Atheists Will HATE This Video (Ken Ham) 

Easy. All wanted to keep Jesus's body in the tomb. 2000 lb rock, SWAT team watching all night with promise of death if the Seal was broken. Jesus was messing up the MONEY of the Jews and Rome feared a rebellion. Easy. Where's the body.

🙏

Praying for him too.

Just as the novels of JK Rowling contain many true-to-life things and events, so does the bible. There truly was an historical Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Sea of Galilee, etc. There was a Herod and a Pontius Pilate, and crucifixions used as punishment, and many "holy men" running around leading one and another religious sect or cult. There does not however seem to exist any evidence for the supernatural events attributed to Jesus in the bible. I commend your husband for willingly accompanying you. My wife is a believer, and in 45 years of married life I have always supported her in her beliefs, beliefs which I do not share. I know we would have a parting of ways if she were to become a christian nationalist (remember Nationalisten Sozialisten?).

Amen praise God for this guy talking about the different genes On the animals. I used to be mormon Am I early sixties I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal saver . And Jesus Christ open my eyes.

The fool hath said in his heart there is no God - Proverbs

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

See how delusion makes you happy?

Amen sister

PRAISE BELONG TO JESUS AND JHVH FOREVER AND EVER AMEN

That's super cool.. how did u come by this info?

enoch news or the Dailywire lol@@joanneg7646

No they didn't, and the wood cannot be petrified because it takes millions of years to actually do that.

@@JB-yb4wn like coal or diamonds that they can now make in months

Right, the massive lie of millions of years to create a fossil is just that. Plus the only way to create a fossil is by rapid burial. What could bury a fish with another fish halfway down its throat. Only a huge wave of sediment from a huge flood.

Faith is a voluntary exclusion of reasonable thinking!

@@HarryShagnasty-sc9zdit is evidence that leads to faith

Faith is the reason you give for believing something when you don't have a good reason.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

that is a foolish comment. You are basically telling people to disregard what they see for something that might not exist. One should only believe things that they can see as that is a fact.

_no matter how many evidence the bible gives_ Except it doesn;t give any. At all. The bible is just a collection of fairy tales. Many of which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false. Genesis and Exodus, for example, they can both be thrown out as nonsense.

@@richardgregory3684 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, puddles of chemicals can fizz into people if you just add *Time,* and you are literally related to that banana you're eating. You have your own fairy tales my friend. *"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles"* (George Wald). Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for the validity of his theory, saying "if an organ were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." and he didn't have access to the fields of genetics or microbiology when he made up his theory. *If evolution is true, then how did male and female evolve?* *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23) *"But God is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to reach repentance"* (2 Peter 3:9)

@@michaelg377 Hilarious! The Bible is attacked. You 'defend' it by trotting out your 'gotchas' attacking evolution. But I agree - the Bible is indefensible!

@@Oldtinear "the first life-forms which developed this feature *left no trace of themselves* 2 billion years ago." (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) ""We can speculate [regarding early evolution], but *any speculations could not be tested, so we will never know"* (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) *"If you cannot test it, it ain't science."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023). Thank you for those powerful arguments against Evolution - now you can know, *from your own words,* that your own belief system *"...is not testable - it is nothing to do with science. It is a fundamentalist religious belief."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023) Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for the validity of his theory, saying *"if an organ were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..."* and he didn't have access to the fields of genetics or microbiology when he made up his theory. *If evolution is true, then how did male and female evolve?* *"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."* (Galatians 6:7) *"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes Judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27)

@@michaelg377 Desperate stuff, Micky! Quote mining bits of what I said but leaving out the context and accompanying explanations is a kind of lying. But then, you are good at that!

We do not affirm His existence because we have doubt, just like you did affirm the existence of your friends because you doubt they exist, but because you are grateful they do. Did you ever tell your friend "I am so glad you are here." So do you have doubt they exist?

Besides what makes you think that if such a creature exist everyone would believe in it? Especially since he gave us free will.

@@adamokornrajh3874 we were given free will but we already know from Christian Doctrine that we will be divided, we will not stand in unity. Which is exactly why our different races were created by us. There is only one race, the Human race. God made us unique because why would we want to look like every other person? That would be pretty bleak. Going back to my original point, different religions, teachings that contradict the Bible are designed to separate and confuse us. As finite beings we can’t comprehend something outside of our own world. We can’t comprehend time nor space which does not exist. Yet we still create our own time…

@@AmbientVibesASMR I agree with you on the fact that other religions were created by satan to confuse and divide us, but I don't understand what you mean by creating our own time?

@@adamokornrajh3874 Time does not exist. The explanation won’t be short but I hope you understand! Humans everywhere use spatial metaphors to think about time, but the specifics differ from culture to culture. Even alone in our thoughts, we think of time as space, leaning on brain areas known to play a role in spatial understanding. Culture plays a large role in determining which metaphors we use. The direction of the written word has an especially strong influence. In the 19th century, the physicist Ludwig Boltzmann wrote: “For the universe, the two directions of time are indistinguishable, just as in space there is no up and down.” Boltzmann’s view departed from time as an absolute in itself, a constant of the natural order of the universe. He implied that there is no objective direction of time, and that we invent it according to our perception, just as we call the direction towards the centre of the earth “down.” TIME AS AN ILLUSION The great revolution in our idea of time began with Albert Einstein.( A Religious Non-Believer) In his general relativity he included time as another dimension in the deformable fabric of the universe that explains gravity, and in special relativity time also became elastic, dependent on the position and velocity of the observer, so that the concept of “now” became meaningless. Decades later, in a letter of condolence to the family of his friend Michele Besso, who had died shortly before, Einstein wrote that for physicists “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

I feel your relief! I'm 65 and learning with you. 😊

For your own sake, watch videos discussing logical fallacies. Most of Ken Ham’s arguments rely on them. If you truly wish to see how creationism holds up under scrutiny, watch Ham debate Bill Nye. Seriously, it’s an enlightening experience to see how dishonest his stance has to be in order to justify his belief.

@@damonirvine8910 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people? I do agree with one of your points - do watch that debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye - it's Bill's false assumptions that caused him to do as poorly as he did. Ironically, *Time* is actually working in favor of Creation, and increasingly against Evolution. For example: *“…It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong."* *“…The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* (Niles Eldredge, "The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982) That last part is important: "Paleontologists... obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”

@@damonirvine8910 indeed, and a book I believe it’s called ‘Stealing from God: why atheists need God to make their case’ and some other ones from that author, it’s always around half truths and lies towards Scripture, don’t be afraid child the truth prevails and it’s mostly hypocritical arguments and just goes in circle, by their fruits we know them, it’s all spoken in the Bible that such men had do their works, and we have ours to do too, let us keep walking on that narrow path that God has put us in. He’s risen, He lives and loves, they forgot that it’s not because they reject and turn their faces away from someone that they stopped existing: they only ‘don’t exist to them’, yet we pray for them and ofc for all but the sin that leads to death as it’s stated in the book of John. God bless brothers, I also was one that had doubt and there are different things and problems but God clarifies everything, not everyone wants to serve but some want to be their own lord and gods of their lives, as Jesus said he who has ears let him hear.

Me to. Cause truth of anything seems to be handed down generation to generation. Look at politics. Handed down generation to generation. Oh my grandparents and parents believed in this. So this must be the right!! Wrong

God bless you 🎉

What were these questions ?

*_God Bless_*

​@Tbone I always find it funny when people who are not religious comment on these videos. You that bored or are you trying to convince yourself of something?

@Tbone You came to this exact video just to comment a nonsense claim. My brotha, there is a God and His name is Lord Jesus!

@@musicaleer4536 I haven't watched this video, but I can tell everyone that the age of the earth & universe is less than 15,000 years old. This has been proven by many scientific facts, as well as findings of soft tissue of the vascular system in dinosaur bones & blood cells in the horn of a triceratops. The young age of the earth was well documented by scientists, including Prof A.E. Wilder-Smith in his documentary ORIGINS How the world came to be. And his many books. None of the aforementioned facts have ever been debunked or proven to be incorrect. Another interesting video is 100 Reasons why evolution is stupid by Kent Hovind. Neither has any of the information in this video ever been debunked or proven to be incorrect. Then there are the lectures by Dr Grady McMurtry demonstrating a young age for the earth. I can only suggest all Christians watch Prof A.E. Wilder-Smith's documentary ORIGINS How the world came to be & check out his other lectures & books. The same goes for all ignorant atheists, agnostics, other non believers & those of other religions. I wondered for decades if there was any science behind the young earth teaching. When I actually looked, lo & behold I found the above. So do yourself a favour & investigate the facts. Unfortunately there are still many Christians, & especially Catholics who are totally ignorant on these matters. And the Catholics are being seriously mislead by the evil Pope on these & many other matters; as are all the ignorant atheists, agnostics, other non believers & those of other religions.

Amen

Amen.

Amen

@@musicaleer4536 where does right and wrong come from? Do animals have morals?

All he needs to do now is study some serious textbooks and will find a mountain of evidence the earth 4.6 billion years old.Deep time is something people of his mind set fail to comprehend or understand but is true regardless of what he thinks.

@@BobSmith-ew5oi Note though that the bible doesn't say the earth isn't 4.6 billion years old nor does it mention another age of our planet. Also note how Ken doesn't adhere to Thomas Aquinas vieuw on the relation of science and scripture. In my personal opinion, both the science aspect as well as the theological aspect of this video are sub par. Especially the "it's not x, so it must be y" arguments Ken makes are cringy as he fails to demonstrate that it must be either x or y to begin with, as long as that is not proven that it must be either x or y the conclusion is invalid as it's equally valid to conclude that its not x nor y but instead is a, b, c, .. etc, or it could even be both x and y. So I'm afraid Ken has a little more to do than you are suggesting.

@@BobSmith-ew5oi You pretend like that affects the validity of Christianity to any degree whatsoever.

@@BobSmith-ew5oi You claim that people like Ken cannot comprehend deep time. No, it is rather you, sir, that cannot comprehend an Infinite God who is outside of time and capable of speaking all things into existence in a mere six days. We understand "deep time" completely. Our understanding transcends it. You are the one who is limited.

@@gooberpeas535 and yet somehow unlike all other human beings on the face of this planet you completely do? I'm sorry... if the main argument is you cannot get information from non-information, that means that all life had to have a creator... however, that also means that someone or something had to create God... so who created God?

Yeah, it's clear alright, in that whenever something cannot be explained, it's explained by being god. Never mind truly looking for the cause of anything, as it's just god. But then which of the thousands of gods that have been brought forth by man should one believe? For some crazy reason it's the one from the bible. As if that fairy tale carries any more weight that any other religion.

So according to The cosmologist the big bang theory is currently the accepted theory of the beginning of the universe up to now .....but apparently there are a few other theories The steady state theory where matter was always.there. mult universe theory..but for now The universe started from a single point in spacoe expansion from a single Atom so where did the atom come from you can't have something out of of nothings

@@soultraveller5027 - Funny how you go from saying "steady state theory where matter was always there" to then saying "so where did the atom come from you can't have something out of of nothings". Well, if the steady state theory is correct, then that atom was always there!

