Common Argument for Evolution DISMANTLED with Science
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 02. 2024
- This argument atheists commonly use to “prove” evolution has been scientifically disproven… In this video, Calvin Smith encourages us to think critically about how we come to conclusions about the world around us.
Subscribe to us for more high-quality biblical videos every week.
Love our content? Help us to continue to proclaim the gospel and the authority of the Bible-from the very first verse-without compromise using apologetics by partnering with us here: answersingenesis.ca/donate
_____________
🔹 DIGGING DEEPER: Want deeper answers to your theological questions? Visit answersingenesis.org/answers
🔹 BLOG: See Calvin Smith’s weekly apologetics articles here: answersingenesis.org/blogs/ca...
🔹 FREE e-BOOK: Sign up for our email newsletter and get a free copy of Calvin’s eBook, “Fellow Biblical Creationists! - STOP Doing These 3 Things…” answersingenesis.lpages.co/fe...
🔹ANSWERS TV: Get equipped to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth of God’s Word with live and on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, Creation Museum, and other Ministries worldwide. Start your free trial today at www.answers.tv
_____________
SOCIAL MEDIA
🔹 Facebook: / answerscanada
🔹 Calvin Smith: / aigcalvinsmith
🔹 Instagram: / answerscanada
🔹 X (formerly Twitter): x.com/AnswersCanada
🔹 TikTok: / answersingenesisca
_____________
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Similar DNA does not = evolution, no matter how similar the DNA may be. DNA is similar to (but not identical to) a blueprint. A creator would re-use parts of a blueprint that works. A truck has a blueprint similar to a car, but one did not evolve into the other. They were both created.
Wrong. The patterns of similarity in DNA form a branching nested hierarchy known only to be produced by common descent. A "Designer" could mix and match features in hundreds of millions of different ways. Unless you wish to claim the "Designer" deliberately created things to look exactly like evolution over deep time had produced them.
Well that would make your creator an incompetent idiot then, because according to your argument he also cut and pasted the *mistakes* such as theone that prevents humans and the other greater apes from synthesising vitamin C; in fact, the entire apparatus is there, but a genetic error prevents the final step. Yet all other mammals don't have this error. Care to explain why an *onion* has genetic code five times longer than a human? Or the Paris Japonica, with fifty times?
And actually trucks *did* evolve from cars! They're essentially scaled up cars with the carrying space adapted from human beings to freight.
Sharing dna is can be used as evidence for creation and evolution.... yet there are heaps of facts supporting evolution along with other supporting evidences like.... dna
@@Jeremy9697and evolution can not even explain it's own origin, the origin of life.
@binhanh296 LMAO LMAO evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life..... evolution only explains the vast variety of different life.......don't open you mouth in a topic you're clueless on. It looks bad
''All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance.''
~Will Rogers
@D-Bunker-zv1bj Nobody has made that claim.
''No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot.''
~Mark Twain@@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh
@D-Bunker-zv1bj Lots of people do fine without focusing on science. Nobody said all we need to know is the Bible.
@D-Bunker-zv1bj What science? I don't deny science. I deny science fiction.
@@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh Science fiction, eh? Let me guess, you were also a COVID denier.
“Dropping faster than the stock price of Disney.” 🤣😂 Awesome!
That was funny.. Witty
A recent Pew survey found between 2015 and 2020 about 5 million new Christians were added to the Christian community. But in the same time a little over 13 million left the church, giving an overall loss of 8 million!
Yep! Christianity is dropping fast. Thousands of churches are closing each year in the USA alone!
@@mirandahotspring4019Did you do the survey?
The disturbing thing is Disney only doubles down.
@@jesus4400 No, it was done by the Pew institute a couple of years ago. You can probably find it online.
Novels are written with 100% same letters but the story is completely different. Gone with the wind is not comparable with a comic book.
Actually they are both very similar.
@@richardgregory3684 Excuse me? Please elaborate.
The evolutionary fantasists don't get information is nether matter or energy and therefore molecules don't 'think', in their Nania world, dumb molecules design levels of complexity and sophistication beyond human capability because of their ultimate genetic engineer - TIME!!!
@@TacoBel They're both fictional stories made up by human beings. The presentation is different, but essentially, plays, books, comics, tv shows and movies are pretty much the same thing. A comic has pictures and dialogue, a novel has descriptions and dialogue, a play is a live enactment of a novel, and a movie is just a play that is recorded. There are plenty of comic stories with huge and complex multi-volume stories that are every bit as sophisticated as Gone With The Wind, the main difference is, with the book the iamgery is in the mind of the reader (helped by the author's descriptions), in a comic you just see the artists's imagination directly, same with a film version of the books.
Fiction and non-fiction are also written with the same set of letters. The tools may be the same, but the outcome is quite different.
I am a big time cynic. As a rule I don't take anything I see, hear, or read at face value until check it out. That is why, as a Christian that is saved by faith in Christ, I have literally spent years checking out the Scriptures, archaeology, different doctrines, etc. I find the Bible, and specifically the Genesis account of seven normal 24 hour days are completely reliable.
The Bible doesn't even claim those 7 "days" are of 24 hr length. You don't even know what the book you claim to believe teachers.
@@nathancook2852 That's not what we (creationists in general) mean by that. Notice the word 'normal" -- meaning a normal day/night cycle on planet Earth spinning with respect to a light source (Days 1-3 light, then the sun at Day 4+). There hasn't been enough time in 6000 years for tidal effects to significantly change it away from 24. It's shorthand for 7 normal days + 6000 years roughly to today. Please read up on this. This is a case of you unknowingly exhibiting Dunning-Kruger, no offense.
@@logicianbones You guys are so full of it your eyes are brown. You specialize in one _ad hoc_ rationalization after another not caring you often directly contradict yourselves in the span of two sentences. 😄
_There hasn't been enough time in 6000 years for tidal effects to significantly change it away from 24_ But there's been plenty of time in 4.5 billion years for Earth to slow to a 24 hour day from a much faster rotation rate a few billions of years ago. That's what the physical evidence shows. See the paper
*Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit*
How did you conclude that talking snakes and donkeys are reliable?
How did you conclude a zombie actually rose from the dead?
How did you conclude the ridiculous notion that Noah built a boat for 2 of every animal and survived a global flood is a reliable account?
Clearly none of these can be justified as reliable any way way shape or form.
And of course, there are many more...
What is clear is however, is that you sir, have NO critical thinking skills.
@@nathancook2852it must be, because the amino acids only last for a few hours. So even if it was by chance, it must happen in a period time of hours and then in a few days.
Notice everything us humans make are from extracted materials of the earth? Some of the products are indeed similar, but we don't say they are related.
