Many scientists actually reject the theory of evolution! Yes, while it is true that the majority of scientists believe in evolutionary theory, this does not make it true, which is what you appear (from my perception) to be arguing from. The logical fallacy: Faulty Appeal to Majority/Authority, is believing something just because an authoritative figure (such as these scientists), or the majority of people (such as the majority of scientists holding to a particular view), believe it. Just because they believe it does not make it true! What makes it true is the evidence, and there seems to be no good evidence for the theory of evolution that I can find!

@@ImperativeApologetics very very few biologists rejects the theory of evolution. I am not saying evolution is true because scientists accept it, I am asking why you think they do accept it? 1) they are incompetent, 2) they are part of a conspiracy If I do not know why you think it is, then Oncant understand your reason for rejecting it, which means I can't respond to it.

@@ImperativeApologetics I was not saying they are right, so hardly an appeal to authority. I am asking why you think they are wrong? If your arguments can't convince the experts, why should I - as a lay person - accept your arguments? And most scientists do not study evolution - biologists do (and not even all of them). Somehow there seems not to be many biologists rejecting the theory?

The reasons may be numerous as to why they accept evolutionary theory. Listing those two options as the only possible options (which it seems as you are trying to frame it) seems intellectually dishonest to me. A couple of reasons could be that it is a carefully protected religion (which many instances support, you can listen to Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation Seminar in the playlist section of this channel as a source). Also, there is an enormous amount of peer pressure around this topic! While I could list more possible reasons as to why, I personally think that the theory of evolution is wrong because there is no evidence to support it!

@@ImperativeApologetics feel free to add other options as you did. indeed I can also think of one more: they know something you don't. But somehow people tend to dismiss that option - after all, scientists only spend 8+ years studying and then worked with it for years. What could they possible learn from that which you can't learn from watching a bit of youtube videos. peer pressure is indeed an option - is that the part where dissidents are sent off to Sweden to have lunch with one or another old guy insisting they call him "your majesty"? I think it is called the Nobel Prize reception or something. Kent Hovind (I know how he got his "doctorate" from, so out of respect for people who worked for their degree not going to use it for him) is not exactly a shining beacon of knowledge. I like the recent idea of his where he "demonstrates" the earth can't be old as it is slowing down - not realising the speed it slows down with. His moon dust and receding moon arguments are also hilarious. Can you give an example of a convincing argument from him? To be fair, he does actually accept macro evolution, he just does not want to call it evolution. It is just adaptation to such a degree the species can no longer interbreed.

There are six types of evolution. There is: 1. Cosmic Evolution (i.e. Big Bang) 2. Chemical Evolution 3. Stellar & Planetary Evolution 4. The Origin of Life 5. Macroevolution 6. Microevolution The changing beak shape of the bird that you are referring to is microevolution (or simply called variations). That is science, but the other forms of evolution are complete speculation. There are limits to the genetic variation that an animal, plant, or human is able to go through. There will never be a pig as big as Texas for example. There is simply a limit. There is no evidence of macroevolution ever occurring (or at least I haven't seen any). The animal suffering is simply a result that we live in a fallen Creation. Man's original sin brought death and suffering into the world. God had originally Created a perfect world, but sin ruined it, which is consequently why we see this animal suffering and so on. But thankfully God is going to Create a new heaven, and a new earth! (Those are my thoughts on those points!)

Could you provide any verses in Genesis to back up these claims? Could you also provide the evidence that atheists would use to debunk the claims made by Ken Ham?

Thank you so much!

I never stated that science is incompatible with Christianity, I simply said that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Evolution is not science! Yes, variations do occur, which is sometimes branded as microevolution, but there are five other forms of evolutionary theory which completely imaginary! 1. Cosmic Evolution (i.e. Big Bang) 2. Chemical Evolution 3. Stellar & Planetary Evolution 4. The Origin of Life 5. Macroevolution I do support science, but I do not support evolution because evolution is not science!

@@ImperativeApologetics The Big Bang is both Christian and true though. This is what I mean by a trap. We've been tricked into thinking that the big bang is an atheist belief, but it's actually Christian. Before the theory was proposed, Christians believed the world was created by God, and had a beginning. Atheists didn't believe in God, so they claimed the universe was eternal. No beginning, no creation. The Big Bang proves there was a beginning! Therefore God is real! Origin of life isn't evolution, science can't really explain that. I learned from biologists that evolution can't answer that question. That's what theology is meant to answer.

I find it incredibly difficult that someone (being unbiased) could read the Genesis account of Creation, and come up with the notion that God Created everything by means of evolutionary processes. Just because we believe and know that the world was Created by Almighty God, that does not mean that He used the Big Bang/evolution to Create! I would ask you for the evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, and what verses in the Bible support this theory being used by God in His Creation?

@@ImperativeApologetics the Bible isn’t a science book, you’re not supposed to know the specific mechanism of how life was made from genesis. That belief is how many Christians lose their faith. Once they find an unanswered question they lose faith. All we need to know from creation is that God was responsible and these are the creations he made. Microbes aren’t mentioned in genesis, is evolution/science wrong about them?