@@soultraveller5027 The old chestnut, "nothing" as scientist use it is not the same as ordinary people understand. Nothing is a state of energy that equals zero then that fluctuated which then became something hence everything created (in a simplistic sense). I also pose a chestnut question, you can't believe that the universe came from nothing, but you believe god can or that he has always been there?. So why could that not be possible with the universe?. God is unnecessary baggage that need not be added. You are hypocritical of your own reasoning.

​@@soultraveller5027what makes God?

Have you actually watched anyone other than the self affirming minions from YEC echo chambers?

@@pup1008 With respect, given your misunderstandings and inability to explain your own worldview beliefs from our prior discussions... have you? “…It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong…The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: *everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* (Niles Eldredge, "The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982) That last part in particular is important: *"...everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* This is an evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring the evidence. What are your thoughts on that? All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.

@pup1008 what's it to you? I enjoyed the video. Spread your hate somewhere else.

@@rosesacks7430 One man's "hate" is another man's reality...

​@@michaelg377 Niles Eldredge - a biologist who lived and breathed evolution. michaelg - a Creationist who lies for God that Eldredge had doubts that evolution had happened.

Amen. You are on the right path!! Praise God!!❤🙏

God Bless You Stay with Jesus he is the way the truth and the Life. He is everything.

Read the prophets in old testament...Isaiah. God gives us more proof there when he predicts King Cyrus hundreds of years before he was born...and what he would do. Plus other things. Pastor Jack Hibbs gives weekly sermons on the bible. He has a set of sermons going through isaiah chapter by chapter. Also david sutchet has an audio bible he reads. Very easy to listen to. You are walking on the right path grasshopper dont let go of Yeshuas hand and learn more about He who loves you so much that He died for you. Welcome. God bless you.

Your gullibility will lead you to be "touched" by one of these wolves, pretending to be a shepherd.

Stay in the bible and read it alot it really is awesome. Noone will ever know this unless they actually read it..

I recommend studying the difference between science and scientism. That'll help you a lot. Just trying typing in "difference between science and scientism"

Hello, I am a career scientist. I can tell you for sure that there is nothing in natural science that verifies or proves the existence of any god or gods yet. The question cannot be answered by our current understanding of the universe. I think your attempt to ask this question honestly is admirable, but I encourage you to be more skeptical of people, like Ken, who claim things like this. Never trust a man who says his word is absolute truth, it's lies and it smells like death.

@@ryansergas2776 My friend, you're making a logical category error if you think a Super-Natural God (by definition, beyond the laws of nature) can be "verified or proven" by "Natural Science." *Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Ideology,* and there are many things that Science is simply unable to account for like the immaterial metaphysical laws of logic, immaterial information, or the metaphysical immaterial mathematically precise laws of nature which exist outside of our chemical bodies and which all of nature obeys for some reason. Do you believe that there was a "Big Bang" and all of math and science happened? Or do you believe these mathematically precise realities are *pre-existent, like God?* Mathematical precision looks like the product of an intelligent engineering mind, not the product of a "Big Bang." Science can't function in the first place without the mathematical precision and order that these laws of nature give to it. *"This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth..."* (Jeremiah 33:25)

@@michaelg377 When profound things happen outside of natural laws you have your proof. If you would just open up your tightly squeezed shut eyes, you could see that all of creation, especially living things, cannot be explained except by outside of natural laws, which govern the creation since its creation. Also, The God that obviously created all things does, at times, for His reasons, intervene and override His laws which He built into His creation and do what is know as miraculous things.

What had you teetering on the edge for so long?

Another good source for answers is Apologetics Press.

Seems to me you've gone to all sources but the True One: the Catholic Church. The saints and Church Fathers can answer any, each and all of your questions. And more. And so much more.

@@fernandaabreu5625 With respect, I don't think the Modern Catholic Church is the same as the One True original early church... If that's true, then why did St. Jerome say "“As, then, *the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures,* so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, *not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”* ...? You have a different Bible from your early church fathers, are you sure that your Modern Catholic Church is really the same as the One True Original Catholic (from the Greek "Katholikos" = "Universal") church of Jesus Christ from 1600+ years ago? *Where do we find in the earliest records of Christians in the TRUE CHURCH promoting things such as bowing before images of things in heaven and earth, rosary beads, scapulars, and holy water?* Cardinal Cajetan (AD 1534) likewise said: "For the rest (that is, *Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books,* and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, *as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.* Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. *For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome."* ...just 15 years or so later and he would have been declared Anathema by the Modern Catholic Church at the Council of Trent for his agreement with St. Jerome and rejection of the apocryphal books. What are your thoughts on these things?

The Bible tells us that Man has limited knowledge --only God knows and understands everything.

@@michaelg377 Michael. my thoughts on the Apocrypha, rosary beads and bowing down in front of statues. all such things are traditional. according to the Catholic Church. also, Paul mentions saints, veneration of, in his letters to churches. this, probly the earliest writings of any Christian? when Paul refers to saints he probly means someone who has died in the faith, achieved sainthood, and that they should be remembered. such as Blessed Virgin Mary. altho Paul does not mention Her, Justyn Martyr did. he likened Jesus to a new Adam, and Mary to a new Eve, in one of his early writings. the veneration of saints and Blessed Virgin Mary probly as old as Christianity itself! Maccabees, not thought of as 'inspired' by the Holy Spirit, so therefore not included. Maccabees, more of a history, than anything. a bloody history, of religious fundamentalism. as Paul tells us, Jews were persecutors and contrary to all men..

yah all fake

@@jmatiasdelgado Evolution is a lie because Charles Lyle and Charles Darwin both lied about it. Charles Lyle wrote in his own journal that he just wanted to make something that refutes the Bible Genesis creation.

@@jmatiasdelgado Just because you're delusional and incapable of comprehending anything does not mean it's a hoax.

How does it make you feel? Knowing that man changed "Gods Word?" The only passages in the bible that talk about slavery are the ones that support it. So when the laws in the United States changed, and slavery became illegal the interpretation of the Bible changed over night. Do you get that? No Messiah was needed. The word of God was just changed, boom, like that, over night. God was overruled. God trumped. How does that make you feel? We're doing bad things with our nipples and making God watch us.

@@royromano9792 I'm in full agreement with you - but " God trumped." was an unfortunate turn of phrase! 😜

You keep ignorant & deluded, your flavour of geographically and culturally ordained god seems to like that! 😂👍

@@pup1008 What are your thoughts on the observed 10-year old samples taken from a lava dome at Mt. St. Helens that were K-Ar dated to be 300,000 years old? In order to accurately "date" something, you need to know the original amount of the parent isotope, the original amount of the daughter isotope, that the rate of decay remained constant, and that the material was in a closed system unaffected by other influences which could throw off the results - *we can't verify any of these Assumptions without a time machine.* Why were the samples from this lava dome so far off? Because the scientists *incorrectly assumed* that all of the Argon was the product of radioactive decay of Potassium, but the material inherited additional Argon as it solidified, so they incorrectly dated a 10-year old object to be 300,000 years old based on their false assumptions. If objects that we observe can be so incorrectly dated, what does that tell you about dating objects that we cannot observe, from the Unobservable Past? Other items for consideration include young Carbon-14 found inside of allegedly "billions of years old" diamonds, young soft tissues and intact cells found inside a growing number of allegedly "65 million year old" dinosaur fossils which appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean Ice Man, snail shells dated to be 26,000 years old in the 1980s, and numerous measurements taken from samples of past historically documented volcanic eruptions (Mt. Etna, etc.) which are WAY off compared to what documented history shows. ...but without this atheistic "flavour of geographically and culturally ordained god" (Naturalism and its underlying assumptions), you don't have "billions of years." Without "billions of years," your already implausible belief that chemicals fizzed into people by chance just by adding *Time* falls apart. You need a Creator. *"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes Judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27)

Ehm no, just a Cristian lie

@dumyjobby no, just a fact you cannot accept. This was general news at the time, until all of a sudden it wasn't. You can say whatever you want, but I actually lived this.

@@judyreeves2600 Actually check out *ANY* mainstream, secular site relating to it for a full & *FACTUAL* explanation! 🙄

Very true. And this information includes complex instructions for building things like your eyes with its millions of cells and a concave light-refracting lens that bends light just right so that you can see... and they say 'it's just chemicals." It's incredible.

@@ThomasKundera Well, first you need to get information from non-information - out of a chemical puddle. This information needs to then grow into instructions for building things like your concave light refracting lens that bends light just right, 137M light sensitive cells, 40M nerve endings, and precise muscles that auto-focus this complex optical system 100,000 times a day. Then once you've solve that information/instructions problem for building this complex masterpiece of engineering, you can move on to the chemicals and physics involved in this engineering masterpiece - but first you need to account for the instructions for it from non-information in a lifeless information-less chemical universe. How do you do that?

@@ThomasKundera So you admit that your chemical DNA is programmed with information (instructions) to build this complex machine including a concave light-refracting lens that bends light just right so your 137M light sensitive cells can process this input and turn it into a signal so you can "see"? Because the intelligent origin of information was the point of my post. So far so good my friend - right?

@@ThomasKundera " the intelligent origin of information was the point of my post." And evolution is what put that information there." Okay, so DNA contains information. We observe that every example of information elsewhere always has an intelligent source - every book has an author, every program a programmer, the words on this screen came from you as the intelligent source. So take an early living cell, and go back in time to the first "creature" or "bacteria" or whatever it was that contained DNA with "information" - How did that "information" in that first DNA/information filled cell get created out of chemicals in a puddle without an intelligent source? Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Evidence: DNA contains information. Evidence: Every *other* example of information in existence always ultimately has an intelligent source. Biblical Creation Conclusion: Therefore, *consistently interpreted,* the information and instructions in DNA also had an Intelligent Source (God). Atheistic Naturalist Conclusion: "Evolution [an unintelligent source] is what put that information there." Can you please explain?

@@ThomasKundera You just made another logical fallacy, *begging the question* of an unintelligent source for early DNA. Read above carefully, I'll repost here for you side by side, maybe it will help: "take an early living cell, and *go back in time to the first "creature" or "bacteria" or whatever it was that contained DNA with "information" - How did that "information" in that first DNA/information filled cell get created out of chemicals in a puddle* without an intelligent source?" You said "Do you suggest that *a mutation in DNA* is caused by intelligence?" - *That depends on whether that information in DNA originally came from an Intelligent Source or not, right? So back on topic, with the first instance of information in DNA, in the first bacteria, cell, etc. - where did that information come from?* You can get information from other information ("mutations in DNA," etc.) - but you need to get *information from non-information* without an Intelligent Source. By way of a rough analogy, if a bunch of pages were ripped out of several books and thrown into the trash, it's possible that those pages could just happen to fall together into a certain order in a "new" book. That "new" book was not formed by an intelligent source - but *all of the information in it still came from an Intelligent Source (the original authors).* You need to account for the "author" that gets you from information-less chemicals to information-full DNA, not from one information-filled cell to another mutated information-filled cell. Does that help?

You're talking about this like you're mind blown by the idea of not being racist

Yeah, but why do they have to lie about science? Is that a requirement of theirs or something?

@@travisbicklepopsicle what lies?

