Evolution vs. God 

When I watch the original, there are no blurred faces. Maybe they removed it because they were busted and called out...

How odd that it only started being blurred out in certain areas.

@Jeb Bohanan they only blurred the faces of the "scientists". I'm assuming because the "scientists" were ridiculous, and absolutely didn't do any favors to their religion of evolution. But now when I watch it, they're not blurred...

​@@TinaMarie75 😂😂😂😂 "'religion of evolution'" ??? 😂

@jesusgavemeaids yes... evolution is just as much a religion as any other. It takes more faith to believe everything came from nothing than to believe in a Creator. It's taught in schools and nothing else is allowed to be taught. Evolutionists defend their stance just as any religious person defends their deity. It's no different than a religion.

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:2 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,Ephesians 1:18

amen! God bless you!

Mick9 And you will make a good witnessing tool to the science community in showing them that science is the affirmation of God's dominion. Maybe even write a book. I would buy it.📕

rgsand01 Its time to stop. Its his life, stop judging.

And you will be happier if you read Quran, may God bless you and gide you

@@tracyharyklia8883 , when Jesus was crufied 2000 years ago, there were people who seen it and wrote the story. 2000 years ago people were well versed in written langauge und literature. 65 millions ago there no human beings on earth who would have recorded the histroy thats the different.

@bl Thing is God is the problem because he created Satan. If he was all knowing, why did he create satan in the first place?

skuggkungen We definitely have free will. It’s not like the other option is to burn in Hell or anything.

skuggkungen Maybe if he didn’t create satan, Eve wouldn’t have been tempted to eat from the tree 🤷‍♂️. The whole sacrifice seems pointless, is it really sacrifice if he gets it back in 3 days?

I don’t know about you but if an all knowing God can’t even get his intentions right, then something’s wrong somewhere.

I don’t have a religion, I have a relationship. I don’t have a support system, I’m in the process of finding a church. All I do have is my Faith and my God. All I know is, nothing else worked until I found God.

My only intent is to tell MY testimony and what worked for ME. Everyone has their own journey.

Amen! And the unfortunate hate believers receive is just more proof of the truth of God. *_"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me."_* John 15 : 18-21 May God bless!

ForumLight Thank you so much for your kindness and inspiration! I’m truly grateful for your beautiful soul. I will never stop giving the glory to God no matter what. ✝️🧎🏻‍♀️ God bless you also.

Still Booble Praying for you. God bless. ✝️✝️✝️✝️🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

Let's put gods truth to the test . Can this crap show of a universe be repeated . Does a kind mean species. Does god know more than you. Does god change. Does Ray understand science. Let's keep the education the bible has to offer humanity on that same shelf, reserved for fariy tales and magically caused events, such as the illusion of Ray Comfort being a wise man. Take a better look at your intellectual designer and the design. See the flaws.

True that. One day we'll all know the truth but by that time, it'll be too late for many.

@@krazylevin Why would it be too late for so many people or because they don't believe the same way you do. Mind you there are cultures much much older than Christianity and Muslim and Hindi and yet they don't seem to be credited with being the original knowledge of what God's mind is like

@@qhvianthomasmidgely5th.62 praying for you

@@hinokami_10 Thinking for you.

That’s because they are likely hard hearted. They have probably heard the gospel before, and the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and judgment, but they probably resisted all the way to that age. There seems to be a point where God lets go, because when you say no the first time, it becomes easier to say no again. But of course we should pray for them.

God is never changing . Mankind does though. GOD says these things are evil and Ya'll don't like what HE SAYS so you try to change people's minds with your carnal way of thinking. Do you think GODS mind will be changed when you stand before HIM! And you will stand before HIM! Who are you to rail against the ALMIGHTY GOD! For unbelievers there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

@@cowboymouth6429 Have you stoned anyone recently? If not, then why aren't you following God's word?

@@psilocybinx8596 That's the old testament. Try reading it so you can have a better understanding.

Because they're still learning.

Wasn't he the one that made the quote, "you are a fool if you don't believe in God" or something.

