😂😂.
At this moment I cannot find any references where one can see these studies. It would be great to have a list attached to this video.
We've pinned a comment with links to these studies.
EVOLUTION is A=B impossible contradiction
A prokaryotes with DNA that reads never make a nucleus or mitochondria or mitosis or meiosis caused evolved the contradiction effect from nothing in DNA = B eukaryotes with a nucleus and mitosis and meiosis and mitochondria from DNA from prokaryotes that read never mitosis or meiosis , never a nucleus and never mitochondria as demonstrated in labs studying prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
SOMETHING FROM NOTHING DOCTRINE A=B IMPOSSIBLE CONTRADICTION
A nothing caused = B the contradiction effect of something
This is A=B illogical impossible contradiction period. Any science that is A=B is FALSE SCIENCE. EVOLUTION depends on non existent dna to cause the next species with different DNA from its host, ie. Prokaryote evolved into a eukaryote.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT
LOGIC SCIENCE 101
LAW OF CONTRADICTION A=B IMPOSSIBLE CONTRADICTION
A non intelligence caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of intelligence
This is a false SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS that can never be true.
A a DNA non brain organism caused = B a DNA brain organism contradiction
This is an IMPOSSIBLE CONTRADICTION HYPOTHESIS, why do scientists ignore A=B impossible contradiction and claim A=B is possible? Smoke another bowl Einstein's.😍👍😎
@@icrscience
GOD IS A PACIFIST DOCTRINE
based on logic science 101
My argument
Law of contradiction A=B impossible contradiction
A god is a non-pacifist that said thou shalt kill
B god is a pacifist that said thou shalt not kill
To avoid A=B impossible contradiction concerning god
A isn't=to B objective logic
EITHER A god is a non-pacifist that said thou shalt kill , moral just and legal
OR B god is a pacifist that said thou shalt not kill , moral just and legal
Not both to avoid A=B impossible contradiction
Closing argument
Your honor if A God is a non-pacifist that said thou shalt kill is moral just and legal, then B God is a pacifist that said thou shalt not kill MUST BE IMMORAL UNJUST AND ILLEGAL, to avoid God being A=B an impossible contradiction.
Only killing would be legal and god would exterminate humans and then commit suicide because killing is moral just and legal and non killing is immoral unjust and illegal. GOD IS A PACIFIST JUDGE NEVER GUILTY OF KILLING ANYONE BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES.😍👍😎
At 4.00 minutes info on the papers is mentioned, I found them in minutes
It's very helpful to have tools and information which we can use to share the good news with.others.
An entertaining and easy-to-understand conversation about Genesis creation and evolution debate is the book Axis of Beginning.
I hope one day we finally see intelligent design/ creation appear in science text books as an evidence based knowledge. How many more years we should wait for this to happen ?
Great video. R.I.P. evolution.
Yea it's easy to convince people when you leave out 75% of a study 😂 my god you people are seriously hilarious
@@debbieburton938 Evolution is a pagan religion wrapped in pseudoscience.
@@debbieburton938 do you think science can determine truth? Do you think a person like Dr Fauci can be science? You have been deluded by the great deluder
@@cjgrysen I just can't with you people 😂 science does a pretty good job at finding out the truth.. Fauci oh dear I'm not a dumb American..why do you people think everyone on the Internet is American.. It really does show the educational divide... Why are Americans so dumb compared to the rest of the world... I would honestly like to know.. I find it fascinating how one country has completely screwed up on educating the population..what is it sweatpea.. Masks?? Tell you what when you can explain barrier nursing and how it works.. You may.. May just have a argument.. The fact that you choose not to read the entire study and believe those cherry picked.. Fallacies is all I need to know about your... Opinion on anything "scientific" read a book...Last time I checked Fauci wasn't a evolutionary biologist so why you bringing him into it.. Clowns
@@cjgrysen okay here we go AGAIN.... Evolution does not depend on Darwin for a start. Darwin got many things wrong but being in the 1800s he had no way to test his theories.. He wasn't even the first to think of evolution., he was just the first to write it down.. You can remove Darwin and it changes NOTHING.. All life came at the same time this is normal it's natural and happened multiple times.. We have a very fragile ecosystem. You could have something as simple as a virus taking out a small amount and a entire ecosystem can collapse.. You are completely ignoring all the life that came before and the 1 in 10 that was here before us.. Maybe if you hid all the fossils and specimens around before modern day you may get away with it.. The actual study proved evolution if you actually bothered reading it.. You going to hide all the transitional fossils??.. In fact the people who did this study literally put in the first line.. Our study is grounded in and strongly supporters Darwins observations.. They found the older the specis tend to have a greater average difference in mitochondria DNA.. Making sense as generic adaptations tend to accumulate over time.. Which can lead groups of individuals within a species to diverge into entirely new species.. When they do mitochondria DNA is notabley different.. Mitochondria dna is hard to date they have different mutation rates from the rest of the genome.. Tracing the Linage back to one individual does not mean that individual was the only person alive at that time.. Only that the genetic lineage coalesced that it cannot be traced back further due to evolving emerging new species.. You look at a family tree you see how many people never produce and progeny. They may die young never marry or never produce male offspring..so there lineage will collapse.. Real lineages don't coalesce quickly.. Unless something out of the ordinary happens.. When they do coalesce always due to stochastic processes... The authors of this study said.. The reason for clustering within species and separation between species is a bottleneck event ( a population crash for all species that essentially reset mitochondria dna) we already know population crashes have happened throughout history.. Either from catastrophic events like the dinosaurs.. Viruses, ice ages volcanic activity ecosystem collapse.. Meaning if the ecosystem collapses other species cannot keep up with the loss of food or habitat.. Bit like a domino effect.. Also they can only really trace back humans as not enough DNA from other lifeforms to make a conclusion... So goodbye creation 👋 and also.. So where did people go before the bible.. Where did the people in valhalla, svarga, elysium, waheguru, hades, pacha, xibala, ya ha, wakan tanka, summerland, tian, Takaamanohara go once the concept of heaven came along.. Was they allowed to leave there religion's "heaven" these are from religion's before and current... Amazing isn't it.. There is ZERO evidence for your god.. The problem is YOU don't understand science... You would rather believe in some imaginary being.. Because a book written long after the events by anonymous sources tells you to.. There is evidence for all these other religions because people believed for 1000s of years before "god" came along....