@@ninkstheultimate3376 you aren't aware that AIG has a well documented history of lying about several fields of science? Of misquoting and quote mining scientists? Sure, when I get some free time I'll compile a brief list. After that, you can find more on your own if you feel like it

@@travisbicklepopsicle that's what i thought

@@ninkstheultimate3376 sure, it can be a joint effort :-) you aren't even curious? Didn't do any searching on your own? I work for a living, and I'm sure you are busy as well; you'll get your list. May be a day or two, but you'll get it 👍

But it is true, called faith.😊

@@TdBone a more accurate statement- you can’t just claim people are your friend by saying it

It's not really

​@@pamelaevans3146 faith doesn't mean anything, irs just a word used by people without evidence for their so called invisible celestial dictator

@@frankmurphyburr3598 😂so what are you doing here watching? Have you nothing better to do than hang around to start arguments? Go watch something you enjoy

*"This text is 100% likely to be AI Generated"* (Quillbot)... *Yes, you should "think for yourself" my friend.* Also you're wrong. For example: Quantity of water) Mars has no liquid water, but scientists believe it was once covered in liquid water because of its canyons and other features. Earth is 70% covered in liquid water (!) and has similar features, marine fossils on the highest mountain tops, whale fossils deep inland in the Unites States, Ankylosaurus fossils found buried where they're not supposed to be among marine creatures, entire stacks of layered solid rock - bent at a 90 degree angle with no signs of breakage (because they were wet) - but secularists insist "there's no way there could have been a global flood." *Why the double standard?* You should research what the biblical creation worldview actually believes on this point my friend, it is actually perfectly plausible and there is a great amount of evidence that supports it if you can see beyond your Atheistic-Naturalist blinders. There are many problems with the secular origins mythology today, you just have to be able and willing to conduct an honest critical self-assessment of your worldview and see what the other side's *actual arguments and evidences* really are. In the meantime, here's another one for consideration that I hope you will find interesting *which contradicts several of your claims above:* *Did you know that the secular 4000-5000 year old Chinese language suspiciously contains uniquely biblical imagery in some of its characters?* How did it get in there? For example, the Character for "boat" consists of the characters "vessel" " *eight* " and "people," suspiciously matching Noah's family of 8 on the ark. The character for "flood" consists of "water" and "total", and the character for "total" is made up of "together," " *eight* ," and "earth," again suspiciously matching Noah's flood. The character for "To create" consists of "speak" "dust" "life" "walk" suspiciously matching how God spoke life into existence and formed man from the dust of the ground. The character for "devil" consists of the characters "secret" "man" "garden" "alive" , and the character for "tempter" consists of "devil" "two trees" and "cover," suspiciously matching the description of Satan in the Garden of Eden. The character for "Garden" includes "dust" "breath" "two persons" "enclosure" again suspiciously matching the account of God creating Adam and Eve from the dust in the Garden of Eden. The character for "happiness" includes "God" and "sheep" reflecting God's desire throughout the Bible to be with His sheep. The character "forbidden/to warn" includes "God" and "Two Trees" suspiciously matching the two trees God put in the Garden of Eden to give man a free will choice between good and evil (among other things). Some argue that the Bible is just a "Bronze age" copy of other ancient mythologies, but that doesn't make sense. There are dozens of these Chinese characters with specifically biblical imagery, and I have yet to see an ancient copycat legend that has these same details. *The birth of the Chinese language suspiciously lines up with the time the Bible says the Tower of Babel incident occurred, and it would make sense if this imagery entered their language because the early Chinese people were simply familiar with the biblical account of creation and the biblical flood.* If you deny that though, then how do you explain this? Christian missionaries didn't exist until millennia after the Chinese language began. As a related finding, some ancient Chinese writings and pottery depict cultural parallels between the ancient Chinese and ancient Hebrew people concerning animal sacrifices... food for thought. In addition, there are thousands of global flood legends all around the world, including 300+ Native American global flood legends which were developed in geographic isolation of Judeo-Christian influences, many of which specifically corroborate the biblical Noahic flood account, but not the other Mesopotamian flood myths. All of these geographically isolated people on separate continents suspiciously also had a knowledge of dinosaur-like creatures, and they also suspiciously had the same taste in architecture (ziggurats) all around the world. All of this evidence makes sense if these people descended from the same common people from the Tower of Babel incident after the biblical Noahic Flood. Otherwise this is all very strange and seems to contradict the secular narrative of human origins at many points. Blessings to you and yours.

Defying the laws of physics is quite literally what our God has done countless times. This doesn't disprove God. You'd think someone who doesn't believe in anything wouldn't care about disproving an entire religion. We get called cringe so much, but typing quite literally an essay on why you don't believe in God is next level. I say this because in the same way you don't care why we believe in God, we don't care why you don't.

@@bioof4 Atheists care for truth. You obviously don't. If you kept your delusions to yourselves, atheists would have no problem. But you proclaim them in public forums such as RU-vid, and attack science. Atheists have every right to call out the lies.

@@Oldtinear That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a long enough *time* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people - and that's quite a bit of "science" you just ignored above my friend. Your words: *"If you cannot test it, it ain't science."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023). ""We can speculate [regarding early evolution], but *any speculations could not be tested, so we will never know"* (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) "the first life-forms which developed this feature *left no trace of themselves* 2 billion years ago." (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) Thank you for those powerful arguments against Evolution - now you can know, *from your own words,* that your own belief system *"...is not testable - it is nothing to do with science. It is a fundamentalist religious belief."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023) Do you hold yourself to your own standard though...? Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Atheistic Ideology. No one here has a problem with "science" (a methodology), it's your Unscientific Atheistic mythology that says you are a fish, cousin to a cockroach, a brother to cancer cells and leprosy, and that we are all just "meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless amoral chemical universe" that is the problem. You are so much more than you believe you are. *"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."* (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research)

@@bioof4NGL writing essays about why people don’t believe in something is… normal. Wasn’t the Declaration of Independence literally an essay as to why the 13 Colonies shouldn’t be ruled by England?

God bless you 🎉

*_God Bless_*

​@Tbone Yes there is

do you know what does theory mean?

@@YerdauitYerlanulya theory is an interpretation of facts to form a conclusion. That’s why theories change, and can be wrong. We can interpret the facts incorrectly or we can discover new data that changes the picture. It’s the same reason we can get wildly different politics when interpreting data incorrectly or not getting the full picture. The addition of data changes theories rapidly. For example, recently the JWT found that galaxies and heavy elements are found fully formed far further than we ever could have predicted they could be according to the conclusions and theories that we currently understood. This wildly changes the possibilities of the Big Bang, the process of the creation of our universe, and the timeline associated with it.

Understandable language and logic are important, but do you knwo what else is important? Sources. He has not proven that God was a witness to anything, he has not proven that God is capable of inspiring anyone and that he did. We know the history of the eiffel tower, because we have primary sources of people who left physical evidence with blueprints, and newspapers.

@@Quartz512_ So, you believe only in that you can see and obtain information from blueprints? Well, I have news for you, there is a blueprint for the existence of God namely the bible. If you take the time to understand the building of the Eifel tower, you might find it more interesting to read the blueprint of God, the bibile KJV. You, are His creation. Look around you at nature, and not man-made structures, and you will realize the power of God. He alone has the power to life and existence, and He created it.There is only one God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Trust and believe in them and you might be with Them when Jesus comes collect the saved. It is not to late for you to confess and repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ into your life.

@@Quartz512_ Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? Throughout Scripture we have 66 books written by 40 authors, including 27 books written by 8 of them plus their amanuenses which all corroborate the same claims - that's enough eyewitness/secondary witness evidence to sink a modern court case. We also have demonstrable proof of supernatural phenomena through fulfilled prophecy documented in the Bible, such as the prophecy in Daniel 9 which accurately predicted the rebuilding of Jerusalem, coming of someone meeting all the qualifications of the Jewish Messiah, execution of said Messiah in a specifically curse-worthy manner, and then destruction of the 2nd temple and Jerusalem (AD 70), all in that order and on a specific timeline that just happens to line up with the year that Jesus was crucified. *Fulfilled Prophecy in the Biblical Texts* Among other things. *Accurately telling the future with such precise detail is either extremely incredible chance, or it's a supernatural phenomenon. This is evidence of God's divine intervention in mankind through Scripture, and is therefore evidence that supports His inspiration of this text.* These specific prophecies came to be because God is sovereign over all of it, and His prophecies are always accurate. BTW we can prove this prophecy above was made hundreds of years before this specific timeline of events occurred based on tangible manuscript evidence that we have in hand that predates Jesus' time on earth (Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, etc.). *Science in the Bible* Also consider the many hints of scientific truths throughout, yet undiscovered by secular man at the time they were written. The human authors wrote that God put the stars in the Heavens, and Scripture goes on to say that they are countless (Jeremiah 33:22, etc.) while Ptolemy only catalogued 1100 observable stars in his time. Likewise, years before Pythagoras is attributed with discovering a round earth, and while the rest of the world believed it was flat and/or on the back of an animal with wind blowing from four corners, Isaiah suspiciously wrote that God "sits above the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) and Job wrote that God "hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7) both showing signs of countercultural and 3-dimensional thought. *It's almost like these prophets of God suspiciously had glimpses of a scientific truth we didn't figure out for centuries.* Then of course there's how Matthew Maury discovered ocean currents based on his understanding of Psalm 8:8, the Bible's descriptions matching the hydrologic cycle which we didn't figure out until relatively recently (Amos 9:6, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Psalm 135:7, Ecclesiastes 11:3, etc.), that blood is the source of life (Leviticus 17:11) while other cultures were practicing bloodletting to try to stop disease, hygiene laws requiring running water (Leviticus 15:13) while even up to the 1800s doctors would wash their hands in a still basin of water leaving invisible germs and causing countless infections and deaths as a result... Among countless other examples. These hints at modern scientific truths throughout Scripture make sense if they were revealed to us from the all-knowing God who created the entire universe including the laws of nature (Jeremiah 33:25) and time, space, and matter themselves (Genesis 1:1). *They make sense if Scripture was inspired by God - literally "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16).* But if the Bible is false, then it's very odd that all these prophets seem to have gotten modern science right on so many points millennia before modern science figured these things out. *"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"* (2 Timothy 3:16)

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

Science agrees that there has been floods in the past, there's deserts that used to be under water and so on. But all the continents user to be one super continent at one point. We know this because of archeological findings like fossils of the same species being found on different continents and other geological findings. Not to mention the current movement of the continents. A few floods in the past does not confirm gods existence. In fact the pole ices are melting right now and will cause landmasses to get under the sea level. These events happen on a geoactive planet. But to make a further argument. The epic of Gilgamesh is a text written around 2000 BC, (long before the bible). And it has a flood myth which is very very similar to the story of Noah.. Including building a ship and taking animals onboard "The gods sent a flood to destroy the human race, but one god, Ea spoke to a reed fence giving instructions on how to build a suitable boat. Uta-napishti heard the words of Ea, and saved himself, his family and all living things. The flood was upon the earth for six days and seven nights." Is it coincident? I think not.. Most likely this story was carried on from mouth to ear, gradually changing and eventually tailored to fit into the Old Testament. It makes the most sense.