Evolution is not science! Variations certainly do happen, but macroevolution and the other forms of evolution are purely imaginary. As I stated in the video, evolutionary theory is contradictory to the Creation account given in Genesis! I would again ask you for the evidence in regards to the Big Bang theory, or macroevolutionary processes. There is simply no scientific evidence for them!

Yes, I agree that microevolution (or simply variations) do in fact happen everyday, and I was not arguing about whether or not variations occur in nature (which they do). Microevolution seems to me to be the term in which evolutionary advocates 'bait and switch,' while attempting to prove evolution. They oftentimes point to a variation within a species, and then use that to argue for macroevolution, which is way more extreme than microevolution! Kent Hovind described the six types of evolution: 1. Cosmic Evolution (i.e. Big Bang) 2. Chemical Evolution 3. Stellar & Planetary Evolution 4. The Origin of Life 5. Macroevolution 6. Microevolution The first five types of evolution are the ones which I was showing were incompatible with the Bible. I wholeheartedly agree with you that microevolution does in fact occur everyday, and it is the only scientific form of evolution!

Macro Evolution requires that God created a universe where to get to his perfect design, there had to be constant death and suffering. Completely contrary to the Bible which says death was introduced to the world through sin and man. Micro evolution has all the building blocks inside the DNA themselves..we can observe this today, but should rather be credited to the adaptability of organisms and not large scale evolution

@@MrSneakSneak While microevolution is certainly real, macroevolution is completely imaginary! Macroevolution within a Biblical viewpoint would result in heresy, as it would mean that death came before sin, while the Bible clearly declares that death came into the world because of man's sin.

@@ImperativeApologetics amen to that!

@@techauro8346 why would a mutation need to happen in both parents to be passed on? What mechanism would the newly created combined cell use to determine which of the two chromosomes is the "original" and which is just a mutation?

There is actually a lot of evidence for God, and Jesus Christ's resurrection! If you would like research more, I would recommend: Kent Hovind's Creation Seminar (Can be found in the Playlist section of this channel) Ken Ham with Answers in Genesis William Lane Craig with Reasonable Faith Gary Habermas J. Warner Wallace Ray Comfort with Living Waters (There are so many more)! Please remember that everyone, including you, are a sinner. Everyone has broken the 10 Commandments. Everyone has lied, stolen, blasphemed the name of God, looked with lust, which Jesus equated to committing adultery in the heart, and etc. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). You deserve to die, but Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you, and everybody from their sins, and all that you have to do is trust alone in Jesus!

@@ImperativeApologetics and yet you can't present any of this supposed evidence. I've already see the lies of all of those Christians, and not impressed. Show what you think is the best supposed evidence. I'll be happy to show you how it fails. Nope, I'm not a sinner, that's just a lie from your cult. You poor dears can't even agree on what this imaginary god considers to be a sin. It's great how you think everyone is a thief, but have no evidence for that lie either. No one needs this cult. I don't need some human blood sacrifice by torture for my actions. I'm responsible for them myself. I'm not some pathetic christian who needs someone harmed for them.

Jesus Christ has given you the free gift of everlasting life, and all you must do is repent of your sins, and trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior. EVERYONE has lied, stolen, etc. I know I have! Everyone deserves the death sentence for their sins, but Jesus Christ took your place on the cross! The God of the universe suffered and died for you! As for some evidence: The Kalam Cosmological Argument states: Everything that begins to exist has a cause, The universe began to exist, Therefore, the universe has a cause. Whatever Created the universe must be outside of the universe (therefore immaterial, non-spatial, and not affected by time), and also must be enormously powerful: God. Where do moral absolutes/values come from? These must be nested in an objective reference point, namely God! The Bible has prophesied to stunning accuracy, as well as stating scientific knowledge thousands of years before they were discovered in modern times. For instance, the Bible prophesied the Creation of the nation of Israel on the exact day of May 14th, 1948, and the Bible declared that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11). The Gospel accounts, as well as non-Christian records record that Jesus Christ did truly die on the cross, and many ancient towns and communities reported the martyrdom of the apostles, this martyrdom being because they would not recant their claims that Jesus Christ rose from the dead! Jesus Christ died on the cross, taking your place, and wants to save you. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Please please please think about this seriously. If you do not accept the free gift of everlasting life, you will be sent to an eternity in hell, where the fire is never quenched. I will be praying for you. I want you to know that I truly care deeply about you, even though we have never met. Please receive the free gift of everlasting life, because you deserve to go to hell, but Jesus Christ paid your fine, but you must repent of your sins (be truly sorry for them, and willing to turn from them), and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ!!!!!!!

@@ImperativeApologetics of course I also Don't think that the universe was made in billions of years. But rather we have a very young world. This goes against most people's view but the reason it does is because of carbon dating. That makes things seem like they're really, really old when carbon dating is very inaccurate. I believe it took a rock from Mount St. Helens that was freshly formed and sent it in to be carbon dated and apparently it was 40,000 years old which makes zero sense

​@@techauro8346 Yes, I believe that was a Potassium-Argon dating method for the Mount St. Helens rock, but both of the dating methods are inaccurate. The carbon-14 dating method for instance is based upon the assumption that the carbon-14 in the atmosphere has reached equilibrium, which it has not! We have lots of evidence of many of these dating methods, which you pointed out, giving absurd and contradictory dates!