I do not need evidence, but it's always nice to be supported in our belief ;-)
I don't need evidence bit I do love hearing evidence that proves athiests to be nothing more than lost son's who are using athiesm as their " distant land" out of The Father's sight
Amen!!!!
Faith is not blind. Rather, it is based on the realities that are seen, that proves the promises that are said. That is what’s straightens our Hope. So hope is the fruit of our faith. 😊❤
@@michaela.kelley7823Atheist here, doing just fine in that far away land.
Oh, and you really got to see or read something besides the INSTITUTE for CREATION RESEARCH!!!
It would be wonderful if churches would be preaching what is revealed here as it would certainly qualify as “equipping the saints for the work of ministry”. Instead there are men in the church who would be offended that there is a woman participating in this discussion because of some of the things St. Paul said against women teaching.
That was a cultural thing, most women then did not have an education, women were not allowed to study Torah.
Would you guys take the time to debunk the « Answers to creationist nonsens! Evolution Wins… Again! » by MythVision Podcast? Who’s right about micro/macro evolution? Thanks!
The micro\macro question is only referenced by creationists and others who don't understand evolution. Biologists do not distinguish between micro and macro, the only difference is the time scale upon which the allele changes occur.
time scale, ouh yes, the almighty time scale that magically transforms rocks into cells 😂😂😂
Embracing the lie is easier than accepting a coming Judgement.
All these Creationists lie.
One would think God would disapprove of lies - even when they are in His name!.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@user-xp4fm2st8u you are absolutely correct... woe to the inhabitants of the Earth for Satan has been cast down to you filled with rage, for he knows his time is short... Look around. Deception, violence, hate and immorality are everywhere... Christians teach many false things... They themselves are not entering the kingdom of GOD and are preventing those who are trying.
@@Mxxx-ii9bu One truth is the lake of fire🔥 is not torment for ever and ever but rather the second death where body and soul are destroyed forever... So you can stop with the synchronized swimming lessons. It will be somewhat quick and absolute. 👍
Perhaps one of the reasons some colleges haven't started teaching this is because they're beholden to their accrediting organization. Nearly all accrediting organizations require a certain amount of evolution to be taught, regardless of whether the teacher wants to or not. Colleges fear not being labeled as accredited because they might lose their student base due to potential slandering.
So once again, follow the money. I wonder who's behind the funding and accreditation?
@@MatthiasOfEvangelismos
NAS? Which is made up of 90% atheists that, up until recently, were mainly educated white men.
Not to say Atheists are racist, but Darwinism has some roots in saying black people were less evolved....
@@mirandahotspring4019 I'll admit it is hard telling someone that what they've been taught their entire life is not true. Rather than tell you that, I'll start off with something a little easier. If you're so convinced that evolution is true, then answer me this, why do the following all believe in God as the creator: Frances Bacon, Johanne Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linneaus, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, Samuel F.B. Morse, Charles Babbage, John Herschel, Richard Owen, Louis Agassiz, James Joule, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, William Thompson-Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, James Clerk Maxwell, John Ambrose Fleming, George Washington Carver, William Mitchel Ramsay, William Ramsay, Wernher Von Braun, Arthur E. Wilder-Smith. This is just a small list of the many more scientists who believe in creation. You might notice a lot of these names are the founding fathers of our natural laws in the textbooks. Secular scientists are a bunch of loser scientist wanabies who are funded by the government.
@@mirandahotspring4019
The first paper sheds doubt on all the historical claims of evidence.
There's no proof, only a philosophy of bottlenecks.
The 100,000-200,000 year old claim is likely bogus, since dating methods use a confirmation bias and assumptions to "guide" the desired dates.