If you're willing can you give what he wrote or books you suggest about his evidence.......I'm not just asking I really mean it.....www.muamuanngaihte24@gmail

@@muamuanngaihte5055 I know of the Principia Mathematica was written by Newton. In that book he wrote that he made the book so that the thinking man might believe in God. Newton also said what a wonderful God to do gravity that way.

@@kennethgee2004 thank you

@@themilkyway1371The second part is not true. The universal law of gravity is still in effect. The formula still predict how large bodies interact. The no law will ever be overturned as a law by definition is prove to such a degree that all possibilities have be exhausted. There is no way to invalidate a law.

Amen!

@ it's a privilege to serve God.

@ I want you to imagine a speck of Sand compared to the entire universe, what would that speck of sand be in comparison to the universe? nothing right, now imagine that intensified, imagine your life compared to eternity, eternity! So do you want to thrive in this world now or eternity? because I tell you very truly that the second you give your life to CHRIST from then on it will be a eternity of flourishing life that’s what GOD is LIFE, GOD is life if you want life you need GOD Repent( turn away) from your sins and not only believe God but also put all your trust and faith and all in Christ and also believe that He died on the cross for all of our sins and for all of us and rose on the third day to prove He’s the son of God (God in the flesh) and that He has authority over death and all Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

@ you are using God's name in vein and will have to face him one day on judgement day

@ People often think God is trying to take something from you. But it's the opposite. It's all about what he can GIVE to you. This is the greatest love story on earth and I would hate for you to miss out...Just think about it friend.

Lately I've been feeling so sinful. I follow God and I try to be righteous but I feel like God doesn't want me.

@@drea8024 Drea, God sent his son as a substitute for yours and my sins. Satan is a liar, of course thats how you will "FEEL" because the liar whispers lies unto you. God "WHISPERS" truths unto you from the bible. Go read Luke 4, how did Jesus overcome the devils lies? So, when Satan asked him to cast himself down from on high, Jesus simply said, It is WRITTEN, thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God. When Satan offered him all the kingdoms of the world o-if he would only follow him, Jesus simply said, "Thou shalt worship the Lord they God only, etc. etc. Read the word. Stay out of THE WORLD. God Bless

@@drea8024 Even Paul said that the things he does, he doesn’t want to do….salvation doesn’t mean you will not sin. When you do sin you have an advocate. I spent 20 years after salvation not thinking I was saved bc I wasnt changing as much as I thought I should. Just let God transform you day to day. Google the promises of God and read them every day.

cringe

@@frostymcfang4656 Enjoy your stupidity in hell.

Ever since I saw Bikers For Trump I had a realization. Bikers can be adorable.

So that could later become wise

If a fool can figure out evolution is true then what's your excuse?

Prehistoric Proboscidean fools, by their very nature and meaning of the word,"fool", can't figure out anything. However, the "fool" hath said in his heart, there is no God!

RevvedUpBiker Cltr C Cltr V GG

Ameeen

@John Viola I will pray for you

@@darkeen42 says the delusional.

@@darkeen42 Lmao. This has *nothing* to do with this section. Get a life or something. At least *try* to act like your coherent. And *No* Marx is *Clearly* Atheist. Maybe *You* Don't want to associate with *Him.*

@@darkeen42 Well *Yes* It originated via Christian and Pre Christian Civilizations of Europe. That Said, No One is Complaining when Christians Are being persecuted unfairly by both the Romans and Jews alike. But when the *Same* Thing Happens to the Jews or what is left of the Pagans if Rome, it's all "No you can't do that!" A Case Double Standards ain't it? In any case *no* I don't condone Anti Semitism in *any* way. But I won't deny that anti semitism was a development ( an unfortunate one at that ) from Christian and Pre Christian Civilizations of Europe. But all of this is assuming that Christianity was the original "cause" for it. While I won't deny that Christianity contributed to it via the phenomenon of anti semitism receiving institutionalization within European Christianity. It has been expressed in Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, Possibly before Christianity Got Saved by Constantine. So the idea of anti semitism has been in circulation even before Christianity hit it big. And even then, it's unfortunate that Christianity made the prejudice worse. But compared to the Holocaust ( Again, Hitler is *not* a Catholic, not anymore ), we should be glad that those Jews Pre Holocaust didn't suffer worse fates then... Well the Holocaust. That said: *Why* are we discussing this *here!* Come on! At least *try* to act Mature. Let alone Coherent.