***how narrow your mind is !!! EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS RELATED.***
@@adelinomorte7421 I agree so much. This "apologetics" bull**** is misinterpreting and twisting real science.
Facts will always contradict beliefs and real scientific evidence is proof. Faith and beliefs are not evidence to anything factual. So they reinterpreted into pseudoscience to fit their religious agenda confusing the newer generations.
That’s not how biological systems work. Don’t use false analogies to justify pseudoscientific beliefs.
What? Who or what are you even trying to argue against here?
Many confuse adaptation with "evolution". Many are just too lazy to search for more info.
Indeed. People just believe Calvin without actually doing any genuine research into the proof for evolution. There is plenty of it, you have to either ignore or lie about mountains of evidence to hold a position such as yours. I guess you’re just too lazy.
What is the difference? Adaptation is a subset of evolution.
Salvadoroliveira6632 states it very well further down in the comments. Why can't these trolls in the replies here (to Knighttoking7926's comment) explain how evolution is true? Answer, They can't. These trolls always show up on this channel as if they were bots with the same arguments instead of explaining their case like Calvin or Salvadoroliveira6632 with clear examples of evidence presented as irrefutable facts.
@@NoiTuLovE64 You mean his childish misunderstand of genetics which several people already corrected?
@@annieoaktree6774 Adaptation is the changes and variations WITHIN a species. Take for example the wide array of Dogs or Darwins Finches. We have small dogs, tall dogs. Dogs with fur and dogs with hair. But they all remain Dogs.
Evolution would be the changing of a species into another species. For example if dogs were to become cats.
Great video!
Its funny how people think some bunch monkeys just got tired of trees and decided to walk and boom man came to being. That's faith brother😂
The only people who think that is what evolution is are those who have zero knowledge on the subject.
Excellent ! Well said! What mere mortal so called scientists don't understand; " is that GOD IS THE SUPREME SCIENTIST, and they are just playing catch up." They use their so-called science to disprove the one that Created their so-called science!
Um, you might need to direct your strange comment to those "christians" who claim that god created evolution.
Ha! You believe in a creator with no evidence whatsoever, you claim that scientists are nowhere near that supposed creator in knowledge! Well then, why didn’t the creator explain anything about how the universe actually functions? Why did scientists have to do all the work?
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 No, we believe because of the sound support. And he didn't need to spoonfeed us science. Bible's plenty long already and salvation is more pressing. Scientists could do the work in the first place because he taught how. Bacon didn't come up with it in a vacuum. Study history of science man.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Besides that, at the time most nations were ruled by corruption. He had to change hearts first, leading to Christianization so they could even be trusted with their findings. Remember what he said about Babel?
@@logicianbones Where is this “sound support”? You haven’t mentioned any evidence whatsoever. And yeah, the “creator” didn’t bestow upon us the scientific method; humans developed it to understand how the universe works. You contradicted yourself by claiming that while the Bible didn’t mention any scientific concepts, God supposedly taught scientists how to conduct experiments…
Francis Bacon refined scientific philosophy through his own understanding of reality and the work of his predecessors, such as Ibn al-Haytham and Aristotle. I know plenty about the history of scientific progress, and there wasn’t any divine intervention mentioned.
Imagine that you're a master engineer who is requested to build a series of vehicles that can move and survive underwater. Chances are, your various designs will all have certain features in common; such as watertight seals, floatation devices, ascending and descending mechanisms, etc. You'd probably start off with a prototype and extrapolate from there, depending on the specific function and expected location for the vehicle.
Complex organisms on this planet need to be able to; move, navigate, process nutrients, defend themselves, maintain body temperature, breathe, breed, etc. It stands to reason there'd be a great many similarities in morphology.
Complex organisms weren't consciously designed. No life was.
Imagine using false analogies to proclaim the asinine idea that biological systems function like non-living machines. That’s not how it works.
As a master engineer, would you design parasitic wasps to paralyze spiders with their sting and then let their larvae eat the spider alive, at first avoiding essential organs to keep it fresh a little longer? Do you remember when the Covid-19 virus evolved new strains almost every week? Do you really think God was sitting down as a master engineer making up ever new ways for the virus to evade our immune system and kill us?
This master engineer would have to be completely neutral to suffering, both for humans and animals.
@@annieoaktree6774 Complex organisms were consciously designed. All life was. (Other than God obviously.)
The most simplified, relatable illustration on this topic I've ever read.
Good video. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Thanks!
Please keep making these videos, I love and I'm thankful for the updates.
Will do! Please like and share and consider becoming a Member! We appreciate our viewers : )
Sure!!
@@ikemiracle4841 - please save your money and put it towards proper education instead.
@@andyh3065 that's quite an advice👏, but I'd rather prefer using my logic and God given common sense than to go to a place that it'll be ripped off of me.
Every day is a day closer to the day when one and all shall know.
Praise God.
People have been saying that for the last two thousand years. These con-artists are something else eh?
@@user-jw2kl5ul3v thanks for confirming the point in the timeline.
Every day is a day closer to death.... Don't waste it on something that isn't gonna come
@@Jewonastick Don't waste it is more than sufficient as per ALL the teachings given, from Genesis all the way through to the end of Revelation.
Tomorrow is not guaranteed.
@@HillSummitHomestead It's mythology....
Is there a way to get the references to the magazines/research articles for the 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007 studies? It's really-really hard to read the references in this video...and it would be great to have them..
..A well presented effort to make us "think deeper",...and rekindle what we owe to the biblical Genesis.
It was literally a massive fail.
@@StudentDad-mc3puYou get everywhere with your evil assumptions,flat out Google troll,what a sick sad life you have.
I had a great teacher in physics who wanted us to experience the road that science took. So he either demonstrated in experiments or let us run experiments ourselves from simple mechanics to the mercury-gas experiment that indicates quantum behaviour of nature.
Biblical creationists love operational science because you can set up an experiment in a lab, repeat it over and over and get the same results etc. What I always ask the evolutionist to do is please set up and show me an experiment (repeatable, observable etc.) showing me ape like creatures turning into people ...
Maybe I am misinterpreting the phrase, but isn't mercury-gas (i.e. gaseous mercury) poisonous?
@@ralphreinert It is, but the experiment was done with a closed glas container, like a radio tube or a flourescent tube. So, no risk for the experimenter.
@@acd1235 Did you know that you can also conduct experiments to demonstrate that evolution is true?
@@acd1235 Good. By the way, I did not enjoy chemistry and that is a major part of the reason I got my degree in MECHANICAL engineering. 🙂
There is no way that organs and systems that are interdependent coordinated with each other and somehow supported the host during the alleged transitional period of millions of years before they were actually functional. Glory to the Creator.
Irreducible complexity. It's been debunked over and over again. Get a new argument and stop beating the same dead horse.