There's a secular paper that shows that dating methods used without evolutionary bias actually date things way much earlier than expected. Why hasn't that been broadcast yet?
If you can't admit why, I'll encourage you to stay away from the Kool aid if they tell you it accelerates your personal evolution. 🤣🤣😞😞😞
Possibly, but the main reason it is not taught by colleges is that none of these creationist claims are true.
Before building a hospital building, someone draws up a very complicated blueprint of where every component is to be located. Then the men who actually build and assemble the building, read that blueprint, so they will know exactly where every component is to be located. So when a human is conceived and starts to form, who reads the DNA code?
World is full of gods made by man. Only one God is manifested in Bible. Only one God took human form and walked with us. There are many other religions with their holy scriptures, but none of them give a description of world creation and beginning of life that would match with the discoveries of secular science. Not that all discoveries of the secular science are correct! The secular science rather comes behind the Bible.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that all matter decays by time and advances towards maximal entropy i.e. maximal disorder / maximal equilibrium. That is the principal direction of all matter and it can only temporarily be stopped or reversed by using the continuously diminishing free energy. This means no abiogenesis and no evolution. This is what Bible predicts and this is what we see. God's deeds and the discoveries of honest human science are in total harmony.
Sun is immensely bigger than a light bulb so it just takes more time to burn out - but burn out it does, and after that there will be no free energy for the earth anymore. So there are no miracles, just the way how God created our universe and how He will roll it up. This all is told in Bible:
Hebrews 1:10-12
10 He also says,“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”
Thermodynamics is working all the time just as God intended - “they will all wear out …”. Bible told thousands of years ago the fact which evolutionists still don’t understand - there is no evolution. Just entropy and devolution. The Law of Entropy rules the whole universe. That's why we are heading towards the universal heat death where the universal temperature is near 0°K and there's no free energy anymore. All this goes like the Bible says.
Genesis tells what science is trying to discover. Accordingly, the deeper science advances the more it discovers, and the more it discovers the more it proves of Genesis. Genesis tells the work of God, not just the work of a vague Intelligent Designer. The Intelligent Designer indeed has name - Jesus Christ. He is not a religion but the Truth.
I prefer believing in something that is NOT scientifically proven non-existent (God) than in something that IS scientifically proven non-existent (abiogenesis and evolution).
Atheists do not have the magic wand to make their visions become reality. Instead, they use their magic wand to make themselves believe in their own fairy tale world.
First RNA-polymerase reads and copied the code. Then ribosomes read that copy and assembles what is written
@@mirandahotspring4019 isn't duplicate = copy?
So my church will not give me an answer on a literal 6 days of creation. Do people think I should change churches?
I wouldn't be satisfied with a church that trusts in the establishment more than God's word.
@@truthbebold4009 that is my thought too. How much can you grow in Christ when you can’t believe what he said.
Experiment to find the Truth
Have any of these guys debated Darwinian/Scientific scholars? I’d be interested to see how their arguments fare
Have any debates with Darwinian dreamers ever eventuated in an intelligible display of evidence that does not reveal their core data as being " we don't know" ?
Their arguments would fare about as well as a grape would fare against a steamroller. But nearly every Christian would consider the debate a SLAM DUNK in favor of Christianity. 🤣
@rboland2173 The imbecile level integrity of your troll comment shows you're loitering because you're God curious but haven't got the skill to talk technical evidence to defend your views. But you feel better now you've had your attention seeking dopamine fix and used emojis. Not classy. Not intelligent. J
@@rboland2173 Only imbeciles use emojis. Did you face palm yourself after realising? J
@@rboland2173I mean atheists do the same thing all u have to hear is “I’m not convinced” or claims aren’t “evidence aren’t claims” and it’s a slam dunk. Btw I’m not a Yec
Thank you so much for all your hard work, and revealing the truth.
APR4U
"Truth?" You keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
@@Mxxx-ii9buis truth not fact?
@mirandahotspring4019 Hey Miranda- the paper is secular, they won't adjust their starting point for ages to report on.
You're quite sure your great nanna climbed out of a tree? Sad
@@mirandahotspring4019You missed the point, all species evolved at a point in the near past compared to hundreds of millions of years. That proves evolution is false.
That bottleneck matches up with Noah's Flood in the Bible. My understanding is that 100-200k number has been reduced to match up with the Flood. Grace
@@travisbicklepopsicle You wish
I fully agree that pastors need to be educated to teach especially the young people to prepare them for what they will be taught in college
Dr. John Sanford peer reviewed paper : Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome along with his colleague disproved Fisher .
Interesting information about scientific studies, which can get especially young students away from their habitual thinking about Darwin and evolution.
Evidence is what is needed.
Better get them while they're young. Best at the Santa Claus stage.
Well said. Looks like you picked up some imbecile fans in your comments.