And do you understand what they mean by it?

@@demiligne3456 of course. I also understand when quantum scientists tell us the universe doesn't really exist. Only problem is that I can see that it does. And I can see that we're not fish.

Good, we're not literal fish. So what's your understanding of why smart people would say we are?

@@demiligne3456 because they think everything evolved from the ocean. Also, our atmosphere is liquid like compared to the atmosphere of other planets... plus some people are as dumb as fish and swim in schools.

@@demiligne3456 But also, those same smart people would say a whale isn't a fish so the irony is palpable.

link??

❤

So you are not a muslim then anymore?

I have a question for all you Adam and Eve believers ... explain pygmy peoples? explain different skin colours? explain why asians have narrow eyes? explain neanderthal fossils? If we're all descended from Adam and Eve why do we have so many different looking races? Hmmm ... could that be adaption, which, of course, is the mechanism that leads to evolution?

Doesnt change the fact that Iranians belief in the false God and will end up in hell. i wish Muslims would convert to Christianity, because we need such strong believers. Because the world already is so wicked.

@Edward The Booble "i believe"

@Edward The Booble you are evidence that there has to be God, cuz I dont know where in the world you Love, sense of Justice, morals especially Morals and conscience come from unless love evolved too 😅😅😅😅😅

that made me giggle

Do you know that the bible tells us how God created us and it was not with a bang or BOOM. Just search Genesis 1 And then read chapter 1 and Chapter 2.

@@dktn8080 it was a joke cuh

Believing in things doesn't make them true.

Stephen Muga never said they do

@@itzdiva7914 *sighs* You don't understand logic, do you?

@@itzdiva7914 Please continue basking in your ignorance

@@itzdiva7914 It's too late for that, don't you think?

Jason Merkel amen brother...he’s real!! hell is real and heaven is real. The bible makes so much sense

Jesús it's real, but this video isn't, the evolution exists

Amen 🙏

dont you mean jeshua?

@@halogen5580 no we dont we mean jesus 🙏🏼🙏🏿

This deserves so many more likes and comments 🎉

@@alexabbitt6135 No. As an Agnostic I know that he is not going evidence or reason which is what Agnostics do. He chose to give on reality and join a religion that makes promises based on nothing but whatever it takes to con the gullible.

God reflected intelligence? What intelligence

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance "- I'm not sure the victims of religious wars, persecutions and genocide would agree with you there.

@@frostymcfang4656 What can you expect from a guy that called himself an Atheist because he was angry at his god? C. S Lewis was not rational where his religion was involved.

Same for me sadly

amalia amalia think the saddest part about it from my personal situation is my brother is a PHD Biologist at the best university in the UK, if he can understand these things and make those internal adjustments, he could be a powerful voice for our community.

I find the same predicament with my mom.

Wait so you don’t believe in evolution?

Solomon King Oftenimes it's hard for family members to receive certain truths from other family members. One option is to show them these types of videos. Another option is to pray that God Jehovah will send anointed laborers across their paths to minister to them.

Pharoah Akhenaten if he’s an idiot what makes it hard to prove him wrong?

6 Years later: Bro get into this country we need help

@@elijahrivera4479 WORD

Hahaha me too😂😂

Poop Corporation TM joe mama

@Jahmed Music true

Which god?

So does Satan believe in God and Trembles.

@Jahmed Music I have one point that I think is a solid argument that crumbles the christian doctrine, admitably it does hinge on the modern scientific understanding evolution being true. But for the sake of the logic, stick with me. Evolution requires death to happen, species cannot evolve unless the "unfit" organism die out. the bible claim that sin is the source of death "the wages of sin is death". Before humans could have sined they must have existed. If humans came from evolution( which I acknowledge you probably don think is true) then sin could not be the cause of death and the doctrine of original sin, a cornerstone of Christianity, falls. I bring this up because for a long time I believed that evolution was guided by the christian God. When I came to resize that was logically impossible, that was one of the major causes of me giving up my belief in God.