No it's not. Creationists like ken Ham deny evolution but they rely on the theory of evolution to support the claim of the flood. People who believe there was a flood and an arc need to be institutionalized. It's a belief founded in ignorance and denying science.

@@HaveAHuff That's just not true my friend. For example, *if sediments have been accumulating on the ocean floor for 3+ billion years, then the sediment on the sea floor should be several miles deep* ...but the thickness of these sediments is only about 1300 feet deep. Approximately 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris are eroded from the continents and deposited into the sea every year, mostly near the continents. Approximately 1 billion tons of sediment are removed every year through tectonic movement (1-2 inches per year), resulting in a net gain of approximately 19 billion tons of sediment every year. At this rate, it would take about 12 million years (assuming atheistic-Naturalist assumptions) for all of this sediment to accumulate - not 3-4 *Billion* years. This measurable evidence makes sense from a biblical creation perspective which holds that most of these sediments were rapidly deposited a little over 4000 years ago in the global flood. The evidence just fits. Atheistic-Naturalists, however, have to invoke one of several rescuing devices to circumvent this problematic evidence, all of which are problematic themselves. Some claim *"it must have accumulated at a slower rate in the past"* - but the sediments on the continental shelves suggest they were deposited much *Faster* than today's rates. For example, the layering and patterns of the grain sizes in these sediments are the same as those produced by undersea landslides, when turbidity currents flow rapidly across continental shelves and the sediments then settle in thick layers over vast areas. *There is also no evidence of a large amount of sediment being subducted under the mantle.* Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Biblical creation proponents "scientifically" accept this evidence at face value of a recent global flood and a young creation - the evidence simply fits. Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke a rescuing device to unscientificially *circumvent this problematic evidence in order to preserve their atheistic version of our origins.* Which worldview is really behaving more "scientifically" at this point, the one that accepts the evidence (biblical creation) or the one that has to invoke yet another rescuing device to sustain their belief system (atheistic-Naturalists)? We are all indoctrinated into atheistic-Naturalism (evolution, etc.) today in our public education system. Atheistic-Naturalists do the same thing with the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests earth should have been frozen when life was supposed to create itself 3.5 billion years ago (various unsubstantiated theories), young 100,000 year old maximum comets in our allegedly "14 billion year old" universe (fabricated Oort Clouds), young soft tissues in allegedly "65+ million year old" dinosaur fossils that appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean ice man (preservative rescuing devices), the fact that the moon would have been touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago based on calculations concerning the effects of tidal recession on the moon (usually miscalculated and/or ignored), etc. Is this really how "Science" is supposed to work?

@@michaelg377 I'm not reading any of that. There are 16000000 species that would have had to be on the arc. Creationists acknowledge there's no way a vessel that size could have been constructed by a man and his family. They assert there were only 1000-4000 species, depending who you ask. Which means everything had to evolve from those species. The entire world view is a contradiction. Even most people who believe in your god don't believe the flood happened. It's simply illogical.

@@michaelg377 You aren't going to be taken seriously when you blatantly deny science.

atheism is the absent of religion. it doesnt make sense what you´re saying. Atheism do not pray or follow a set of rules in the name of atheism. Being an atheist is similar to be ab "individual person" why you may ask? two atheist are just doing their own thing. Religious people are forced to follow what i would call a communistic world view "if you dont follow the rules the consequenses can be severe" sounds like a dictator to me. Thats not freedom You can be an atheist and deny every scientific discoveries there is outthere. You can be an atheist and deny evolution. Religion can be dangerous because i am 100% sure that you have never have come across a situation where the bible is wrong which makes you and any other religious person closed minded. non believers can also be wrong aswell but we arent closed minded since we follow the evidence. in a nutshell if god can be proven tommorow i would not be religious because religion is hope and hope isnt facts. religion will cancel itself since it would be facts

I know this was 5 months ago, but I am seriously curious as to what blind faith atheists must have that a theist doesn't.

Atheism is not a religion, they literally dont believe in any god or anything divine, but rather just believe anything they can see is reality.

Buddy, this dude did not bring hardly any valid receipts or sources whatsoever, even his alleged friend that is a scientist and a creationist who apparently has some method of dating that could place the Earth in the young earth creationist territory he still didn't name the person or cited any study they did. Not only that but if you actually knew the science or anyting remotely connected to the material reality of what this man is talking about, then you would be able to recognize the subtle strawmanning of science as well as the quiet dishonesty that bleeds through their unrecognized bias.

​@@justinstuder1649 "Atheism requires faith" is probably the strongest indicator that they have absolutely zero idea what they are talking about. 😂

when science supports your beliefs you take it as confirmation. When science refutes yoru beliefs you say science is wrong.. Apparently science is only correct when it supports your beliefs. In fact science changes when evidence changes and reuiares changes in scientific theories. Your beliefs don't change no matter what evicence is uncovered.That is dogma.

@@jasonwiley798 Actually, you're wrong. I don't look to science to validate my beliefs. I simply wait for science to catch up to my beliefs. I know science cannot explain everything-eg.."quantum entanglement" or how the "big bang" was created in the first place.

@@tico9866 and your beliefs don't explain them either. But I guess you are not looking for explanations.

@@tico9866 what about when people were saying God was responsible for thunder and lightning and we discovered how it actually happened. Clearly you don't understand that science closes the gaps that God fills and your God is becoming less and less responsible for the universe. Less and less places for him to hide

Throughout history there have been many people who were misguided into thinking there were many gods..Thor, Zeus, Athena, Sun, etc. But there is only one true living God and he created our world and the entire universe. He allowed the moisture from the ocean to cause precipitation in the atmospheric and form rain clouds 🌦 that's brings about thunderstorms and rain that our plants need to grow so we can feed upon them. There's no conflict with Science. It just explains in detail what is physically happening throughout the process.

There was nothing wrong with the explanation, it was just simplified for children to understand, this is exactly what we observe in nature, everything is a top-down speciation proccess limited within each family kind, by dogs he meant canines in general, originaly two canines brought all the rest of them, and there has never been a case where a canine can become a non-canine regardless of how much time passes

@@SillyMagoo What? there are at least 13 different definitions of the word "species", the most commonly used one refers to variations within a family/kind, for example the canine family has different species such as wolves, dogs, coyottes etc and those have sub-species too, and can interbreed with each other, but no canine can interbreed or become a non-canine

@@user-rb3tk5th2i "There was nothing wrong with the explanation, it was just simplified for children to understand..." No and no, there are many errors in his presentation and I wouldnt bet on that he trimmed his presentation down for children - it is probably exactly how he misunderstands things. "...originaly two canines brought all the rest of them..." Are you referring to the 2 that are suppopsed to be made by god according to some tales? Its not necessary at all for a new species to spring from exactly 1 pair of parents. "...and there has never been a case where a canine can become a non-canine regardless of how much time passes" Evolution has allready outFOXed you.

Love your answer! And I just proved I'm God because I said so.

Oh yeah and are y’all able to rise after death like Jesus Christ did? That’s how he proved he wasn’t of THIS world. Please read your bibles.❤

@@boldasalion2911 I am just as [in]capable of rising from the dead as your Jesus was.

@@donjacobs6753 then tell me the laws of God and the penalty for breaking them for starters. Then tell me why God allowed Adam and Eve to sin and after that if you are God explain all the evil in this world?

God bless you with lots of good health and happiness 🎉

*_God Bless_*

@@AlbertPaulMontini-nk6wh thank you, God bless you.

@@canadiankewldude thank you, God bless you.

Amen!

@@adelinomorte7421 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, God "created" ("Bara", past tense) the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), and then He looked at all He had "made" ("Asah" - past tense) and saw that it was good (Genesis 1:31) - He finished His creation. My point above was very simple, the sediment off the coasts does not fit a "billions of years" worldview, but it makes sense in a young earth worldview with a catastrophic global flood. This is a matter of competing worldviews over the exact same evidence. For example: *What are your thoughts on the Faint Young Sun Paradox?* Scientists observe that our sun is slowly warming up as hydrogen fuses into helium, and at this observed rate, 3.5B years ago our sun would have been 30% fainter and earth would have been frozen solid as a result (if it was really billions of years old). The problem is that atheistic-evolutionists believe that 3.5B years ago chemicals fizzed by chance in a puddle to form all the necessary proteins required for life - in what would have been a global, dead, frozen environment - hence the "paradox." *How do you handle this observable evidence?* A) Biblical Creation proponents happily accept this measurable scientific evidence - it's not a "paradox" at all because the earth isn't billions of years old, and life didn't create itself by chance from a puddle of chemicals, we were intentionally created. This makes sense because there is zero evidence that our earth was ever frozen solid as it should have been if it was really billions of years old, and also zero evidence of an early greenhouse gas atmosphere or other atheistic miracle warming effect to help sustain the atheistic belief in abiogenesis. B) Atheistic-Naturalists (evolutionists, etc.) however have a problem, because you need billions of years of deep time to make it seem less implausible that chemicals can fizz into people, and that life atheistically created itself. So you have to invoke some kind of a miracle warming effect with no evidence like an early alleged greenhouse gas atmosphere, or various implausible celestial phenomena. Not only do these excuses have zero evidence, but they are also incredibly implausible - because if you did have an early greenhouse gas atmosphere 3.5B years ago, you have to believe that it countered the faint young sun's temperature just right (not too hot like Venus, yet not cold like Mars) and it had to dissipate in perfect inverse proportion to the gradual warming of the sun over time - *all just to make atheistic abiogenesis and early evolution seem less scientifically problematic.* Two worldviews, same evidences, two very different interpretations. Which one is being more "scientific," the one that just accepts the evidence, or the one that has to fabricate implausible and evidence-less excuses to *circumvent this problematic scientific evidence and sustain their already scientifically-problematic belief that puddles can fizz into people?* Any thoughts? *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.* *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

@@michaelg377 Definition myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events: So what is in the Bible fits this definition perfectly. What is in a modern science textbook does not. Your use of 'mythology' to describe the theory of evolution is a Definist fallacy - defining a term used in an argument in a biased manner (e.g., using "loaded terms"). The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute.

@@Oldtinear That's because you believe in the modern mythology that nothing created everything accidentally with mathematical precision for no reason. I just don't have enough Faith to believe that a puddle of chemicals can fizz into a person, no matter how much *Time* you add to the mix. And I don't use the word "mythology" lightly, I say that because it a constantly rewritten atheistic origins story as it continuously makes evidence-less claims *about the unobservable past* and encounters evidence that contradicts its claims and expectations. That's not how "science" works. *"I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story telling."* (Colin Patterson Sr., Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) *What are your thoughts on the fact that planets and moons in our solar system, including our own Earth, show measurable evidence of being 'young,' not billions of years old?* Magnetic fields on planets in our solar system are measurably young based on data collected through probes we've deployed over the last few decades, and on a billions of years time scale you start to have a lot of problems with them. Creation scientists actually predicted this accurately - the evidence just fits a biblical worldview. We also observe tiny geologically active celestial objects which shouldn't be if billions of years old - like Pluto, Enceladus, Europa, and even our own Moon. There's no way the icy dwarf planet should still be geologically active with active nitrogen flows after 4.5 Billion years - scientists recognize this. Enceladus is spewing out material via a giant geyser, which is not sustainable on a billions of years time scale - secularists have an excuse for this, but that excuse doesn't apply to these other objects which are likewise geologically active - they are observably young. Even our moon was recently observed to be geologically active, including evidence of recent tectonic activity. Examples abound. *"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles"* (George Wald). These evidences (among many others) make sense in a biblical worldview - they look young because they simply are young. Right alongside measurably young comets in our solar system, measurably young tissues found in dinosaur fossils, the faint young sun paradox which causes a lot of problems for early atheistic abiogenesis and evolution, and the sedimentation off the coasts which would have only taken 12 million years to accumulate (assuming atheistic naturalist standards), among many others. In contrast, Atheistic-Naturalists like yourself have to invoke a number of various excuses to *circumvent these problematic young evidences and sustain your modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and puddles can fizz into people if you just add enough Time.* Meanwhile, *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

@@michaelg377 'the modern mythology that nothing created everything ' This mythology exists only in the minds of Creationists. No scientist proposes it. You are lying. Again. ' I just don't have enough Faith to believe that a puddle of chemicals can fizz into a person,' Again, no scientist proposes this. You are lying. Again.