@@wooddoc5956 Children have been fooled more than enough with "evolution". Evolutionary thinking is based on the assumption that random mutations create new biological (genetic) information which is useful for species. That is wishful thinking. Scientists have discovered that only 1 mutation out of 1000 000 mutations is potentially useful [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.]
Even that potentially useful mutation has never produced useful changes to the body plan of an organism.
@travisbicklepopsicle This comment of yours goes without saying. It's very clear most of you barely have two thoughts going on up there let alone ever having gratitude and reverence for the life we have been gifted with.
Praise The Lord thank you for your work lets keep spreading the news.
The level of intellectual dishonesty in the majority of the comments below are staggering. Instead of, 1. asking specific questions or, 2. making a specific charge and counterargument of something contained in the video or in the papers linked in the video, there are just a bunch of loudmouths trying to incite anger and argument. STUDY, and until you can do one of the two things listed above, try not to show your ignorance so blatantly by making a bunch of rude comments about nothing at all. You're like a bunch of kids having a "yes it is, no it's not!" shouting match with your brother or sister.
@@sciencerules8525 The first question you need to ask before you comment on another person's post is, "Who is this person speaking to?" But since it wasn't obvious to you, I'll answer it for you. I was only speaking to those individuals whose comments were NOT specific questions. No one else. So before you tell me that I need to read all the comments before I say what I said, you need to understand what I said.
@@surrenderdaily333 Demonstrate your position is true and win the argument.
Physics teaches there is no such thing as objectivity because we are all literally one, the big ONE. That is because quarks are constantly bursting forth spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons. These words come from the book The Quantum World written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. In this book is also a diagram of simultaneous time.
How do these words make us ONE? Picture those quarks bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light. Each form you see and don't see is bursting forth as these quarks of light. As these quarks burst forth, their light is streaming outwards, intersecting all other forms of light as they also stream outwards as quarks of light.
The book Hands of Light written by the physicist Barbara Brennan wrote that we are eternal, electromagnetic, holographic and multidimensional. In this book can be seen many pictures/diagrams of what we look like out of these bodies as electrical energy fields and holograms. When atoms are neither solid nor physical, then what do you have? A holodeck full of images. Electrical images much like on the screen of a computer or TV or phone.
Creation is constant.
I would have appreciated a more in-depth discussion of the first paper. In this era, it's not enough to trust that this guy is right. I'm not saying he's wrong...but we can't just go around saying "This guy says this paper destroys evolution". We have to deal with the replies as well from the evolutionists. Since it's been out 5 years, there has been discussion about this that this video could have used and responded to.
Good reminder to do your own research. Be a scientific Berean so to speak
@@anthonybasile6079 - Not enough information was given. Publication and year is insufficient. A proper citation is needed - author(s), title, perhaps full date.
***David "we can take the horse to the water, but we can not force the horse to drink"***
I wish I could give multiple thumbs up to this. What a fantastic episode and what an encouragement!
@mirandahotspring4019 You have a head full of lies. The paper shows they know nothing genuine in evolution. It can't just chop and change- you don't seem to care as long as you think there's no designer and creator.
Take a good look at yourself. You're not related to a moth. Did chimps come from fish?
I don't believe you've ever had an original thought of your own.
@@Moist._Robot how so?
@@Moist._Robot
So tell us what the truth is.....
@@ronfox5519 He can't because evolutionists never can.
Physics is the basis for all modern natural sciences. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Evolution theory is against the discoveries caught from empirical studies of natural science.
According to professor Laughlin, the observations which are used to justify evolution theory are questionable at best, and at worst they are completely false. Laughlin says that empirical natural science does not need the evolution theory and the evolution theory does not get support from empirical natural science.
Thumbs up lies?
One question still needs to be answered. Actually two. First. If something can’t come from nothing then where did God come from and don’t tell me “ God was just always there” . That defeats your own argument. And secondly, What is considered a “world view”? Anything that is not Christianity... like Islam or Buddhism. Or is it Darwinism specifically?
(1) I favor emergence. I go into more detail in my Letter, but if you think of the very first thoughts of the very first ever entity to exist, it might be equivalent to...
- "I" (awareness), then
- "I am" (awareness of itself as existing)
Then what? For higher thoughts, it would need the ability to self-reflect, and also to think about Other. But there is no Other, so this would cause, out of necessity, a kind of split, but still within the same "neural network" as it were. It would be a second "I am" that could now communicate with the first "I am."
In Exodus 3, God reveals his name to Moses as: "I AM THAT I AM."
This can also be translated as "I am because I am."
In other words, God was the first to exist ("I am"), and he exists and is who he is because of a second "I am."
This is also in perfect harmony with Christian theology, where the Word is effectively the second "I am" and becomes flesh in the form of Jesus, who said, "before Abraham existed, I am"... whereupon the Jews picked up stones to stone him.
This doesn't explain what God is made of (although scripture says that he fills the heavens and the Earth, so the question is... what are the heavens and the Earth made of? 😉), but it can potentially explain the "origin" of God.