@@garrettbrown775how has it been debunked?
@@TheChadPad There have been many things proposed as irreducibly complex and they just literally aren't. For example, the eye is always pointed at yet we have animals that live today with every proposed stage of eye development. This can be done for any organ. There hasn't been a single example that stood up to scrutiny.
@@garrettbrown775 so the argument here is specifically leveled at the cell and its organelles. It’s at that level of irreducible complexity that we see this argument usually used. This person above is obviously using it in a way that is debatable, grant you, but what about the “steps” that are necessary to produce the cell? Do we see living organisms with every “step” along the way in cell production? I do mean on the level of forming lipids, ribose (sugars), amino acids, etc. Considering each of these requires a different set of conditions (different chemical soups) and will not form in the “soup” required for the other components, it does not seem possible that these formed gradually over time
@@TheChadPad That I personally don't know. My point is that every time this argument has come up like with the flagellum mentioned by Behe as well has been debunked. As long as every single step towards complexity is viable and beneficial then there isn't a problem. Evolution is the best answer we have for the diversity of life. If you want to refute it, then you have to propose a better theory that explains everything evolution does and more. Pointing to a new spot and going well what about that huh?! That's irreducibly complex! That is just a dishonest position where you make others fact check you and do the work for you.
One aspect of genetic similarity that is never discussed is: no matter the species and no matter the % difference is that if we humans eat things that are not similar enough it would not be food it would be poison. How much of our DNA do we share with some thing like a blade of grass?
Gather much info from many sources and use your God given discernment. Great video!
Try gathering some from actual scientific sources.
@@mirandahotspring4019 That's what AiG does...
@@logicianbones The Bible is not a scientific source.
@@HangrySaturn Meaning what? If an omniscient God reveals a message, he can't say accurate things in it about nature, events in history that leaves scientifically detectable marks like all the effects of the Flood we've found? Makes no sense. If you mean "it isn't a textbook," not our argument. And you missed the point of my earlier comment. They outline scientific modern sources. They gather them.
@@logicianbones
_"If an omniscient God reveals a message"_
Which omniscient God, and which message? And how do you know _any_ of that? How about one piece of good evidence - *one!* - specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that your god is real, rather than just imaginary?
Sure, if monkeys fly out of your butt, then you'll have butt monkeys. But that's a big "if"!
we use the same materials extracted from the earth, we make sketches on the same materials with the same writing objects, so the product is similar, depending on what it is intended for
Opel started with sewing machines before making cars. The manufacturing process actually shares some similarities. However, I would be surprised if under the hood of each Opel car I still found the original sewing needle now all blunt and not adapted to sewing. It might have picked up an interesting new role and actually contribute to avoiding resonance between some moving parts by it's high-frequency action. In some older models we could still observe sharper needles who actually did a bit of sewing at high speeds.
The Yamaha motorcycle manufacturer was originally a piano maker - and still is.
@@timothykeith1367 Absolutely. It is quite possible that you find similarities in engineering design between all of Yamaha's products representing their design philosophy. However, you will still not find some piano strings in a boat motor where they are much fewer and shorter and atrophied, but nonetheless picked up some new role in the process.
I'm just pointing out that there are important differences between systems created by human design and those that have evolved without a designer.
That is not how evolution in living creature occurs. Instead in evolution the code is changed in what appears to be a random way. Repurposing the equivalent of a needle could take a number of changes in the code. All these changes must be accomplished while leaving the life form capable of reproducing. It is extremely complex and requires inspiration when done with non-living machines.
@@erikt1713 You just compared those created by a designer to those without designer. You do realize you are inferring a designer exists while denying a designer exists. You would do better to argue the differences.
@@kerwinbrown4180 I'm referring to the existence of vestigial structures as a proof of evolution. You will not find them in engineering the same way. An example are the tiny hind legs of some snakes which are used in mating to grab the partner but are useless for locomotion. Similar for the human appendix which does not work to digest leaves or grass but appears to have some role in the immune system.
Evolved systems often have such features but created systems do not and are much more flexible to be created from scratch without a series of small modifications to turn a sewing machine into a car, for example.
Thank you for this content Answers In Genesis Canada. God Bless 🙏
You are welcome! : )
"How do you know what you know"?
A more prescient question is: "How much accurate predictive power does what you know grant you"?
This is the ideal quantification of knowledge.
Enjoyed this!
This was another nonsensical video.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Very well-evidenced argument. Oh wait........
@@logicianbones oh wait...he was right.The video was total tripe.
@@andyh3065 oh wait...I was right.The andyh comment was total tripe.
Imagine a page of a book with instructions to build something and if you begin from the second letter of the first word, an entirely different set of instructions can be read; then another set from the third and so forth, up to more than a dozen of intertwined different instructions tightly compacted. After transcription of mitochondrial DNA to mRNA, ribosomal slippage can result in more than a dozen proteins from a stretch of nucleic acid. It takes a lot of faith in " chance " to believe that such awe inspiring detail " created itself ". Consider the deleterious effects of point mutations, like the one that causes sickle cell. One single error changing the genetic code and the protein won't work as intended. Glory be to God!
_One single error changing the genetic code and the protein won't work as intended_ That is simply false. DNA is highly robust and can tolerate a fairly large amount of variation while still retaining the ability to produce functional proteins.
_Consider the deleterious effects of point mutations, like the one that causes sickle cell_
Sickle cell is actually beneficial in areas where malaria is endemic. The increased resistance to malaria is a greater positive survivial trait than the negative effects of sickle cell. Of course,in an era where there are effective treatments for malaria, and where persons with sickle cell have migrated to places where there is no malaria, itis now regarded more as a disease.
_One single error changing the genetic code and the protein won't work as intended_
Outright lie. Allpersons alive have lot sof changes to their genetic code, they are not 50-50 clonesp of their parents, but genetically unique.
who designed your god?
False assumption. God is the uncaused first cause. He had no beginning. Therefor no design. Unlike the universe.
@@TacoBel Ah good old special pleading! "Nothing can exist without a creator" they cry. So what created god? "Oh, he hasn;t got one!" You guys crack me up, the way you'rew willing to suspend the rules you invented so you don;t get tripped up by them. Ok. The universe is an uncaused cause, it had no beginning, and no design. Well then we just threw out any need for your "God".
So glad that you at least admit to recognizing the "negative theological implications" of evolution. That leaves intellectual room for two critical things:
1) The recognition that your constant need to 'debunk' evolution is 100% ideologically based, and not based first and foremost on a 'rational analysis' of the scientiftc evidence, as you repeatedly claim
2) That once anyone recognizes the overwhelming factual evidence in support of evolution, there is *no* intellectually honest way to reconcile that with any of the Biblical narratives.