@@Oldtinear You just ignored a LOT of scientific evidence above that militates against your mythology my friend. None of those young objects in our solar system should exist if your mythology was true, that's why you have to make *unsubstantiated evidence-less excuses for all of them* to sustain your belief system. *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and if you understand "science" (a methodology) then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin) *"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins) Whatever "evolution" is, at least we know it's not observable as science (a methodology) requires. It's just *constantly changing storytelling about the unobservable past.* *"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."* (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission) Your words: *"Science is about testing. If you cannot test it, it ain't science.* Biologists could come up with many hypotheses for how sexual reproduction evolved. *But they could not test them."* (Oldtinear, 6 Jan 2024). *So if you can't test, observe, or produce evidence for alleged Male and Female evolution in the unobservable past, then it's not Science. So what is it? Atheistic Faith?* It's not that you're lying - at least this time, you've been caught in a lie before - it's more that you are stuck in a "strong delusion" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) and are literally incapable of understanding (1 Corinthians 2:14). *"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."* (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Do you kill people that are working on sabbath (Exodus 35:2)?

@@sebastiannolte1201 if they were in the congregation of the people of Israel of Moses in the wilderness (the context) then yeah. That's not for today.

@@chrislachat459 So how do you choose which rules from the bible were only valid for the people back then and which still today?

@Sebastian Nolte, just make sure that in your discussion you stay respectful so that we don’t muddy the atheist name

Do you believe in elves and leprechauns?

Personally I prefer the vieuw concerning the relation of science and scripture as presented by Thomas Aquinas. Though probably well meaning, Ken makes the mistake of claiming that people who believe evolution to be true don't believe in God. Meaning that either he doesn't know that the Catholic church, still the largest christian denomination of which half of the christians belong to, accepts the evolution theory or even worse, he claims that those belonging to the Catholic denomination don't believe in God and thereby alienating half of christianity. Seems to me that Ken knows about as much about evolution as Dawkins knows about theology. “We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject, for both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in finding it.” ― St. Thomas Aquinas

The rational thing to do is to read the bible, see it is nonsense and stop sending your money to priests, frauds and other liars.

You cant marry evolution and criacionism together, if you study them closer you will see that they deny each other . Even though the catholic church is trying to bring everyone into its boat that is goin to suppress the truth bible preaches which is the word of god so when you compromise that it's the one thing the bible warns about ... dont mix light and darkness.... We need to be kind and patient with those that think different but never sugarcoat the truth

Science is a tool not something to be worshipped on it's own .It's the mechanics of how things work . Machines cannot bring themselves into being . It's arrogant and foolish to think otherwise . AMEN and praise our Heavenly Father !

@@BlacksmithTWD evolution assumes the random creation of information, highly technical and accurate, by just chance.....hmm.......

[Citation Needed]

Child indoctrination. Shame on you.

@@Oldtinear We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance - very few ever get to hear a different perspective. *Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable: Given its history of constantly being rewritten as it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to falsify the theory of evolution today?* In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically ad-hoc rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *evolutionary ancestor to tetrapods still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome? ...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism? All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

​@@Oldtinear Id shame on anyone who would keep a child away from the Father in Heaven, and may God have mercy on them.

How dare you speak for others.

@@ngc-fo5te "The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality... The religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality." ~ Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of New Haven. *'They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them"* (Romans 2:15)

It doesn’t mean the word of God is not real if the Earth isn’t older than 6000 years. It means that human beings kept better records and oral traditions than we thought possible before. The Catholic Church wants you to believe that the world is only 6000 years old for whatever reason. Maybe to ignore the ancient archaeology around the world which is getting increasingly harder to ignore the more intelligent human beings become. Forget, carbon dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world is order than 6000 years. The institution of marriage itself is absolutely older than 6000 years. 😂

Right beside you man. I'm going through some stuff and God is using that to bring me back. AMEN

@@michaelg377 I don't understand what you mean by, 'without God there is no morality'. There are billions of people in the world who do not worship the Christian God, are they all running around raping and killing each other? Some of the countries with the lowest crime rates in the world, such as Australia, New Zealand, France, and many more, predominately identify as atheist; all they're all running around raping and killing each other? Morality is subjective, it does not come from a book or a god.

Amen Jesus Is King All My Faith And Trust Is To Him Not On Science Again And God Exist God Is King God Is Good

Don't billion doubts. Truth

Then yiu don't doubt much. Gode xplains nothing.

If you were a common person 500yr ago, then you never read a Bible because there were no Bible! Therefore you wasn't going around having these stupid arguments. Good night.

@@jasonwiley798 Well done on winning the spelling bee.

This guy never showed anything about science that proved the bible was right, he just poked a bunch of holes in science which is totally reasonable as science is just theory based upon earlier theories, no scientist knows 100% of anything but the point is to continue to explore and understand.

God bless you with lots of good health and happiness 🎉

How wonderful that you will teach your daughter the truth! Andy Stanley has thrown out the Old Testament. He has brought himself under God's curse. Revelation 22:18-19. We are not to change God's eternal word. Yet many honor modern bibles which lie, change who God is, and continually challenge God and His word!!! by asking, Did God say? Come on, really? God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not. In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is quick (alive) and quickens (gives life). His word is eternal. Most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. They began to call on the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:26. Others quote Jesus telling his brothers, i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY . Jesus simply said, not going now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie. And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say? "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. " John 1:3. Clearly He is the Creator. Their Jesus was but a vessel. "Made through him." Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. A verse that makes us tremble was added????? Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Obviously Silas remained there. BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting! Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say? Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses. Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say? Every change they make is an insult to God and His word. God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19. In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the Alexandrian translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked. This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT. King James Bible online Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online: This dictionary has civil and spiritual definitions. Look up: Repent, Regeneration, Believe, Faith Redemption, Perfect Conversation, Prevent, Propitiation, Suppliers: Churchkjb.com Localchurchbiblepublishers.com Sources: Adullum Films -Tares Among the Wheat Sequel video. Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort. Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com. If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video. It has some American History also.

You have a lot more learning to do if you think they accurately represent science. They use inductive reasoning, which is where you have your answer and you look for evidence to support it and omit the rest. Science doesn't like that because it's not a good way for finding out what is true. You need deductive reasoning. You look at the evidence and see where it leads you, then double check and have others double check for peer review. They got a lot of stuff false just within the first few min and when you start with false information, it will only lead to false information.

@@sadistksuffring1537 instead of criticizing, why don't you point out what is false? Your "science" uses inductive reasoning as well, just take a look at how many assumptions have to be made in order for c-14, dendocronology, archeomagnetic dating and so on. If we pick up the most famous one, carbon 14 for instance, why can't we date a dinosaur fossil using this technique when there are still carbon in the bones?

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple fields of science, including genetics, paleontology, embryology, and comparative anatomy. The similarities in DNA sequences and developmental patterns between different species provide strong evidence for common ancestry and the gradual process of evolution over millions of years. Additionally, the observation of natural selection in action, as well as the numerous documented instances of speciation, provide further evidence for evolution. For example, the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and development of new species of animals on isolated islands, have been well documented. But hey, let’s instead believe some illiterate and superstitious goat herders who, over 2000 years ago, had a higher level of understanding of our world and universe than we do today. I don't believe God would want you to be that naive. You have been given free will, please use it to educate yourself.

@Just me The problem with that "peer review" argument is that it depends on which "peers" you listen to. Consider this: *How many PhD creationist technical papers do you suppose a PhD evolutionist had to evaluate in their education? But how many PhD evolutionist technical papers do you suppose a PhD creationist had to evaluate in their secular education? One of these sides lives in a bubble, the other has to evaluate both worldviews.* Science is a methodology, but the theory of evolution is an Ideology my friend - and it's actually riddled with scientific problems. For example, Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for the validity of his theory, saying "if an *organ* were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *If evolution is true, then how did male and female evolve?* You couldn't answer this question before rationally, would you like to try again? If you can't answer it, then your entire belief system stands potentially refuted according to Darwin... it's "breaking down"...

@Just me How do you know if you've never even read one? And if none of the scientists you choose to listen to ever read one? What you're doing here is a logical fallacy called an *argument from ridicule* - it's not a rational response, you just reject it because it shows just how empty your claim is. Why not just be rational, open minded, and listen to *all* of the evidence and arguments my friend? You're also *begging the question* of atheistic-Naturalism - it's another common logical fallacy. And you didn't answer my question, again... how did male and female evolve (remember - organs)? You couldn't answer this before rationally - and until you can, per Darwin, your entire belief system stands potentially refuted.... it is "breaking down" my friend.

@Just me Wrong about what?

@Just me Explain.

@@michaelg377 which organ or organs can't be explained by successive modifications? You do realize that scientists have learned much more about evolution and how it works since Darwin's time, right? You could spend a lifetime studying evolutionary theory and never once read any of Darwin's words. 'If evolution is true, then how did male and female evolve?' If you have internet, which you do, and you are honestly interested in the answer to that question, you could very easily find it, you know?

Please don’t spread this nonsense what has it ever done to help the human race

​@@hectorpatton9401 It teaches us that nothing we do really matters in the grand scheme of things, that we're just animals, so our lives don't count. It leaves us with the impression that nothing we do has consequences, that we're free to destroy each other over the most petty things. The idea that there is no higher power is... OH, I thought you were talking about evolutionism. Well nevermind, I've nothing to say.