This conflicts with what some Christians believe, but it's in harmony with scripture, and also explains mysteries such as the Trinity. Bottom line is, they were right to say the Word was "begotten" somehow yet not "created." This describes emergence!
Christian is one world view.
This study ... this study ... What study? Please give a citation. Publication and year is insufficient. Please provide author(s) and title, perhaps full date.
Honesty is how Satan loses power. And maybe confessing any transgressions against others. Like, embellishing to make a point. Or... coveting those grandmothers' dishes in an estate settlement causing conflict in the family. If the follower of the Way goes to the one offended and asks for forgiveness... and restores that relationship, then the follower will have a clear conscience. This is what the Holy Spirit uses to bring us out of our flesh ways. And those who have clear consciousness will not have their faith shipwrecked. Or you can do it, man's ways, and get the new experimental shock therapy. You may forget why your conscience is bothering you, but you still feel the guilt of transgressing. Therefore, God's Word is true... guilt is a function of the spirit and not the mind.
Everything under the Sun goes back to the beginning: Creation. Now, evil man is destroying the Earth...just as foretold. Keep your eyes on Jesus.
I and my father are one.
@@JessicaSunlight Amen💕
How is man destroying the earth? As far as I can see we are destroying ourselves boath physically and spiritually. The spiritual is the wise of the two.
I love your faith. But keeping your eyes on Christ has to do with Moses lifting up the serpent. Now days people are worshiping the end times instead of the creator. We must worship the creator, whom we steadily look to for the forgiveness of sins, and sanctifiction of the soul. We do this patiently laboring until His return. Not stoping the labor because we supposedly know it's the end. Because we do not know when the end is and the final trumpet sounds.
@@87DAM1987 I'm not stopping. Are you?
Every day I work for my Master. We are to watch and wait: that does not necessarily denote complacency (?)
The Stoeckle-Thaler paper has an author's note added that states that the study supports Darwinian evolution. See video description for links.
If you want keep you job you better state that your study supports Darwinian evolution whether it does on not.
Biology Professor Loses Contract in Creationism Dispute
By Courtney Leatherman
APRIL 14, 2000
A biology professor accused of teaching creationism at Central Oregon Community College isn’t likely to be doing so next year. Administrators have recommended against renewing his contract. This just one example among so many others.
If any "scientist" LOL working for the Institute of Creation Research or Answers in Genesis better state that the Bible can never be wrong no matter what their research concludes, or they are UNEMPLOYED. @@jounisuninen
Kent Hovind explained how the persecutions happen in the schools infested by evolutionists. Read the book: Slaughter of the Dissidents Paperback - Illustrated, April 8, 2011
by Jerry Bergman.
Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics.
The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.
Fear is great among evolutionists ... It is the sign of feebleness.
What you fail to account for is the case where there can be a god but that he is so intelligent that he has already created the seed of both life and evolution in the physics of the universe at the beginning of time. Thus creation, abiogenesis and evolution could be all true.
Why would a loving God want to use the Cruel method of natural selection?
@@Moist._Robot I don't know why you turned on your parents
@@wooddoc5956 Natural selection via what method? A merrit system? A social pecking order? Or did it need to have been death driven? How did it do it wood ?
Abiogenesis & Evolution of the species are complete nonsense.
The Function, Intelligence, Mind & Information Categories ... prove .. the Universe & Life are NATURAL Functions ... composed entirely of NATURAL functions ... and ... can only be made by a ... timeless, infinite, UNNATURAL intelligence ... due to the information every Function possesses especially ... purpose & design.
Everything in the Universe clearly has ... purpose ... processes, properties, design ... including space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy which is what the Universe is made of.
The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System (Function) with finite matter & energy and increasing entropy(time & Laws of nature)
All thermodynamic Systems ... originate from ... the surrounding System ... which must proved the space, time, matter, energy, Laws of Nature ... and ... intelligence to exist & to function.
Man believes in "the gods" because Man is a Natural Intelligence with the Mind & intellect .... living in a world where everything is a ..... Function.
See. Evolution & Abiogenesis are nonsense.
That is called theistic evolution. I used to be one of the kind but I can't believe in it anymore. Of course I can't know which god you refer to. But if you mean God, then why should he use billions of years to create everything? Why would our benevolent Jesus Christ use evolution - a way of endless suffering and endless deaths? Bible tells it all happened in 6 days and I haven't seen any scientific evidence to disprove it. In fact, now we know through genetic research that all flora and fauna was born in the same very short time.
Due to the added note of the authors to the study, seems that they themselves can't accept the outcome of their study still firmly believe to darwinian evolution despite the highly improbability of macroevolution.
See gutsick gibbon for the rebuttal. This guy is bunk.
How do you make the jump from positing a creator, to The Lord Jesus Christ in one fell swoop?
Isn't there a creator in Judaism, Islam, native religions?
Amen
It’s very important!
“Contending for the faith”🙏🏻 = veracity of the Bible
So very important.
PS God wouldn’t have made the Bible so amazing if didn’t want us to explore as much as possible!!!