So...WELL DONE!!! 'Our' evidence will only continue to accumulate. While yours will remain stagnant and fly directly in the face of sociological developments like the equality of women, and prohibitions against such things as slavery and racism and incest and polygamy and child 'marriage', which your Bible very explicitly condones.
THANK YOU!! LOVE THIS VIDEO!!! ❤
How do we know what we know? is a question I often present to my kids as an epistemological exercise in critical thinking. The truth is, in many, if not most cases, what we think we know is based on thin evidence indeed, or worse, opinion and beliefs.
Thanks for explaining what we all along knew was true.
The fact that we can think and speak and have emotions shows that we are more than just evolved cells. There is a side to us that is spiritual in nature. Even if you could somehow make a blob into a human, that doesn't explain our self awareness and ability to reason and search for truth. Our ability to love. Hate. Etc., etc.
Why?
@@StudentDad-mc3pu why would nature "decide to do that for survival purposes?" And more importantly how? A: it couldn't and wouldn't.
@@TJforChrist Evolution is guided by advantage. What works, generally survives. Intelligence is definitely an advantage, as are social skills which require empathy, giving us a moral sense.
@@TJforChrist Nature doesn't "decide" anything. No one claims that. Only people who do not understand evolution speak that way.
Why can't evolved cells learn to think and speak etc? Please explain with supporting evidence...
PS. Saying 'It's just so incredible that a magic sky daddy must have done it' won't really cut it as a credible explanation.
You referenced numerous articles but the print on the slide was so small it wasn’t readable. Wish you would have added links so listeners can read them and not have to learn from others.
There's this thing you can do to make your screen larger and then you can look stuff up...
Thank you for all you do, AIG. Good job! ✝️
Yeah, I was about to say: what exactly do they meant when they say two percent? Two percent of... what?? Most people don't even bother to ask this question or question similar to this on any given topic. It's been presented to them as a convincing piece of data and so they regurgitate it to others as a convincing piece of data, even when they don't understand it AT ALL themselves.
People, in general, are stupid.
This channel existing proves your point that people are stupid.
@@nathancook2852 Your circular reasoning proves that you are--- but I'm a good Christian man so I can't say it!
Especially people who believe bronze age goat herder stories about how the world came about because they didn't know better. How stupid... :)
Say it @@logicianbones
Thanks again, Calvin, for a very informative video that puts to rest many of the myths that get circulated by "authority figures" who don't understand the consequences of misleading the innocent and the ignorant astray. Of course, you will still get the usual amount of rabble in the "peanut gallery" of your comments. God bless, as always!
The rumor of an infinite god was followed by 2000 years of interminable speculation and myth known as religion. Most of it was inflicted by church "authority" on defenceless children, the fearful and illiterate. You've had your chance to prove your god and you blew it. god has never blessed anyone. Ever.
Your post is pure hypocrisy on aig.
Isn’t it ironic that you also obtain your pseudoscientific ideas from authority figures at AIG? Maybe you should reflect upon yourself and differentiate between religious beliefs and empirical evidence.
This comment is just so entirely absurd that I'm in shock.
Thank you!
Well done. Thank you. I’m glad to have this myth busted
It’s sad that people still believe in this sort of nonsense this day and age with all the information available to them
At 10:45 into the video, Mr. Smith says: _" ...as I said from the beginning: you know what you know from what you got taught by authority figures and accepted as truth..."_
This is definitely *_not_* what "to know" means in a scientific context, because there is no mention that the acceptance must be rational, that you only provisionally accept any uncertain proposition as our current best approximation of reality, or that you must be skeptical of anything any authority figure tells you, *_especially_* if they claim it is *_"the truth"_* or that you should test and verify what you get told.
Mr. Smith doesn't understand the evolutionary sciences even a little. He's a professional huckster trying to make a living hustling donation money from his ignorant creationist followers. It's all about money with "professional" creationist organizations.
Evolution has never been observed… it’s not science in the Empirical sense
@@calvinsmith7575we get you don’t like it but it is a scientific theory and if you can’t even be honest about that….
@@calvinsmith7575 Evolution has been observed for centuries. You are in serious need of a science education.
@@calvinsmith7575 Invite someone like Forrest Valkai for a debate and tell that to his face.
I would pay to see you two in a one on one debate!
Love it!
Similar isn't necessarily the same. Couple this information with the fact that genetic mutation isn't random, and the idea of a Creator becomes much clearer, and a lot more necessary.
Explain why
@@user-jw2kl5ul3v why what? That's a bit of a vague request.
@@engmed4400 You claimed, _"the idea of a Creator becomes much clearer, and a lot more necessary."_ . I asked you to explain why. Nothing vague about it.
So please explain.
Great
It's good to see smart people on God's side..
He’s not smart, he’s a lie, fraud and a conman.
Where?
@@bobwilkinson2008 gj bob
thank you, for your research....
You really think Calvin does any valid research? Hucksters tend to research their victims and his "research" consists of dishonest strawmen, fallacious arguments and misrepresentations of science that he thinks will con the credulous and the gullible.
You this simple-minded, Phil? This isn’t well-researched. Calvin is a conman.
Wow. Fascinating
This is so timely, we just read something in a secular “science” magazine in our homeschool about humans and chimps being only 1% difference in our DNA, and I was trying to explain how this is simply not the case. I couldn’t remember the details though. I’ll be showing the kids this video.
If you do show kids this video, you'll be promoting falsehoods. Calvin is being dishonest.
Thank you for posting this. God bless you.
You are welcome! : )
😅 also, fingerprints! Hard to believe that a 3/4x3/4 inch area can be different 8 billion ways
So on point!!!!!!
Fabulous!
"Fabulous".. as in fabulous dishonesty
If you repeat a Lie over and over it eventually becomes Truth. Reminds me of a few false religions out there.
Don't forget to include methodological naturalism.
“A big enough lie, repeated endlessly, becomes ‘truth’ ”.
- Josef Goebbels
Hey, he was a Hitler-following, dedicated Nazi who believed in eugenics: that wonderfully atheistic, humanistic, narcissistic, evolutionary drivel that some people still believe in! How quaint!
Like the one based on the myth of an illegitimate Jew.
Does that also include Christianity?
@@Vernon-Chitlen Oh, that same methodology that gave you computers, the Internet and modern-day privileges is a lie? What an astute observation, Vernon!
An observation on the concept of "evolution" in the current contemporary mindset seems a bit amiss as several examples I've happend across exhibit...it would seem many "taught" about "evolution" have misguidedly lost the understanding of definitional differential between "genus" and "species" as well as "adaptation" vs "evolution"...it's like the information conveyed for learning has been reduced and simplified but in so doing become easier to misunderstand...a lot of arguments and debates seem to revolve around lack of understanding the differences and the inherent factors which are key factors in differentiating between "adaptation" and "evolution" which im turn are reliant upon understanding the differences between said "genus" and "species" definitions, factors, foundations, and adequate examples passed onto the student body from the indoctrinated instructor.