***the bible has to be read by people who are ready to understand it, the bible do not need charlatan scientists to support, needs only people who can read it, not those stupid fanatics.***

@@adelinomorte7421 kindly tell us how we can prepare people to understand the Bible and how we can assess if those who've read and have been taught the Bible did understand it. Also how do we identify charlatan scientists and these so-called fanatics? An objective answer to these questions will be helpful. Thank you. 🙂

Nutty "Creationist" Ken makes money with a Noah's Ark tourist attractiin for Christians crppled by USA's local control of public education. Try to 7nderstand the following, in spite of your atrophied thinking skills: "Chris Mooney, of Slate magazine, believes Ham's advocacy of young Earth creation will "undermine science education and U.S. science literacy".[54] But Andrew O'Hehir of Salon argues that the "liberal intelligentsia" have grossly overstated the influence of Ken Ham and those espousing similar views because, while "religious ecstasy, however nonsensical, is powerful in a way reason and logic are not", advocates like Ham "represent a marginalised constituency with little power".[55] Ham has been awarded honorary degrees by six Christian colleges: Temple Baptist College (1997),[56] Liberty University (2004),[57] Tennessee Temple University (2010),[58] Mid-Continent University (2012),[59] Bryan College (2017),[60] and Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary (2018).[61] On February 17, 2020, PBS aired a documentary about the Ark Encounter entitled We Believe in Dinosaurs. Filmmakers Monica Long Ross and Clayton Brown followed the story line of a "religious organisation creating their own alternative science in a legitimate looking museum."[62] Don't Believe; maintain the logical skepticism that real science demands. Read science. Reading that "good book" is practicing ignorance with 3000 year old oral traditions of fairy tales. Gilgamesh?

@@markplimsoll "Science" is a methodology. What you're talking about is an Atheistic Ideology, that's not "science" - that's something else. *Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *time* then puddles can fizz themselves into people?* Your "3000 year old..." epithet fallacy is something C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery" - we have evidence that many of our ancestors were quite advanced and very intelligent, in contrast to Atheistic-Naturalist caveman stories. For example, we discovered that neanderthal remains had the same size hypoglossal nerve as we do (ie. they didn't just grunt; they could talk!), and we also found neanderthal bone flutes and shell make-up kits, which suggests intelligence and culture. Compare that to the Atheistic mythology that dinosaurs turn into chickens and apes can turn into people if you just add *time.* Also, did you know there are at least 9 major differences between the Epic of Gilgamesh which is clearly written in a genre of mythology, and the Noahic flood which is written in an ancient Hebrew genre called "historical narrative." Did you know there are thousands of global flood legends all around the world, many of which suspiciously corroborate the Biblical worldview but not the Epic of Gilgamesh? There are 300 Native American global flood legends developed in the absence of Judeo-Christian influences, many of which specifically corroborate the biblical Noahic flood - but not the Epic of Gilgamesh. Also many cultures all around the geographically separated world have their own legends paintings etc. of dinosaur-like creatures, the exact same architectural style (ziggurats), and other odd similarities millennia before intercontinental travel became the norm... these things make sense if the biblical global flood was real. How do you explain these things if it wasn't?

@@michaelg377 You would enjoy the science book "The Singing Neanderthals" and it will help you dispell your disjointed fantasies about how science DOESN'T work, and a clearer picture of homonid lineage. Look around; everything physical created in the Modern world - food, furniture, architecture, etc. - evolved by collaborated incorporation of "new" contemporaneous scientific discovery or analysis. Touché. Thanks for responding.

I'm not sure that you have ever studied logic. God cannot be explained by logic. The Bible itself claims to be illogical, to confound the wise and all that. An elementary rule of logic is if A=B and B=C then A=C. The Bible confounds the wise but Ken Ham is not confounded, therefore Ken is not wise. Believing Ken Ham does not mean you are not a Christian; however, it does mean that you suffer the bondage of falsehoods. The truth shall make you free, my sister..

@@KeithWaggoner-kb6ue we all know the Bible is a historical book that can be backed up by evidence. There have been a ton of scientific discoveries that were actually mentioned in the Bible before they were discovered. Jesus' existence has been proven by the Bible and other reliable sources. Around 500 people saw Jesus alive after his resurrection. It's definitely true that some things in the Bible can't be explained - the revelation and all - but the Bible is ultimately a historical book. Over the years, it's been portrayed more like a fairytale book, and people have blindly accepted those false claims.

@@chimchimexcuseme A lot of people saw Elvis after he died. Jesus no doubt existed, but what about unicorns, dragons, and talking serpents, not mention Balaam's ass asking a few questions?

@@chimchimexcuseme Scientific evidence of unicorns, dragons, talking snakes, wrestling angels, rivers of blood, flaming chariots in the sky, and talking asses? I haven't seen it and haven't either. Faith by proofs is weak. Jesus refused to prove Who He was during his conversation with Satan. The Bible says that faith without having actually been there s the purest. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe. 'I sincerely encourage you to read the Christian Bible.

@@chimchimexcuseme I Kings and 2 Chronicles describe the "Brazen sea" or basin in the temple as having a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30. Science tells us the actual circumference would have been 31.4. I encourage you to read the Bible and quit listening to the false prophets who are among us wolves among sheep. There are many "scientific" falsehoods in the Bible including in Joshua where the sun stood still in the sky. This led to the Christian theory of epicycles to explain retrograde motion of planets. Modern Christian believe that Earth revolves around the sun and "the sun stood still" is a poetic explanation of what happened during the battle.

Ken's point here is...support for the Bible, NOT god. Two entirely unrelated subjects. IOW. MEN wrote the Bible, NOT GOD! What? It took 2000 years of you bozo's analyzing the "Greatest Story" ever told, and Ken Ham-bone's version of this BS is the best you could come up with?? SAD!! You ought to be ashamed..

@@daveyjones9930 *"All Scripture is God-breathed* and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16)

@@michaelg377 H! Who said "all scripture is God-breathed"? God or some fallible human? And, are they around so they can be questioned? If not, it's just hearsay...😊

@@42apostate Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a really long time puddles can turn themselves into people? Do you believe these things despite not being able to question anyone from the unobservable past about them? I have an informed faith my friend - yours is ironically blind faith. We have 27 books from 8+ authors and their amanuenses, plus 20+ extrabiblical and even *hostile* testimonies that corroborate their claims, including eyewitness and secondary witness accounts to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, interaction with God, witnessing miracles, fulfilled prophecy, etc. That's enough witnesses/evidence to sink a modern court case my friend. Someone said "George Washtington was the first president of the United States". "And, are they around so they can be questioned? If not, it's just hearsay..." ....can you see the problem? Do you normally just reject all of history and all historical documentation because you can't observe the unobservable past? Besides, Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies that we can prove were written before His time against incredible odds. For example, Daniel 9 accurately predicted the rebuilding of the 2nd temple, the coming of the Messiah, and the destruction of the 2nd temple, including accurately predicting the year of Jesus' death on the cross 476 Babylonian Calendar years after Artaxerxes historically ordered the temple to be rebuilt in 445 BC as prophesied, and we can prove this was all written before Jesus' time 2000 years ago. And that's just one, there are over 300 others that He also fulfilled (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9, 12:10, etc.). Prophecy is a supernatural phenomenon - What are your thoughts on that?

​@@michaelg377 I never said I believed Evolution. Quit attempting to put words n my mouth. That's dishonest!! I don't know....just like YOU don't know about creation. You're assuming your story is correct because someone else told you the story. Or because it was hinted at in some random ancient book written, compiled, translated, REtranslated and repeatedly redacted by ignorant, biased humans with a *CONTROL* agenda, be it religiously motivated or political. An axe to grind. The real story doesn't have to be one way or the other. More than likely creation of everything occurred in ways we humans can't even imagine. But, we'll get there....and I predict it won't be by or through religion. No, I don't reject "ALL" of history. I hold some of it in "time out"....until I am sufficiently satisfied by the weight of the evidence (AND IF I'm interested). I accept Washington only because there are many sources that attest to his realty...the weightiest being his ancestry many of whom are alive today, and their long list of journal entries.. not to mention Washington's land ownership documents and military records...along WITH his verified signature attached. *Show us comparable records of Jesus' existence.* Do you accept Mohammed as a Prophet sent by God? Why not? His history is also attested to by ancient scripture written by equally ignorant savages. Cheers, Mr. Gray!!

There is no confusion. God set the timeline of a day then. The same day we've always used is the same day He created. How is this known? Even the aborigine people in the middle of the bush who can't speak and know no other, know how long a day is. God ingrained this information into our beings. The creation only took the time the Bible claims. In order for it to have a moveable meaning behind those words used, God would have to be lying. God cannot tell a lie. Let God be true and every man a liar. You see, the devil Is as a ROARING LION IN YOUR EARS! Whereas God is a still small voice in the heart of the saved man. Confusion and doubt are what the devil always desires us to have. God is not the author of confusion. The folks who have an issue with God creating all things in an instant (even though He's all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-capable so on and so forth) have a serious issue with coming to terms with the Word of God. Read the Authorized Word and believe it.

A thousand years on earth is a day with the Lord. It isn't twenty four hours. Don't let anyone tell you different...

⁠@@angelamccrackin5243I don’t think it’s responsible or productive to tell someone not to let anyone tell them anything, without actually knowing, especially coming from a believer about God. The only reliable person (or any person) who was there was God and although sometimes He does speak to us in parables and poetry, He also doesn’t lie. You have to jump through some serious hoops to say that what the Bible teaches is not a week worth of days of creation. I’d never give that advice to myself. I’d never say to myself “never let anyone tell you anything different than you already think”. It’s just bad advice. Instead, anything anyone is trying to tell you, ask them to justify it. “Why do you believe that”, and “why should I believe that” are good starting points.

@@artax7664 i thought about what you said and you are correct. I dont know these things for sure and I made a mistake in declaring it to be truth. I dont want anyone to get frustrated with not knowing and turn away....

@@angelamccrackin5243 such a rare and humble response brother. May God bless you and be glorified by you.

Professor ... aren't you having to believe the Catholic Church as the "sole" earthly authority needed to write and publish the Bible? Knowing what epistles & gospels belonged and which did not? You, nor any Protestant, Evangelical, Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist or 7th Day Adventist were in existance. You and they and the other 20,000-40,000 differing Christian denominations were yet to exist, much less play any part at all, having to do with God, His Son, and the complete understanding of the Almighty's plan for our Salvation? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (established by Jesus Christ) needed to be (100%) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth)! In order for the Bible to be absolutely true, the CC needed to be absolutley "true." Is it possible, otherwise? Could the early church, have misunderstood Jesus, taught heresy, but yet knew enough to formulate & produce the (73 books) fully canonized Bible, that you need for your "sole rule of faith" ... you & every individual Protestant, with the authority to proclaim what it means? Even when all of you disagree? Isn't this the height of hypocrisy? *How can you make any sense of this way of thinking & believing?*

@@gabepettinicchio7454 My friend, the Modern Catholic Church also was not in existence - you have many practices and even a modern canon that was not the same as the canon of the original early one true church, and even up to AD 1534 (Cardinal Cajetan, etc.) Modern Catholic leaders rejected apocryphal books from the canon. It wasn't always so clear-cut and "traditional" as Catholics insist... Let me ask you this: Scripture says *"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind."* (Romans 14:5) - As a Catholic, what does *"let every man be fully convinced in his own mind"* mean to you? What if your church was teaching you something that was false, hypothetically speaking? *How would you know?* How could you know? Is there a way for you to know, as a Catholic? *"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."* (Acts 17:11) Just as the Bereans questioned Paul's teachings and were considered *"of more noble character"* for doing so, I would "examine the Scriptures every day to see if what [the Catholic Church] said was true." But since you believe the Catholic Church is the "sole earthly authority" to interpret Scripture, how would you know if they were lying...? And you should know that Protestants are overwhelmingly united on the essential doctrines of Scripture (who is God, who is the Trinity, what is the Gospel, etc.) - it's on mostly minor secondary issues where we have disagreements. Besides, *Catholicism has many denominations:* The Latin Church, Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slavic, etc. *So, if Protestantism is not true because of denominations, then it also means that Catholicism is not true because of its denominations. Do they, like Protestants, share the same core doctrines, and that excuses their differences?* Can we abandon the double standard...?