People can "explore the Bible" all they want to, as long as they reach the proper conclusion. If not, they burn in eternal fire. "Scientists" working for The Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis must SIGN A STATEMENT (as a condition of their employment)
that none of their "findings" can contradict the Bible. In other words, these scientists BEGIN WITH A CONCLUSION then cherry-pick "facts" to support their presumptive conclusion (their narrative). That said, if Christianity is all about "FAITH" rather than secular "knowledge" then why do Christians get so excited when they think (incorrectly) that they have some SCIENTIFIC PROOF of their beliefs? They cannot have it both ways! Either actual big-boy science is pointless because "God did it" or science does makes sense, but only when it supports the Biblical/Christian narrative. So which is it? Why try (and fail miserably) to use science to prove Christianity when Christianity is the opposite of science and is a "faith based" worldview?
Got to love how every one of the papers they cited clearly supports evolution (with the first literally being published in a journal called Human _Evolution_ ) and yet they still pretend that questions about the mechanisms and extent of evolution are enough to undermine the best-supported theory in all of biology.
Hey, if the facts aren't on your side, you need to be "creative".
Give this guy more time. . That's what darwinists need. . More time. . Like a trillion yrs to evolve. .only way their formula works. . Our creator put life here in 6 days. . Factual. . Need help or more time ??
@@nickstreeservice4454 Ah, yes, a creation myth so factual that all observable evidence refutes it lol.
@@dinohall2595 which story book do read ?? 160 yr old darwins "orgin of life" ?? Story. . No fact. . Nova is fact. . Let there be light. .
@@nickstreeservice4454 Charles Darwin wrote _On the Origin of Species._ Not the origin of life. And while he made some speculations about life originating in "a warm little pond", he did not include them in his books, because he realized he had no evidence for them. What he did have evidence for, and that overwhelming, detailed, and falsifiable, was the evolution of life on Earth.
And in the 164 years since the publication of the _Origin,_ there has been a flood of evidence from many different fields- genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, anatomy, ERVs, etc, that Darwin was right on the whole: life evolved through inherited changes (Darwin didn't know what mutations are) and natural selection.
But believe what you want. I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely.
...being a born-again Spirit-filled Spirit-led Torah-guarding German Jewish follower of the Lamb, going wherever He goes and for many years now 🤔... I enjoyed that ..Hebrews 13:8 Yahshua Messiah the same yesterday, today and forever...
Science is the study of all organic life. We know there is a Creator because we are here to prove Creation.
"Life can only come from life." This was proved by Louis Pasteur. "Creative information can only come from a creative mind." This is proved by the computer programmers. "Nothing comes from nothing." This is proved by the thermodynamics.
Logically this can be deduced as: "Life came from the living God." "Creative DNA information came from the creative God." "Universe came from God’s Word." Everything is exactly as Bible tells. It is of course sad that atheists have such difficulties in logical thinking.
@@jounisuninen ***nothing means nothing , if you could remove everything from a space this space would not exist. Anything that exits is ocupying the space of something that existed there, seems impossible for us to understand, wich is normal as we can not know everyting, it transcends our physical nature, yes we are in trouble to grasp it, religiosity is exact that, there are things that we feel but do not understand, that is wen GOD comes about, being a spirit the time and the space has no meaning, it is also called the ""alpha" and the "omega" the beggining and the end. We are again in trouble but now we have something more God being a SPIRIT IS ETERNAL he can create the INFINIT that is the vehicle to creat all that is phisical. Mind you that Eternal and Infinit is not the something.***
Amen ICR! The ministries provided by creationists are vital and crucial to leading people to Christ 🙏🙏🙏
Another good video from ICR.
I think I just threw up a little…
@@markl8679 As long as you're okay.
Totally…
Good.
"macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly IMPLAUSIBLE (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is NOT salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms."
Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology
Volume 172, August 2022, Pages 24-38
Darwinism wasn't really about evolution. Its natural selection, which IS an objectively observed phenomenon.
Surely there is natural selection. Natural selection however can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution.
Natural selection could produce evolution if it could deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not found in the population. Natural selection however delivers nothing, it just destroys individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or too rare) which means that on population level everybody's genome gets specialized. This is adaptation, this is good for a while, but the specialized genomes are more one-sided than the original gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and often goes extinct.
We can observe that natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like "dealing a deck of cards"). This fact makes impossible for subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.
Well, actually, that was Wallace's idea. And that is not darwinism. Darwin claimed to have found a mechanism that could account for the emergence of all life forms on earth, that required no intelligent agency, descent with slight modifications, acted upon by natural selection.
Eventually, its just possible that humans may be able to create a sustainable cell from all the minerals required. Unlikely in my lifetime but its possible by attempting to replicate the complexity of a cell, coding and chemical reactions required. However, all that would prove is that an intelligent designer and creator is required.
I wish to thank you for sharing this Christian informational video with me . Amen
Not just America.
“Higher Criticism” infected theology in the 1700s, especially Germany.
Answers in Genesis has great breakdown of origins of evolution, deep time, etc.