What do you think is the difference between adaptation and evolution? Because adaptation is one form of evolution.
@@sciencerules2825 Adaptation is not evolution as the species remains the same however the genus designation may change or be newly labeled...canus or felis remain canus or felis while genus variables result from adaptation triggered or catalyzed by environmental differentials or alterations by artificial means over time. Actual evolution would indicate something far more extreme with little to no evidence to support it by official scientific definition.
When a genus of fish becomes a genus of cat, dog, bird, ape, lizard, etc., that would be a textbook definition and example of evolution. If thr species remains intact it's adaptational mutation but when the actual species is tramsformed into a completely different species that is evolution.
Love this 🔥🔥
There is nothing more "knowledge from authorities" than religion. Talk about irony.
For the first 2 minutes, I wasn't sure which side he was arguing for. What he said applied to both Science and Religion.
@@gregoswald7723
No, it's applicable only to religion. Science is a process of refuting existing misconceptions. Religion teaches its followers to protect its dogma. Each individual scientist having faith in his/her ideas is not the same as each individual believer having faith in his/her religion.
No. It doesn't.
God created science, so.
And Christianity isn't a religion.
There's only one area in which creationists completely dominate everyone else on the planet on and that's their ability to spit out lies and misrepresentations. It would be amazing if it weren't so repulsive.
To be fair they've had huge amounts of practice, much more than any other group except maybe the MAGAtroids.
I’d much rather trust the words of Iron Age farmers on the meaning of the Cosmos.
Evolutionists lied and said human and chimp DNA were only 1-2% different which is demonstrably incorrect. Neanderthals were ape-men. Archaeopteryx was a transitional link and the first bird. Haeckel's embryo drawing pove recapitulation. Piltdown man was our evolutionary ancestors. Nebraska man was a ape like ancestor of humans. Humans have over 100 vestigial organs. The horse evolution series. Peppered moths demonstrate evolution. 90% of human DNA is Junk. Tiktaalik was a missing link.etc. etc. etc. ALL SHOWN TO BE FALSE. But I'd rather just trust an atheistic ideology than deal with the evidence...
“I'd much rather trust the words of Iron Age farmers on the meaning of the Cosmos.”
We have data concerning the stars, dating back to the ancient Babylonians, ancient Egyptians, the explosions of supernova in the ancient past, according to Chinese records.
Greek philosophers in the fifth century proposed the atomic theory on which modern science is based. As the late physicist, Richard Feyman said, if we lost all modern science and technology, we could start over again and recover everything if we had nothing more than the atomic theory.
Western civilization is based on the Judeo Christian principal: love God as much as you were able and love your neighbor as yourself.
The New Testament tells us that God is made evident by the visible things in the universe; from the 18th century, on as CS Lewis, once remark, men became scientist as they looked into the universe for laws of nature, because they understood God to be the great lawgiver; as God made moral laws to keep life from being chaotic, he made physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic.
These men understood that as they were made in the image of God, they would be able to find the universe intelligible and they were foundational to modern science.
The understanding that the universe has a creator, that he is orderly, and may the universe according to his plan, and purpose is the basis for understanding that universe; to suppose that the universe is the result of a mindless, unguided irrational process is to believe that ones own brain is a product of a mindless, unguided and rational process, and therefore cannot be expected to comprehend That universe.
The perspective of creation is rational, reasonable and logical; the evolution perspective does not offer the prospect of being able to trust one’s own intellectual faculties, knowing that it is not based on reason, logic, or rationality.
and what about The pig-human embryos were allowed to develop to 28 days (the first trimester of a pig pregnancy) before being remove
That was the result of the amalgamation attempts, by unethical scientists, of two separate species. That is both blasphemous & demonic to mix humans with animals. It's bad enough to intermix animals with other species of animals, however, the antediluvians were doing the same thing before they were eradicated by the Flood, including a whole lot more with callousness of heart than we might think, but we today have become as they once were. Every imaginable thing mankind could devise was, and now is, done in rebellion against the Creator.
Violence has once again filled the earth with little to no thought of the consequences of one's actions.
Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30
There are some genes that are 100% identical between humans, chimpanzees, and oak trees. In fact, EVERY macroscopic life form needs to have certain genes be 99%+ identical or else they couldn't wrap their genes into chromosomes of any kind.
I think you’re talking about homologous sequences, which also provide excellent evidence for evolution.
Common design=common designer...
@@calvinsmith7575 *Common design=common designer...*
So unique, different designs equal different designers. Thus, sharks, dolphins, tuna, ichthyosaurs, and mosasaurs were all created by their own God.
@@burnttoast2790 Non sequitur. By that argument you're not talking about common design but universally cloned design, strawman. Common does not only equal universal. Reading comprehension. Logic.
@@burnttoast2790 What coded language system spells out the information for the construction and maintenance of those and every other organism on earth?
So why shoul we trust you?
Because you should trust the word of God. Evolutionists lied and said human and chimp DNA were only 1-2% different which is demonstrably incorrect. Neanderthals were ape-men. Archaeopteryx was a transitional link and the first bird. Haeckel's embryo drawing pove recapitulation. Piltdown man was our evolutionary ancestors. Nebraska man was a ape like ancestor of humans. Humans have over 100 vestigial organs. The horse evolution series. Peppered moths demonstrate evolution. 90% of human DNA is Junk. Tiktaalik was a missing link.etc. etc. etc. ALL SHOWN TO BE FALSE. The story of evolution is a house of cards... so why should you trust them?
Amen
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ Thanks!!!
A PC game called Heavy Meatal: F.A.K.K 2 had code that was for the most part the same as the game Star Trek: Elite Force II, even though they both look and play completely different. It's because they both were made by the same developer so similarities in code is what you would expect.
Likewise, similarities in genetic code between species is exactly what you would expect to find with a common designer.
Amen!
I never accepted the spider thing. It struck me as ridiculous the first time that I heard it.
Last I heard, the human genome had about 3.2 billion base pairs. Two percent of that would be 32 million base pairs. Viewed from this perspective, 2% is an impossible gorge to cross.
Two sets of Ikea instructions that are 80% similar will not produce identical pieces of furniture.
Likewise with DNA that is 80% (or even 98%) similar.
Wow, using a false analogy to downgrade biological systems to IKEA furniture. You definitely understand a lot about Biology!
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Just what do you think DNA is? It's a set of assembly instructions. You obviously don't understand anything about biology....or analogies.