@@michaelg377 You: "My friend, the Modern Catholic Church also was not in existence - you have many practices and even a modern canon that was not the same as the canon of the original early one true church, and even up to AD 1534 (Cardinal Cajetan, etc.) Modern Catholic leaders rejected apocryphal books from the canon. It wasn't always so clear-cut and "traditional" as Catholics insist... Let me ask you this: Scripture says "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." (Romans 14:5) - As a Catholic, what does "let every man be fully convinced in his own mind" mean to you?" *Me: Then you are calling Jesus Christ a nut-case & deceiving liar, for stating that His church would never fall to the gates of hell. He also said that he would have to leave, but that he would send the "Spirit of Truth" ... and that it would guide the church to all truth, until the end of the world. I remind you that he also said that their was so much more for them to know, and that he hadn't the time. So, did he somehow give them all the rest? If so, how would he do that. Catholics believe that all ceased after the death of the last apostle (John), so in what way could they grow in the knowledge that the lord required of them? Answer: The Spirit of Truth, not by adding on to what Jesus had already taught them, but by furthering their understanding of it. Therefore the "true church" is still with us, if one believes Jesus Christ is a God of his word. Is he? And where is his church that is still with us?* *You are mistaken, in claiming the so-called Apocryphal books, were not part of the original canon, as stated by the church councils held in the late 4th & early 5th Centuries. Remember, Jerome questioned them. Anyway, please share the "unbias" link that supports your claim.* *You should be aware that that there were the Hebrew OT & the Greek Septuagint OT. The deuterocanonical books were present in the "Greek" but not the Hebrew. As I mentioned in my last comment, Jesus & his apostles quoted (in the NT) the OT roughly 300 times. Roughly 200 of those quotes were from the Greek Septuagint, including the reference of "the mother & the 7 brothers" found in 2 Maccabees of your "Apocryphal" books.* *Which "modern" Catholic leader's did not believe in the deuterocanonical books? I'm not saying that there were none, but would like their names and positions they held. If they existed that proves nothing. Many priests leave for Protestantism and many Prot. minister's leave to become Catholic. As a side note, Luther took away these 7+ books and also wanted James, Revelation and a few other books removed from the canon, but his followers would not allow it. He even called James, "the book of straw" and said it should be tossed into the fire.* *In Romans 14:5 ... you left out the rest of the passage: "He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” --- Who was Paul speaking to and about what? --- He was dealing with the infamous “Judaizers,” that are defined in Acts 15:1-2. So, I do not understand your point.* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You: "What if your church was teaching you something that was false, hypothetically speaking? How would you know? How could you know? Is there a way for you to know, as a Catholic?" Me: *Yes, I believe I answer this in my comment above.* Of course, this pertains to the truths of "faith & morals." Individual men of Holy Orders, can and do sometimes error. I would also read the "Catachism of the Catholic Church." It's all there, and availabe on-line* www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/ How would you know if your cgurch is correct? In fact how would you know the Ninle is the true word of God? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You: "And you should know that Protestants are overwhelmingly united on the essential doctrines of Scripture (who is God, who is the Trinity, what is the Gospel, etc.) - it's on mostly minor secondary issues where we have disagreements. Besides, Catholicism has many denominations: The Latin Church, Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slavic, etc. So, if Protestantism is not true because of denominations, then it also means that Catholicism is not true because of its denominations. Do they, like Protestants, share the same core doctrines, and that excuses their differences? Can we abandon the double standard...?" Me: *That's nonsense. If they were united enough then they wouldn't be seperated ... would they? Luther believed in the Eucharist, he honored the Blessed Mother, as well as many other Catholic teachings, including the Catholic Doctrine of "The Trinity!" Then other's such as Calvin who left Luther for his own views on, free will vs God's will. Then Zwingli left because he decided to reject the Eucharist ... and so on. We're at 20-40000 different Protestant denoms, and counting. Is that what Jesus wanted? No, he was correct in telling Peter ... "the devil wishes to sift you as wheat ... and he did!" even in spite of the Lord saying that he has prayed for them (apostles) to all remain one* *If you want any Scriptural truth, just ask and I will gladly add them.* *You make mention of other Catholic denoms. Also, false. They are rights or sects, all 23 of them, are united with the pope in Rome. All, believing and teaching the exact same things w/the same readings at Mass, every day, as they share the same Liturgical Calender, in every country on Earth! They only differ, because of locality & culture, meaning wearing different colored garments as well as differing styles, again due to localities, and not differing in the teachings of faith & morals from the "Roman Right" ... or the "Western Church." We're all entirely ... One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic as Christ left it and the Spirit continues to lead it!!!*

@@gabepettinicchio7454 the roman catholic cult, so many wrongs, where do you even start to fix the whore of babylon's woes......

The Bible contains ficional stories with ficional events, timelines and characters. Or is there Scientific research done that can prove otherwise🤔?

@@martinkent333 at this particular time it really doesnt matter, say what you want we all find out in the end

Faith is incredibly inconsistent in proving anything. If I’m at a crossroads with two paths, and flip a coin on which path to take. Then I have faith that my path was correct that would be incredibly arbitrary. Now let’s make a crossroad with one thousand paths. I decided to pick a random path with the faith that the one I chose was correct. Would that make me anything but delusional? So basically yeah it’s blind faith.

@@drewchrisman7516 I don't always make word salads but when I do it's a Saturday morning

​@Tbone Yes there is

Pray for strength, because a bumpy ride is just about upon us ... a great time to be alive.

I concern that the Big Bang is the moment our universe was created. Originally, many scientists didn't like the idea of the Big Bang because it meant our universe has a beginning and an end. A question that scientists can't answer but have many theories about is what caused the Big Bang. No human was around to observe that. Some force outside the universe caused energy, matter, and atoms to form. I believe that it was God who spoke the universe into existence. That moment could be what is referred to as the Big Bang.

you explained this beautifully

How about both? I like the way you think.

You could repeat the car crash, but you can’t repeat the bigbang, sceintefic approach is repeatable, historical science is not

@@astrawboiii1853 Let’s say they were both 1of a kind cars so you can’t accurately recreate the crash. Using what you can see though, you can determine the direction they were heading, the speed they were going, and even who’s at fault. You can even take the data collected and recreate the crash on a computer. The Big Bang is no different. When it was first hypothesized, physicists made several predictions against the model. If the Big Bang really did happen, these things would have to be true. To date, all but one has been proven to be true, and the only reason why the last one hasn’t yet is because we currently lack the technology to do so. For instance, we can see the radiation left over from the event, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe by far, the Higgs Boson does exist, etc. We can use current observations to recreate past events with a high level of accuracy.

And breathtakingly wrong.

Other processes, such as mutation, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, and genomic rearrangements, can also contribute to the generation of new genetic information. Mutation, for instance, introduces changes in the DNA sequence, which can lead to the formation of new alleles or novel gene variants. Recombination, the exchange of genetic material between chromosomes, can result in new combinations of genetic information. Horizontal gene transfer, the transfer of genetic material between different species, can introduce entirely new genes into a genome. Furthermore, natural selection acts as the driving force that determines which genetic variations are advantageous and thus more likely to persist in a population. Beneficial mutations that increase an organism's fitness, such as providing a new function or improving an existing one, can be positively selected for, leading to their preservation and spread in a population over time. Overall, these mechanisms, combined with natural selection, provide a comprehensive understanding of how genetic information can increase in a genome over generations. The claims against evolution that suggest information cannot be increased are based on misunderstandings of the processes involved and ignore the substantial evidence supporting the accumulation of new genetic information through evolutionary mechanisms.

Nicely put. Thank you.

Bubble of fresh air in swamp of ignorance, but anyway they will put god in any gap and crack you have

😂lol gene duplication is not increasing information or generating new information? Apart from A, T, G, C how many new bases could be formed and entirely new generic code could be created? Can you answer that?

Hgt is transfering not creating Recombination is just rearranging n so is mutation just mutating on the information available? Rewatcv the video

Where did Ham receive his doctorate from?

@johnnynotenglish9751 I don't know if this was meant in a mean / sexist way, or, if it is a joke I am misunderstanding, but regardless, that is no way for one to conduct themselves, and, no way to treat another person. To the recipient of the presumed insult, I sympathize with having to put up with this level of incivility.

Forget, carbon, dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world order than 6000 years. 😂

no, they were not. this was 8th grade thinking mixed in with magic

@johnnynotenglish9751 Then show us how smart you are by telling how creation happened on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

Hi I get the idea you are being sarcastic with this born again christian statement: for the record you cannot become born again by yourself you can only wishing for it or declare that you want to be born again: God is the only one who can actually make you born again since you need to be born from God.

@@rsempel1 - Who made you judge and jury about their Christianity?

@@foxfire7604 He's not - what he said is scripturally accurate. *"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."* (Ephesians 2:8-9) *"“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."* (John 15:5) “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that *at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,"* (Matthew 19:4)

@@rsempel1 Being "born again" is by Baptiism. That is Scriptual and that is how the early church believed it and taught it. no one believed what you believe until 16 centuries after Christ.

@@foxfire7604 Right On~!!!!

Bingo!!

Really, what makes the bible a valuable book to take in consideration, because it sais so?

@@dumyjobby because mostly science fail to understand or no clue for them wirh regard to Biblical truths & realities which are truly manifest in the world as well in the outer space. If you need examples, I can give enough examples. Do you need?

@@anilmendis7994 yes, tell me a biblical truth or a few please

@@dumyjobby Can science ( You ) answer the questions asked by God in the Bible book of Job 38 chapter? " Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: 2 - “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? 3 - Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 31- " Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt ? 32 - " Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs " ? 33 - " Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth? " 34 - “Can you raise your voice to the cloud and cover yourself with a flood of water? " 35 - "Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’? " 36 " - Who gives the ibis wisdom or gives the rooster understanding? " 37" - Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? "

You don't go to Hell because you don't follow Jesus - people go to Hell because *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23) and a Holy and Just God has to punish sin. How many lies have you told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of value? Jesus said *"If you so much as look at another woman with lust, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart"* (Matthew 5:28) - ever done that? Have you ever used God's name as a curse word, or otherwise disrespected or misrepresented Him? If so, then you are guilty of sin - lying, stealing, adultery, blasphemy, dishonoring your mother and father, etc. *"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes Judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27). If you sin just 10 times per day, then after 80 years you will have broken God's mostly common sense moral laws (Ten Commandments) over 290,000 times... For moral crimes against a Holy God, the fine is paid in blood. *Will you be guilty?* The thing is that God loved you so much that He did something for you so that you don't have to get punished for your sins against an infinitely Holy God - *"But God showed His love for us by sending His Son to die for us while we were still sinners"* (Romans 5:8). Jesus lived a perfect sinless life in your place thus fulfilling the law for you, He died a horrible death in your place thus paying your fine for your sins for you, and then He was resurrected on the third day thus conquering death itself so He can promise you new life. You committed countless moral crimes, and Jesus paid your fine. Either way, when you die, you will stand in front of the God who created you and you will have to give an account of your life, and for your moral crimes a blood penalty will be paid - whether it's yours, or the blood that Jesus Christ shed in your place on the cross for you because He loves you. It's your choice. *"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through Me"* (John 14:6)

@@stephenlaing2152 His children will have the opportunity to decide for themselves if they get to be presented with the information, and also, it is not really any of your business, now is it....