It's amazing that your so called "scientific papers" don't show up in any pier reviewed journals.
Amazing how many 'peer reviewed' journals retract thier articles despite being 'peer reviewed'
If you have to lie to support your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs.
If you have to sit in your patents house, in your childhood bedroom, admiring your subscription based computer that you don't own, and admiring your collectable unboxed pokemon collection, it is time to go get a life. Present some evidence for your views- or you're just another opinion with zero knowledge.
All animal life arose at the same time, ... well, Shazam! -who knew? 😅
/The sun has set on evolution...
All you need now is to hide all the fossils and specimens around before modern day life... Or you could just scream fake like you do.. In fact why did they leave out most of the study 🤔🤔🤔
The only thing keeping evolution alive, is the worldview that requires it to be true. That, and the fact that people have paid tens of thousands to be educated in it, and have made careers teaching it.
@@sciencerules8525 Yawn… more clichés. Do better, bud.
Wonder what shark or alligator mitochondria would show? Not a lot of evolution in the last 200 thousand years, I'll bet.
@@wooddoc5956 That, and no relation 😎
@@sciencerules8525 Cool story, bro.
@sciencerules8525 You kids are hilarious. Someday you will need to get a life. Not off to a good start.
Now, at 70, it - science - has to ring true through the spectacles of common sense.
Can we see the light of a star through quadrillions of miles of cosmic dust? - when one trillion seconds = 31,000 years!
Hi Pickle. I can’t fully understand your comment, but optical depth calculations (vs wavelength) are staples of stellar and galactic observational astronomy. There are many factors to consider, and interstellar dust is one of them. Dispersion effects of dust vary, again, with many factors, and is carefully studied; and considerations such as dust, interstellar nebula, etc., sometimes drive choices of using optical vs infra red vs radio telescopes. The necessary skill set to do the appropriate calculations involved in astrophysics is not common sense, but very very very uncommon sense, indeed. I want to be gentle here, but you should try to get comfortable with the notion that there are some extremely deep ideas in certain fields of science. Such ideas are essentially inaccessible, unless one spends an impressive amount of effort to understand them (generally decades of dedicated effort). One may make some progress with simple analogies, but this approach has serious limitations. Good luck with your personal efforts in astronomy. Cheers.
@@SystemsMedicine I can't blame you for an inability to conceptualize one trillion miles, never mind 40 trillion miles - the distance to our closest star, Proxima Centauri . Other stars, we are told, are billions of times farther away! We, purportedly, see these stars first through the Kuiper Belt and then through the haze of countless comet tails and finally through the star dust of which we are made. We 'see' them in the infra red and radio waves and even optically...you and others say. We see galaxies, fully formed not nascent, though their light be billions of years old.
Common sense, apparently, is a sort of skill which must be honed!
Intelligent people always explain things simple says Einstein 😇 so listen: God is everywhere, He said let there be light (from everywhere) so It starts everywhere from wherever you are, no need to reach us, it started here 🙃
@@lifetrack6019 Or alternatively, just extend inflation a tad longer, and you have a ready-made universe, like a tent in which to dwell, and with light stretched out as part of the fabric of the universe.
@@lifetrack6019 Hi Lifetrack. You are misquoting Einstein, and changing the meaning of the original quote to suite a preconceived answer. [This common style of error amuses me, because it has become trivial to verify quotes, yet modern writers rarely bother to do so. Additionally you impute “from everywhere” into Genesis; again, to suite a preconceived answer. How convenient. LT, I don’t want to be harsh here, but your making such inclinations moot. I wish you good luck in your appreciation of astronomy and astrophysics. Cheers.]
Mark your calendar down on that prediction of "evolution dead" in 10 or 20 years. I plan to live long enough to see that not happen, just as all the many predictions of the immanent demise of evolution before failed to materialize either. As for transition forms, if the proposed God didn't want me to believe in evolution he shouldn't have created therapsids, that was just plain dumb.
I don't always seek reliable infomation on evolution, but when I do I like to ask a naturopathic practitioner. They are also experts on bee sting therapy. JFC!
😂
Thank YOU ALL, this was truly a blessing to us. May God Bless You with a broad audience to hear this.
Stay the course Saints! God wins!
I am a 64 years old Catholic and all my life I was taught evolution, evolution, evolution. I had to, marry my faith with the bible, which led me to “self interpret” many other parts of the bible. It led me to be scared to read the word of God because I felt incompetent to read the meaning of the words and then I fell away from my faith for 40 years. I reduced the Bible to a book of wisdom and Jesus to a great moral teacher (as long as it did not contradict my moral compass)
The last 10 years I have been on my journey back to my faith and after I attended a talk given by Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Centre, the last wound of unbelief was healed and his theological argument won me over. Now I am looking at the science out of interest and in order not to be railroaded by atheist scientists (there are many in my family and they are all atheists). No one will ever make me question my faith again. I am with Jesus, I love Jesus, Thank you to Hugh Owen to visit my small church in the UK - the Holy Spirit helped me understand his words.