@@mikesiver1950 Guess what, creatures with 80% similar DNA are not identical. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. But they are closely related...
@@nathancook2852 So, what you're saying is that you were paying attention to the video? I guess? I'm not sure, really. What is your point? Do you even have one? Or are you just being snarky?
@@nathancook2852 By "related" do you mean closely evolved from common ancestor? That would be circular reasoning fallacy. Or do you just mean similar? That would just ignore the vid like mike said (would be argument from similarity fallacy or false equivalence). 20% difference is HUGE when baseline is 50% to something as wildly different as a banana. It isn't quite as simple as just dropping out the baseline, but as a rough estimate, of what remains "above" baseline, 20% difference total would be close to 50% difference in what makes us both different from plants evidently (at least some plants).
You cannot, I repeat you cannot be a creationist without being a compulsive liar, scientifically illiterate or both. This applies to all creationist channels and sites as well as their zealous unquestioning followers.
You cannot I repeat you cannot be an evolutionist without being a compulsive liar scientifically illiterate or both. This applies to all secularist websites which promote such large transitions possible without any direct observable evidence or you know any evidence at all that would deem evolution a "scientific" position.
@@user-ew2xk4ek4o Right on cue up pops another scientifically illiterate creationist liar. 👍
@@user-ew2xk4ek4o That's hilarious considering how all of science across a dozen different fields disagree with you and how your denial is exclusively born out of wanting magic to be real as opposed to what science actually shows.
@@user-ew2xk4ek4o I repeat once more, and you should do so with me. Your denial of science has got nothing to do with a lack of science, but everything to do with your religious literalist beliefs and wanting magic to take credit for what we can already demonstrate and explain with nature.
@@razark9 That's appeal to majority and authority fallacies. As is typical. Actual science debunks their "conclusions" which usually are also reached on origins by headcounting too, not thorough testing as our side does. See Jeanson on this.
I liked the Disney quip.
Word!
TRUTH!
Falsehoods and pseudoscientific nonsense, you mean.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Cope all you want.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 I mean what I said.
@@refuse2bdcvd324I’m sure you did. You’re still wrong
@@Bomtombadi1 Very thorough argument.
Here are alphanumeric two strings
Thequickbrownfoxjumpsoverthelazydog
XXThequickbrownfoxjumpsoverthelazydog
Science: by comparing the information bearing content we can see the strings are 98% identical:
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
XX The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
Creationists: Science is stupid! We can line these up and see no matches at all!
Theq uick brow nfox jump sove rthe lazy dog
XXTh equi ckbr ownf oxju mpso vert hela zyd og
That's creation "science" in a nutshell.
_"Creationists: Science is stupid!"_
Darwin cheerleader, since by your word "science", you don't actually mean science, but instead you just mean your cherished Darwinistspeak, this is what you've just handed us:
_"Creationists: [Darwinistspeak] is stupid!"_
It's always amusing how you Darwin cheerleaders are silly enough to imagine the word 'science' somehow works magical powers for you when you chant it.
Darwin cheerleader wrote: _" by comparing the information bearing content we can see the strings are 98% identical:_
_The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog_
_XX The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"_
Exactly what (if anything) do you mean by saying those two strings "are 98% identical"?
If we fill in the place of your word "identical" with what the dictionary gives in its entry for 'identical', we see that this is what you've handed us: _"we can see the strings are 98% [similar in every detail; exactly alike]"_
Sorry, Professor, but EVERY is 100%, not merely 98%; EXACTLY is 100%, not merely 98%. Your phrase "98% identical" is an oxymoron, and is thus not descriptive of anything. Your Darwinistspeak is mumbo jumbo, a ridiculous product of your war against the laws of logic. A is A, and logic has no place for stupidity such as _"A is 98% A, and 2% not-A."_
@@25dollarbill24 Plus it isn't even clear that splitting up instructions with different spacing doesn't have some effect on the percentage. The frame shift analogy would be great, but they would have to prove it's the full explanation. From what little I've read it's way more complicated. There are also duplications to consider, and in any event, the whole thing relies on argument from similarity fallacy.
Certain evolutionists after reading the OP: Therefore evolution.
Programmers: Hi.
Also, geneticists: You get four letters, not twenty-four. And you have to jumble it up and account for what's suppressed due to contact with histone "spools," tighter coiling, which sections move closer in the jumble to others, and much more. Coding to account for all of this is extremely difficult.
The reason why bats and horses have similarities in dna is because they shared a common ancestor like all living things on the planet. Random mutual alone with isolated breeding and genetic bottlenecks allows for specific traits to be more common in that isolated species, and over long periods of time, we get the genetic diversity we see now.
The irony about this video is that you could take everything he said at the beginning of the video and reverse it on creationism.
The bible isnt the word of a god. Its the words of the human men that wrote it.
If someone was arguing with you that donkeys or snakes cant talk, would you be arguing that they as the bibe says so?
If you were debating the morlaity of keeping slaves, would you be arguing that its fine to buy, sell, and even beat them as your bi le says?
It's the word of God.
You believe in a talking apelike creature and parrots.
Deut says "slaves" can go free at will for any reason. Always the same old ignorant debunked claims.
@@logicianbones
Any evidence of this supposed god? And evidence of it writing any of the words in the bible?
Humans have the anatomy required to produce human speech. Parrots have the anatomy required to mimic it.
Donkeys and snakes do not.
Prove it.@@logicianbones
Logic is not persuasive.
Well done!
But most will disagree with this video.
Well they can disagree with the same experts they believed the first time round so there's that...
Amen 🙏
The "percentage of similarity" is tricky to define. Depending on what exactly a researcher means by this term it can have a value of 95% or of 98% between chimpanzees and humans. The main thing is how to re-align the base pairs after a mismatch.
For example compare JUDGMENTDAYS to JUDGEMENTDAY. The first 4 letters align and then NO LETTER aligns, so these words are 33% similar. On the other hand, there's just and extra E in one and an extra S in the other, so really 11 letters the same in the same order and 1 each different. You could say that the words are 92% similar. (I realize that DNA code has only 4 "letters", but this is for analogy).
Also, chimpanzees have one pair of extra chromosomes compared to humans. Those would ruin the percentage. We have to count 4 of the ape chromosomes equivalent to 2 of the human chromosomes (along the lines of likely evolution) otherwise we lose a lot of similarity before even reaching the lowest level of detail.
This "similarity" measure should not be adopted too readily by the media, that's for sure, but most of all we should learn what a particular researcher is actually measuring there with what method.
Also, please do not put "50% overlap with bananas" next to "80% overlap with chimpanzees". These measures cannot be achieved with the same definitions. In this you are treating the banana with the loosest definition of "similarity" and the chimpanzee with the strictest. This just shows the extreme impact of the definition. These numbers are then not comparable. The 50% for bananas still corresponds to the 98% for chimpanzees in methodology.