@@nupsi6 because Fluff wants to

Bru

Yes sure, covid 19, Ebola, malaria, dengue, bubonic plague, earth quakes, floods, droughts, famines which kill millions of innocent men, women, children and innocent unborn in mothers wombs, YES for sure I can see thhe lovely god around me with his wonderful creation. Only the blind and thhe brainwashed cant see, on what an irony!!!

@@bdmiller1204 prove Satan exist! If you make claims then you must prove it and do it. The burden of proof is on you now! We are waiting for your proof. Then prove God and prove Jesus is the Son of God too. Over to you the delusionals

@@bdmiller1204 It is just collection of fictions written by men. It does not prove anything. Then prove the Bible is true! I also have lots of books that claim to be true!

@@bdmiller1204 When you claim the Bible as the fact then you have to prove it it is your call.

What has this plant become? A new plant. Understandable. There's so much variety. Just because bacteria are all microscopic doesn't make them all one kind lmao. Lazy arguing

@Edward The Booble Define theory.

@@surrealcereal948 You can't expect someone to officially proclaim it as an evidence unless proven unanimously, that's why in every research project there's aways an hypothesis that may or may not answer the theories. And so basically to correct your ideas, a theory is considered a prediction, or an inferred statement to be exact. It could either be supported or denied that's why it's STILL a theory today due to what professional scientists may call it "The Missing Link". Though mostly, researchers are always been so bias with their research just to prove a point that's not there. Take it from me to be exact, a researcher working on robotics. The theory of evolution had always been so bias during it's rise due to many "explorers" that considered a random bone or teeth of a mammal as an evidence to the theory just to prove a point and not just intellectual honesty. (Arkell, I.E., 2015 upon her supported statements of "The Nebraska Man") In 1843 for example, Bouch de Perthes found a man made flint-tool and instantly took it as an "evidence" even though he only claimed the tool and not the remained skeletons of a primitive man.

@@surrealcereal948 Its a shame how common place the misunderstanding of the word "theory" is. It doesn't mean belief like many of these people think.

@@surrealcereal948 Genuinely, I did not visit or proclaimed any creation articles. As usual, bias between intellectual honesty and are just there to prove a point. You can't expect a mind of an evolutionist to have a sincere intellectual honesty rather than evolution. (Lew, 2013) Previous Paleontologists discovering the southern ape "lucy" AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED that she came from an evolutionary timeline between apes and humans and they AUTOMATICALLY PROCLAIMED an hypothesis that she is the "missing link".

Exactly. Ray asks for a change of kind as they always claim, like some populations of fish 'evolving' over generations eventually into amphibians, or some populations of amphibians 'evolving' over generations eventually into reptiles and so on. Or populations of animals that never had (hearts, brains, eyes, digestive systems, reproductive systems and more) 'evolving' such things over generations. They never can. They just cite what only shows yet again what common descent from a first life form evolutionists claim is science is anti-science. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many then just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're really about deception that's contrary to actual science. Evolutionists typically deceive and pretend making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it, which just goes to show how they're just about deception. Evolutionists also typically deceive and try to pretend that since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they hope no one notices: the thing called a "crime" is observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some *more* crimes that no one is around to have observed. What they do is the same as giving 'evidence' for something that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this belief that newer happens, which is just more deception. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead, along with others being raised from the dead, and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* There's also evidence He rose from the dead, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* And so it goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not *repeatable,* not *verifiable,* it's not even *observable* either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could. That aside, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for the world and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ. John 3 : 14-21 *_"[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."_*