Not only does the number of mutations indicate that all animals (that have been studied) arose at the same time, it also shows that they all arose several thousand years ago based on observed mutation rates.
No, but it probably won't hurt you to believe that if it makes you feel better.
@@wooddoc5956excellent take down... you've convinced everyone with your intelligent, well-thought out argument
I doubt if they've convinced everyone as much creationists are immune to reason.
@@Mxxx-ii9buthe only ones immune to reason are people like yourself... even the authors of the paper say they're stumped by the discovery but internet atheists believe all is swell in evo-land
If by several thousand, you mean 200,000-as the paper suggests, sure. Do you believe life has been around for 200,000 years? Do you believe that “arose” means “evolved from previous organisms”-as the paper suggests? If not, you should throw out the paper anyway, and not use it to argue your position.
That was the ultimate way to start our Saturday, thanks ICR. God Bless
The theory of evolution will go the way of phrenology and bloodletting given enough time .
I always thought that maybe it might be able to integrate with biblical teachings, but the more i learn, the more it becomes apparent one is not compatible with the other
Check out 'The Creationary Synthesis', an alternative to the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm.
It’s only taken 4,000 years for science to start catching up with Gods word.
And it took the so called God 100s of thousands of years after man appeared to even be found in history - if God created man and he cared about the laws that man lives by, why did he remain so hidden for so long? It must not have been a big deal with God or perhaps God was never there to begin with!
@@RC6790 if you’ll read the Bible you will find out it wasn’t hundreds of thousands of years. You are trying to limit God within an evolutionary time scale and that’s not the way it happened.
Yes, I know I wasn’t there to see it with my own eyes but the evidence is all around us. Finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones is proof that they are not millions of years old. Even scientists admit that soft tissue can not last for even one million years.
The geologic time scale was made up out of thin air by Charles Lyell with zero evidence to back up his theory. Carbon 14 is found in the remains of animals from every geologic period. Carbon 14 is also found in coal and diamonds which are supposedly millions and billions of years old respectively. An understanding of how carbon 14 operates will demonstrate that all of these shouldn’t have any carbon 14 at all in them. Only a young age for the earth and a great flood can explain all the evidence around us.
@@RC6790 You have the wrong basis. Man was created only 6000 years ago.
@@jounisuninen That is one of the silliest statements ever. There is zero evidence for such a claim.
@@RC6790 If you call DNA -evidence as zero ... Then nobody can help you I guess.
That was terrific! Thank you so much.
Thank you for the excellent video 😊
The Lord’s love + grace be with you
Hope you are all well and resting in Jesus saving love + grace 😊
Blessings friends 😊
Evolutionary theory is a process of the universe.
All Gods evolve according to the needs of society
🌺 Jesus, your Presence here, filling up the inner sphere. Life is now a sacred flow, God Vision we on all bestow. 🌺
Appreciate this content, equipping Christians with scientific studies to share with others....
Why is it that abiogenisis is the boogeyman that seems impossible for creationists? Why aren't they screaming that the sun is an impossibility without a God? What about claiming that complex minerals require an intelligence to be formed? It's statistically impossible that, what, emeralds formed naturally?
Will any of you ever talk relevant evidence? Or just continue to whinge? Speak up mate- what makes your knowledge viable? What's your number one evidence for life without design? And evolution via some bizarre mutation super lotto? Natural selection via which process again- death?
J
@sciencerules8525 Is that right. Does studying thermodynamics at RMIT and becoming a duel trade HVAC & Electrical expert with exactly 20 years Industrial commercial experience around Sydney Australia count? What shows is your emotional state, and lack of nous. You learned nothing at school and your parents have wasted their dollars in it. Are you moved out yet?
@@sciencerules8525 Are you 15? It shows
@sciencerules8525 How did 20 left handed amino acids form in a puddle and morph into complex proteins ( before proteins lipids and sugars existed to enable protein production), then code for dna, and then components of a cell? What was first- the membrane, the nucleus or the mitochondria? I value your guesses
@@sciencerules8525
You have to develop life before you can have it evolve. Why do you think otherwise?
Science direct, if you take what the man said in the caption at 4:19 and type it in a search engine, the reading is available.
Be objective.
The sites about the journal show language about rejecting the data without data that contradicts it.
So, you decide.
Its their religion, like he said.
"Billions and billions of years" its unproveable, but they keep reiterating that phrase.
billions of years is completely provable.
…and thousands of years is infinitely more believable. LMAO!!!
@@StudentDad-mc3pubillions and billions of years without evidence of transitional life between species proves only what the data does prove, the Cambrian Explosion.
When you try to scoff and mock, you fulfill a prophecy.
Thanks for playing.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Not even remotely.
@@alwilson3204 you must study to understand. You can't vote for truth or cheat a vote for truth.
You should choose to ignore if you choose denial.
You will end up finding out.
I have told you.
Romans 10: 9-10.
Choose where you're going, or it will just occur anyway.