I lost you along the way, but I'm confident you have a strong point.
@@ClemTec I suppose I got carried away by my thought. Anyway, the main thing is that "percentage of similarity" between DNA or between texts is difficult to define and depending on definition you get very different values.
@@erikt1713 That's impressive. I always assumed it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that we're cousins with the chimpanzees, that we're all apes.
@@ClemTec There is no doubt that we are apes. As you say, the chimpanzees are our cousins, hence the similarity.
However, two pairs of our chromosomes fused while they stayed separate in chimpanzees. That's a key reason why our species do not readily hybridize. Otherwise it is quite possible that Soviet scientists would have been able to breed creatures half human and half chimpanzee when they tried the other day.
Don't forget that the 80% number came from methodology that would place one's own genome as not 100% similar to _itself._ Yes, Tomkins is that much of an id1ot, and YECs who cite him are just as bad, if not worse.
🤚👍🙏🦕
Raccoons have the closest similarity of human hands than any other animal.
Completely false. For one thing a racoon paw have five fingers and no opposable thumb.
The real question is whether or not humans and chimps have a common ancestor. Do they ?
No, they do not. All human ancestors are humans, whereas all chimp ancestors are non-humans.
What Darwin cheerleaders do is to, in their thinking, *relate* chimps and humans together by deeming them to be in some way(s) similar to each other; and then, they simply equivocate on the word "relate" by telling us that chimps and humans are "related to" one another, wherein they asininely mean that chimps and humans are _descended from a common ancestor._
I mean, their thinking is incredibly stupid: _"X and Y are very similar; therefore, X and Y are descended from a common ancestor!"_
OK, let's see how that works out: _"[Squares] and [triangles] are very similar; therefore, [squares] and [triangles] are descended from a common ancestor!"_ Obviously, squares and triangles are not descended from a _common_ ancestor, since neither squares, nor triangles, are descended from _any_ ancestor, whatsoever.
@@25dollarbill24 _Obviously, squares and triangles are not descended from a common ancestor, since neither squares, nor triangles, are descended from any ancestor, whatsoever_
Their ancestor would be the straight line. lol
@@richardgregory3684 _"Their ancestor would be the straight line. lol"_
Glad you're only joking!🙂
...and I suppose their _ancestry_ would be a _bloodline._
No
@@calvinsmith7575 You can deny it all you want, but they do. The evidence from genetics alone is, well, I'd day undeniable, but you of course will deny it.
You would think if science debunked the scientific theory of evolution , the scientific theory of evolution would not continue to be the basis and foundation for lots of different scientific fields.
I think someone is lying about science in order to push a religious narrative.
I’ve said the same thing. If it’s been debunked why is it still a scientific theory? They don’t answer
@@therick363 But we do. It isn't. Simple. It's a failed hypothesis as proven over and over.
@@logicianbones then present your case and evidence.
Explain how it’s a failed hypothesis……
Explain why does the world teach it as a scientific theory?
Evolution is a story, not science...
@@calvinsmith7575 evolution is a scientific theory. For you to say it’s not science says you either
1-don’t understand the basics of science
2-think it’s okay to lie
Which is it?
We share 50% of are DNA with a Banana.
The Banana is the real missing link.
Many people I know are 100% Bananas!
You are so right - we know what we know primarily based on the authority figures around us. This is never so true as when the subject is gods, angels, and demons. At least the things we believe that are not rooted in the supernatural come with some evidence we can evaluate and debate. However, gods, angels, and demons are a simple take-it-or-leave-it proposition sermonized by the most unqualified authority figures imaginable - clerics. What qualifies them to tell us which gods to believe in and how to conduct ourselves? Absolutely nothing.
I watch A LOT of videos and this is one of the better I’ve seen!
I can recommend the BBC Comedy Greats channel. It's far, far funnier than Calvin
We should be able to sue to remove evolution from the educational curriculum. There’s no reason to teach entirely baseless beliefs that have no use.
There you go lying again.
Evolution is taught because of the scientific evidence.
Tell us what should be taught instead of evolution??
@@therick363 Tell me the scientific evidence for evolution. You replace lies with the truth.
@@JungleJargonyou were asked a question first so you have to answer before asking others.
You also didn’t support what you said so why would I have to?
These are basics of logic common sense and manners.
Answer the question you were asked.
@@JungleJargon There are hundreds on online sites with the evidence, thousands of colleges and universities you can study it, literally millions of published scientific papers documenting the evidence. Only a liar or a fool would claim there's no scientific evidence for evolution. Which are you?
@@therick363 I answered the question.
The absolutely incredible complexity of even the simplest forms of life preclude the possibility of macro evolution!
Why? Complexity can from through the building up of may small steps. Nobody ever claimed it just popped into existence.
This is no "macro" nor "micro" Evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 Train goes the other direction (see their article on that). Vast majority of observed changes remove, not add. Too fast for natsel to keep up for multicellular, even if we granted the other (debunked) premises about evolution.
No, it’s not been debunked by science or this video.
The very fact that when they are born we look different. And grow up different. If we were this close there would either be no more humans or there would be no more chimps. Because we would all be one species
Explain this line of reasoning
How is the problem of Trust in Authority any different than trusting that anonymous authors wrote the truth just because your pastor said so, or your parents, or whoever?
Without the influence of someone telling you it's "true", I don't see how anyone could randomly find a Bible and conclude that it's true just based on the contents of the book. In fact, anyone with a shred of wisdom and no preconceived notions about mythology or religion would quickly conclude that the bible is NOT a reliable source of truth.
In a majority of people, trust in the bible stems from trust in the authority of others who tell them it's true. The biggest difference between science and religion is that evidence supports science, but it doesn't support the Bible or any other religious texts.
But AIG and I agree on one thing: any scientist who tells you they have "proof" of anything is suspect, because science doesn't deal in proofs. Mathematics uses proofs, science uses evidence.
Vast majority of biblical authors aren't anonymous and of those few who are (Hebrews author, arguably some of the Kings sections), we don't need to base our core doctrine, creation, etc. on those as premises so moot point. The Bible's soundly supported so it isn't blind trust in an authority. It's testing and confirming that authority is reliable, and is God's Word.
@@logicianbones Or, back over here in reality, about the only UNdisputed author in the Bible is Paul. The majority of the rest of the Bible is either definitely anonymous or is disputed by enough biblical scholars that it's questionable.
I'd be curious to see your list of known Biblical authors, and your source(s).
But, for argument's sake, let's say you're right. That would mean that only SOME of "God's Word" might not be God's Word. And you're ok with people being damned to hell based on what is "mostly" god's word?