+ *ForumLight* *"Science shows that it's observable, repeatable ... no matter how much "adaptation" ... fish remain fish ... etc."* Science cannot show that fish* always remain fish, canines remain canines, or any of that until it observes every single lineage of fish that's ever existed. Can you find a comprehensive study on every fish that's ever existed? Can you show us a scientific study that concludes that fish always remain fish that _doesn't_ base it on the fact that we just haven't observed the opposite yet? Science isn't "We haven't observed this happening, therefore it's _observable, repeatable and verifiable_ that it can't happen.". That's the problem we're having with your comment. You're taking an absence of observation for evidence of absence, despite the other evidence to the positive. Yes, evolution requires some things that would otherwise seem overwhelmingly counter-intuitive, but it's done the heavy lifting to back it up. Science is limited by our level of technology and not what we can directly observe. We can't directly observe the Roman Empire but we know it existed because we can observe what remains of it - ie. records, coins, cities, etc. Likewise, we can't directly observe dinosaurs evolving into chickens, but we can indirectly observe it by looking at what's left - ie. fossils, chicken DNA. This is how science come up with the reasoning behind its conclusions and, when it's done properly, it's as good a reason to believe it as anything else. Here's what *is* science: no matter how many millions of years, no matter how many rocks there are, no matter how quickly they're moving, no matter what shape they are no two rocks will ever attract each other together, no rocks with build themselves into a planetoid, no rock will shape itself into a sphere, no rock will attract other rocks into orbit. That's the sort of logic you're working with. It all seems fine, because it correlates with 99% of observations anyone has ever made. You or I will never see two stone float together or change shape, and they couldn't even make that happen in a lab. Therefore, it's all anti-science. Except none of that holds up given what we know what we do about how planets are formed. Rock attrition can happen by gravity and electrostatic forces, building up to small planetoids and, eventually, full-on planets. We know this through research, and the evidence is strong enough that we can confidently disregard what would otherwise seem like a common sense conclusion. Science can tell us that, for all the hundreds of years of study, it hasn't observed a fish becoming something else. That's some pretty strong evidence that it can't happen, and I think it's what you're getting at, but it's not absolute, because it isn't comprehensive. Of course, the fact that it isn't comprehensive opens the possibility that it _can_ happen and that we just haven't seen it happen. Cue the theory of evolution. It provides a _method_ for how a fish can become something else. It also give us observational evidence of the same process happening on a small scale unobstructed, and it even explains why we couldn't observe anything more substantial in the first place. It, too, is imperfect, but it can be backed-up, and it's the best we've got right now. * a fish in this example being a primitive organism that looked like what we'd call a fish (In fact, these early creatures weren't genetically the same as modern fish. In fact, the biological classification they fall under _would_ remain the same for all its billions of years of descendants, despite the obvious fact that its descendants are physically and genetically distinct from it and their cousins.) Even if someone were to take the time to go through your brick wall of a copy-paste comment, wading against the current of what sounds kinda reasonable in isolation but nevertheless is at odds with all of modern science, you'd just continue posting it on other threads (again). Why bother with that user's response when no one in any other thread is going to see it? All that matters is that I'm right! Flying elephants are a good example of a negative that can be proven without an exhaustive study. We can just look at the anatomy. It's the same with evolution. If you want to disprove it, give us a proof. Look at the elephant's anatomy. There are claims of observing Jesus rise from the dead like there are hundreds of people claim to have witness Bigfoot. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable even when it isn't thousands of years old. _Don't just continue to insist science shows this and that without backing yourself up as if lack of direct observation is enough. It isn't. Science has shown these things to be feasible through other means._

@@demiligne3456 good little Science gatekeeper. Keep on believin'!

@@bd1zzl3If you want to prove your God exists, you're gonna have to do a helluva lot better than a zinger you think is clever to prove your case. You can call the number 2 'fat' all you want, 1+1 is still gonna equal 2.

@@chrishaven1489 if that made any sense it might have been worth the time to type. I don't have anything to prove to anyone, enjoy your time.

@Martin Jansen Prove evolution.

@@lordvader3542 He cant

Quote-mining doesn't really mean anything when it's out of context. @dominionn09 He might not be able to prove evolution, but that doesn't make it any less of an observable fact that you can easily prove to yourself if you're honest.