@@stephenlaing2152 And I venture that if you give them both sides, more often than not they will become fascinated in the real (scientific) version.

He is amazing and scientific. God is always right! If you think isn’t you have to study deeper to get the answer.

So sad to see young people being brainwashed.

He is not scientific, but if you want to explore the other side then you can ask me and I’ll be respectful towards you

@@rademilosavljevic5754 he is absolutely un-scientific, he just poked some valid holes in science, but never really proved anything within the bible. He just put forth his theory of how things could have happened like they were described in the bible. There is a difference between proving something actually happened and simply stating a possibility of how things may have happened.

Amen! God bless you and your family 🙏❤

Check out "What is the Serpent Seed doctrine?" at GotQuestions, that view has a lot of theological problems. Also consider 2 Peter 3:9 - "But God is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for *ALL* to reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). Not "all but the seed of Satan/Cain," but for "All" to be saved. With respect, John 3:12 does not say that Cain was "Satan's seed," it says he "belonged to the evil one." Scripture does say plainly that Cain was Adam and Eve's "seed" and that God (not Satan) gave Cain to them. *"Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth[c] a man.”"* (Genesis 4:1)

ru-vid.com9R618vzhDfU?si=kdAPqiKqLlBt5RAY

Great marketing brochure for the religion, ain't it?

They left out cats tho...

And before human history, as the Genesis story starts before humans existed, it can’t be factual.

Emily Ferris that's exactly what I think about the animals on the ark...they were ALL asleep!

@@michelleblackburn8071 …yes! Being God, He is more than capable of that!

Ohhh. So God used to be magic and help people survive catastrophic events?!?! What's going on with starving children?! How about.... ya know..... hurricanes?!! Couldn't God just intercede and help a brother out?! Or is he no longer magic?! Lost his touch?

​@Michelle Blackburn Sleeping?! Even if that were true. You saw where the Ark allegedly landed, yeah?! So, after the flood and they crashed.... how did Kangaroos get all the way to Australia?! Or...... how would he have gone and retrieved the Roos in the first place?! And even if he did.... why would they go back... travelling across multiple continents and across the ocean....??! Does that make sense?!

@@ericchin739 I respect your right not to believe in God. After all, He gave us free will so we could choose to live our lives and believe what we want. I do not denigrate you or your beliefs; I ask that you afford those of us who believe in God the same courtesy.

Mutation or deformity is not new information. It's a corruption of the information that changes what should be there originally. Say the order should be abcdefg and a mutation comes along and eliminates a letter or makes the sequence acbedfg. It seems you may have confused create with change. A mutation doesn't create anything new no more than a man takes wood and carves it into whatever his heart desires. A new shape or form has been achieved but it is still just wood.

All the information is before your eyes it's just you. You're on the road and there is no fork in it. It is choice. To let the physics explain who and what you are or somebody that's making a guess, their opinion of misunderstood information. Only pure facts matter there are no wrong answers only correct. The Human Condition is what you make it, for yourself. If you do not adhere to the scale of physics you'll never understand this. For this is where language is derived from. Also music. It is of scale, it can go up or down but it is unscalable in it's Mass. The physics within it, is the answer. Physics started when someone asked, what am I. Around a campfire. From there it led to philosophies which are all over the world, and just a repetition of itself. For there must be balance, or there would be none. Meaning if it can't hold it shape it won't exist/ no Foundation to it. So what you see the cosmos yourself everything is in balance, or it would not exist in the first place. Just Like Music it has to be in balance for you to enjoy/ hear it in the first place. It's just an understanding of the balance in, the presence of you in the first place. Understanding this will lead you to a compendium of understanding of all things. For the math it does not lie.

@@CWRobinsonMusic look up insertion mutations. new material can be added.

@@cynthiaayers7696 not hatred just rational disbelief. You might not believe that, for example, a Bigfoot exists. That doesn't mean you hate the idea of Bigfoot. You just haven't been able to find any good evidence for it.

@@johnmacleod3421 doesn’t happen in the natural world though. Takes an intelligent mind to do so.

If you're willing to believe the stuff AiG put out, your "faith" is in no danger as you are already impervious to reality.

@@richardgregory3684 Is that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just add copious amounts of *Time* puddles can fizz into people by chance? *"Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that "even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.) *"The evidence of God.. has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

Amen 🙏

@@Mari-rz5sh Amen

@@ilovegodandjesusjohn316 Good to see that you are wise. GOD Bless you & all who seek HIM, all that are lost return your Creator Almighty GOD. Shalom🙏 Deuteronomy 30:15-20 New American Standard Bible Choose Life 15 “See, I have placed before you today life and [a]happiness, and death and [b]adversity, 16 in that I am commanding you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, so that you may live and become numerous, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but allow yourself to be led astray and you worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you will certainly perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter [c]and take possession of it. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your [d]descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him; for [e]this is your life and the length of your days, [f]so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

Psalm 52:2 God looks down from heaven on the entire human race; he looks to see if anyone is truly wise, if anyone seeks God.

@@Mari-rz5sh God bless. I read the King James Version.

We have a lot to learn. But we may never know. The world is full of secrets.

Honestly you know what I think God is? I think in all of reality and creation, there are only really 2 things, the mother and the father, and they need each other for life to continue existing, so woman asked man what it would take to prove she loved him and he said you would have to show me and let me feel your love when I'm my strongest or weakest, when Im good to you or I'm cruel to you, when I am the infinitely best to you or infinitely the worst as in when I kill you, you will always show me your love and beauty. Woman said I can do that, and what would it take for you to deserve that love? And man said well I suppose for every slight against you, I will see that it is damaging that beauty, and so I will punish myself as a way to clean you up to show you that no matter what we do to each other we will always need each other and you will always be beautiful for me and I will always work to prove to you that you have that beauty to give, and the two of them made the agreement and that is what all of life is. God is the love between the man and the woman, the light and the darkness, the sick and the healthy, the weak and the strong, literally two halves of every conceivable coin possible and the two of them just create the world together feeding off of each other just to make an interesting and exciting world to live it together and experience every conceivable moment together across all of time.

They addressed that. First, mutations that we observe are almost always bad - think like a birth defect. Second, for particles to man evolution to occur, you need *new information* to be produced, not just old information + old information... you need bacteria to evolve into fish, fins to evolve into feet, scales to evolve into feathers, and male and female to evolve... somehow, not just for finches to have a unique looking finch baby. Let me ask you this... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail. For example: The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail? *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.

​@@michaelg377notice how you had to add the qualifier "almost always" because you know there is new information added that is beneficial sometimes.

@@cractrick9225 You didn't answer the question: *How did male and female evolve?* Per Darwin, until you do, the Theory of Evolution stands potentially refuted my friend. Notice how you ignored "nearly all" the rest of the evidence to sustain your mythological beliefs that fish evolve into philosophers - the issue with the "mutation" claim is that we ONLY ever observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind as God created them (finch > finch, dog > dog, bacteria > bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (coelacanth > tetrapod, fish > philosopher, dinosaur > chicken, etc.). Again, you need fins to evolve into feet, not for a human being to be born with downs syndrome my friend. *"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25) What are your thoughts on the fact that as science continues to develop, we actually find more and more evidence that contradicts atheistic evolution, like the above? 2 things we observe in the fossil record: *“Stasis.* Most species represent no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. *“Sudden Appearance.* In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; *it appears all at once and fully formed.”* (Stephen Gould, "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," 1985) Without Atheistic particles to man evolution, you need a Creator. *"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27)

@@michaelg377 because you didn't ask a question you You went on a rant about evolution. I'm fine with a back and forth if we are going to go point by point but I'm not wasting my time responding to every little detail in your rants.

@@michaelg377 let's go with male and female because that's what you asked first. We see asexual reproduction in plunty of bacteria and plants as well as plunty of animals being able to switch sexs in a time of need, like frogs or clowfish. It's pretty clear why male and female evolved, its so species can get more genetic diversity. Species that can only "clone" there genetic information like trees or armadillos are more ceceptable to illnesses and genetic disadvantages just by that you can see the advantage of the evolution of male and female. Now do we know the exactly when or how it first evolved no we don't but that doesn't debunk evolution, just like we don't know the answer to abiogenisis yet that doesn't disprove the idea that animals change over time aka evolution.

What explanation. God did it is not an explanation.

@@WoutervanJoolingen evidence proves God, you ignore it. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

@@2fast2block just showing your misunderstanding of physics. Second law states that entropy of a closed system increases always. Earth is not a closed system, so no breaking of this law if order increases there. If you do not understand physics, do not argue with a theoretical physicist.

@@WoutervanJoolingen I'd assume the explanation of a simpleton. "God did it" is an explanation, however it's not a scientific explanation. It's about the level of reasoning I expect from a 4 year old. From a christian talking about science and making some sense I'd expect to be at least familiar with Occam's razor and the relation of scripture and science as introduced by Thomas Aquinas, two christian scholars who greatly contributed to the foundation of modern science. Seems to me that Ken is merely an ill informed layman regarding both science and theology. Though to be fair, most self proclaimed atheists I speak about the subject are equally ill informed.

@@WoutervanJoolingen so it just happened is? Come on give us some info you and I can debate. Facts please!

the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years but bcs of human ignorance we just cant believe things sometimes and would rather believe in a book completely unsupported by evidence and can be completely torn apart but anyone remotely competent in the fields of science, unlike the stupid professors ken speaks of.

You should take people seriously and ask why they believe that. If you venture outside AIG's carefully curated soundbites you'll find a surprising amount of information and evidence to consider

There is Observational Science that proves the bible is right, like how we see the same stars every night all year round every year. And how the flood happened, by mixing the iron sand under the water of the flood at the time of a mega storm there was a high amount of magnetism in the sky that pulled up the sand under water and made mounts, cliffs, mountains, pinnacles, stuff like that. The entire Earth was formed by this magnetism under the flood water. That's why we see layers of earth when we dig and that when we are in the desert the cliffs are magnetic so using compasses out there will lead you to the closest cliff. Also the earth would need 2 moons so that everyone around the world would get to see the 29.5 day moon cycle while there is only 2 days of dark moon, what I'm saying is that everyone has been lied too.

its simplicity knows no bounds. unfortunately for you,. the universe is vast and complex and the bible simply cant keep up 🙂its like a second hand car with a few hundred thousand miles on the clock. it needs a revision to cope with the information that the scientific world has collected that has made aspects of it redundant.

@@reverendbarker650 so do you Belive in the bible? I personally do, but more in the new testament

@@reverendbarker650 The Bible was never meant to be somekind of advance tech/book. It's simply the basics of life. Hopefully Science uncovers the complex stuff in this universe

*_God Bless_*