Keep in mind that if we accept the idea that SOME books were inserted into the the Bible we have today, we have to also accept that about as many books may have been omitted from today's version. What if something important was omitted, like a few MORE reasons that god hates humans and a few more rules we need to follow in order for him to ever tolerate our presence in heaven, or a few MORE ways we might get sent to the eternal fiery time-out he lovingly crafted for us?
If you allow "mostly" god's word, then why isn't ALL of it suspect, considering an omniscient, omnipotent God ought to NOT let any of his words be hijacked, falsified, altered, or otherwise made suspect?
@@logicianbones Even if their not anonymous, so what? That does not prove that any of it is true.
Only a fool says in their heart, there is no Creator.
EVERY KNEE WILL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS THAT THE TRUE CRUCIFIED AND RISEN HEBREW MESSIAH יהושע YAHUSHA IS יהוה YAHUAH.
and that is why normal people cannot trust phonies like you.
What would be the creationist criteria to decide that a hyena and a cheetah are in different kinds, but a kitten and a cheetah are related? How could you verify that?
DNA / genetics
Don't say "kinds" that makes you look like an idiot... Just fyi
Form follows function...since the Word formed and created everything...we would expect what we see in nature from an awesome creator.
Ex-atheist and ex-believer in evolution. This video is so on point. Praise God
Atheist and acceptor of evolution. This video didn’t disprove evolution at all.
@@therick363 He didn't say it did. Not the topic of this video. Reading comprehension.
Technically every theist is an “ex atheist” so there is no need to make that distinction.
It would be like me saying “ex child” but now I’m an adult
@@logicianbones “common argument for evolution DISMANTLED with science”….title of the video. Reading comprehension is what you need and basic manners but you’ve shown you’re an internet theist who is scared
@@therick363 Common argument for. Not evolution itself. Again reading comprehension. Can't even read your own quote right LOL.
Evolutionists think humans, bed bugs, centipedes and pond scum have a common ancestor.😂😂😂
Yup, so what's your evidence against it?
Let me guess, it goes like - 'I just can't imagine...' or 'I don't like that idea', so it can't be true.
Whereas science has shit tons of evidence showing it is true.
@@teks-kj1nj I'm guessing you're a typical evolution zealot, claiming there's "a gob of evidence", but unable to provide 2 or 3 examples of this "gob of evidence". Prove me wrong, name your best pieces of evidence.
(............................................................crickets....................................................)
@@teks-kj1nj The evidence is all over their site and this channel. Do your homework.
@@logicianbones
This site has no evidence refuting evolution. This particular video didn't even try.
@@jockyoung4491 Bald assertion fallacy. Yes it does. Imagine if a Flat-Earther said we have no evidence for Spherical Earth, in a source you have read, studied logic, etc., so you know what it looks like. Would anybody take the Flat-Earther's word that it's just somehow not evidence? You have to engage with it and show how it doesn't work. We do that against supposed evolution evidence and we show evidence for our view. Denialism isn't an argument.
You should clarify "apologetics pseudo-science".
No. No we shouldn't...
That would give Calvin's game away.
Why not, Calvin? What’s the matter?
@@Bomtombadi1 Because it's false to call sound apologetics pseudo- anything.
The human species developed coping mechanisms to cope with the harsh realities and struggles of everyday life and also to cope with one's own personal mortality a denial of fatalism because something would be nice don't make it so creationism is not science maybe bad science but creationism is out of World Mythology Mythology is very powerful in the human psyche
Even if evolution was proven to be completely false, that is not evidence of God... How about you demonstrate your claims that god is real and stop trying to disprove evolution which does nothing for your point.
If evolution is false (which it is) there is only 1 alternative... deal with it...
@@calvinsmith7575 there is a lot more than 1 alternative!! Aliens build us and put us here.... There is one more.
@@calvinsmith7575there you go lying again
@@hasone1848 Aliens? : ). So where did they come from? It always comes back to creation or evolution. Deal with it...
@@calvinsmith7575 well if it comes to evolution or creation, evolution has mountains of evidence behind it, creation has zero.
It's peculiar to me how athiests hang out on overtly Christian channels to vehemently oppose anything to do with the God of the Bible who they apparently don't believe in.🤔
It’s more that these channels keep talking about atheism or science and don’t get it correct. I don’t bother criticizing someone who believes in a Bible or believes in a god or gods. They are welcome to their beliefs and I can respect that.
But it they talk about other things incorrectly? I do speak up.
Vehemence is very often associated with religious extremism. The desert cults split long ago into violent gangs. The thousands of denominations seem to be simmering with distrust of each other. Many of them actually hate each other.
BTW this channel is not overtly "christian". Sullen and tortuous would be a better description, and hardly anybody takes it seriously.
I don't comment on God. I am here only to talk about science. And I will continue to point out when people get it wrong.
Right on. Evolutionist cope.
@@logicianbonesthat’s creationists
Jesus believed in 6 day creation, We are told in Scripture how Jesus created: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:6-9). We see the meaning of this when we consider the miracles of Jesus during His earthly ministry. All the miracles occurred instantly-at His Word. He instantly turned water into wine in His very first miracle, which “revealed His glory” as the Creator (John 2:1-11; John 1:1-3, 14, 18). It was the instant calming of the wind and the waves that convinced His disciples that He was no mere man. So it was with all His miracles (Mark 4:35-41). He did not speak and wait for days, weeks, months, or years for things to happen. He spoke and it was done. So, when He said, “Let there be . . .” in Genesis 1, it did not take long ages for things to come into existence.
Regardless of what percentage of DNA is similar to humans, my theory is that if evolution was true, we would see more half a half human species or animals today but rather we still only see Abe and human not happy half human.
Sigh...you can lead a creationist to evidence, but you can't make them think (or stop lying and misrepresenting science). And just one more point that really grates my cheese...if this all mighty designer did indeed design everything, he wouldn't be able to get a job as a coffee boy in any engineering design shop today. Its designs are so, so sh!t. So sh!t in fact that major design flaws, by some "weird coincidence" (ahem...evolution) are seen in related species. Good job god, good job...insert slow clap...
Bad design bad argument is debunked.
Logicianbones dumb creationist lies are debunked.
@@logicianbonesit’s debunked? Since when? Since you people said, “Nuh-uh! It’s all part of the plan!”
Is that when it was debunked?
@@logicianbones I await with bated breath your independent peer reviewed research that proves anything you claim these clowns have proved. I have the feeling I'll be waiting a long, long, loooooooong time.
@@Bomtombadi1 It was debunked when all major claims about it like Dawkward's eye argument were scientifically debunked. I'm not saying a new case couldn't ever be shown to work but you would have to actually do that.