@@Arena1999 I believe in evolution and God. I don't believe that all we see, hear, taste and touch are a result of an explosion. If you're honest with yourself, you'll agree

@Kyle J Hartman Well you may have more things to worry about than existence. Thats reading comprehension.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

people laugh to cover up their lies sometimes

Pineapplaplatypotamus I know but his laugh sounded so stupid 😂😂😂

I can list many.

@@CptGravel indeed, there are plenty, and they are often quite eloquent.

Again, if you had kept watching you'd have seen Professor Nonacs confirm that "kinds" is equivalent to the Family level of Biological Classification.

The word "kind" doesn't even matter. Common descent from a first life form evolutionists claim that the first reptiles 'evolved' over generations from some populations of amphibians - yet that's contrary to all of science, all of biology and and all of reality. Common descent from a first life form evolutionists claim that populations of living things that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations. Same for eyes, or ears, or lungs, or hearts, or digestive system and so much more. Yet that's contrary to all of science, all of biology and and all of reality.

Amen.

Amen ♰=♥️ 🛐

amen 🙏🏽

Amen

What is that squiggly writing

Be Free, Die Trying: Jesus died for you so He wouldn't have to live without you. You are on your Way, buddy! Study Scripture daily, and pray to God or Jesus before you open your Bible, asking Them to send The Holy Spirit to enlighten your heart and mind about what you're preparing to read. My recommendation is this: Read the five chapters of 1st John (that's the 1st epistle of John, not the Gospel of John) over and over until you know you know it. Then begin to study the rest of The Bible. 1st John 1-5 is the perfect overview of the entire message of The Bible.

basic instructions before leaving earth BIBLE !!!

Yay! Jesus loves you!!

Don't let the scoffers and unbelievers shake your faith.

@@ericmoore6769 lol what a stupid comment. Another atheist that acts like theists can't be smart 😂😂

Amen ✝️🙏

@@osamanagee594 is Jesus Christ!! Not the islam!

@@osamanagee594 He is God. Muhammed is not a Prophet! The last Prophet was Saint John the Baptist!

@@osamanagee594 let me ask you; do you consider the religion of islam to be one of love?

@@osamanagee594 so please explain love to me by islamic standards. What is love?

Hello. Common descent from a first cell evolution is the claim that populations of living things that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations. Same for eyes, or ears, hearts, lungs, digestive systems, reproductive systems and so much more. Ask them to cite evolution doing any of this over generations. They can't, proving this belief of theirs is contrary to all of biology / science. Be not deceived, friend. I implore people to re-read the gospels yet again and forget what any religion / church claims they say, and see for yourself. God / Jesus Christ did not come here to create a world-wide organized religion to control all churches. He saves individuals and they form/join local churches.

Ben Meitzen Amen!🙌

daaang, 58 likes and the third comment on a popular video!

You call God the fool then, what this man quoted were not his own words. "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." Proverbs 12:15 KJV. My counsel is this, read the 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and if you've never done so try to pray before reading (It's like talking to a friend). If by those end of those books your eyes have yet to be opened, you can then say at the very least the book has been.

rgsand01 you only have to look into the infinite sky . Day or night. That's infinity. Or you can think that almost every human society throughout time has had a firm belief in God because they were all not as smart as you. Atheists know there is God. It's in us all. Don't hide it. Let it come out. Can't hurt.

Do you feel strong ? how long do you think that strength will last you if you do ? This isn't about church or religion, it's about you, to try to tell people that HAVE EXPERIENCED GOD is like trying to disprove air. THAT is foolishness, what separates the believer and non believer is not just faith, but experience. I personally did not believe matter of fact i said that i hated God because he'd done nothing for me. Took 5 years after that to come to terms that i'm nothing and nobody and that we're all on the same ride to somewhere. You're not a humble person that i can tell, and i'm not judging i'm observing. So one day when life's just a bit too hard you'll call on God.....and mark my words you will. You will be changed, specifically that hard heart of yours. I say this from experience i used to be you, making fun of the believers and existing my way through life miserably. You may be riding that non believing high horse of yours but trust me when i tell you. You will fall off one day, see who comes to help.

Vladimir Mladenov unfortunate that a man as smart as Einstein couldn’t recognise the difference between design and nature.

"I never said most of the quotes attributed to me on the Internet." - Albert Einstein

Einstein had a limited mind ? you say ?

Vladimir Mladenov A handwritten missive by Albert Einstein known as the “God letter” fetched almost $3m at auction in 2018. In it Einstein says: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

So what ! ....what's your point ?

This is how I hate those people

Dio non esiste fratello

Al N quello che tu pensi non cambia la realtà

@@rebeccaafriyie105 La realtà è che evoluzionne è vera e un fatto de la nostra realità.

@@kijul468 dipende da cosa intendi con evoluzione. Se ti riferisci all’adattamento allora sì, ma se si parla di macroevoluzione, questa non è mai stata provata ma semplicemente dedotta. Ci sono un sacco di pezzi mancanti che non sono mai stati trovati perché non sono mai esistiti. Nessuna specie si è mai letteralmente evoluta in un’altra. E la realtà lo testimonia.

Converted to what Dev ? Theism or Evolutionism/Atheism ?

@@misanthropytilldeath7005 theism

@@devshah2939 Nice to hear Dev 👍

Jesus died for us sinners. God speaks through the Bible.

Praise God.

Agreed. They're just salty because their faulty BELIEFS were exposed in under 30 minutes.

So true! It takes more faith to NOT believe in God than to believe in Him.

Speaking of losing, I can't even think of a time when an Atheist has ever won, and I've watched & read dozens of debates between the two. I don't blame them for being such an angry group lol.

In a chance universe there is no reason to expect there to be logic. Even if we grant its existence, your worldview cannot account for its properties. Given that the universe is in a continual state of change, why should laws of logic be exempt? We all assume that they will be the same tomorrow, but this belief is unwarranted in your worldview. The existence and properties of laws of logic are unjustified in the secular worldview. And hence, any belief based on them is also unjustified. In using them, you are stealing from the Christian worldview.

I have heard that socialists call others what they are and reverse truth for their agenda.

Good one.

That's right. That's what science is *supposed* to do. We never come to absolute truth, we just find more things to explore and more answers.

It also describes Trinitarians well.

Yes and no. Those not dedicated to nature worship or denial of God have been very fruitful. Who is a scientist? Who is merely wise in his own eyes?

@@BearcatSandor Where did you pull that from? They come up with theories that they often pass off as truth such as evolution. The laws of physics and science were established by the creator...Yehovah.

Hello. People have come to faith in Jesus Christ from all backgrounds, all upbringings, all ages, all races, all cultures. So us pretending it's only because we were taught it by our parents is moot. Secondly, there are 2000 prophesies in the Bible that have come true locally/globally, even up to thousands of years after being written. Other 'religious' texts: none. In the Bible there are dozens of facts about reality that even scientists could not figure out until up to thousands of years after being written. Other 'religious' texts: none. The Bible was written over 1500 years through 40 penmen, multiple languages, over three continents, reads as one mind. Every other 'religious' text: one person, one lifetime. The grave of Christ is empty. The grave of every other 'religion's prophet has their bones. This won't matter to those determined to reject Christ - but it will leave us all without excuse before God thinking we'll be able to say "well how was I supposed to know?!" I implore people to re-read the Gospels yet again and forget what any religion / church / commentator claims they say - it will be our own fault if we're deceived by them. God / Jesus Christ did not come here to create a world-wide religious organization - but instead to adopt / save individuals, by faith, that they then live a lifetime of works towards God, joining local congregations (church).

If by savage, you mean lacking in proper arguments and relying on false premises and emotion; then you might be on to something

Real World Games how do you know they are false? They couldn’t even answer a question that is necessary to evolution. He said something like how come fish aren’t not fish anymore or something like that.

Anders Norrvik what dishonesty?

Anders Norrvik where does he say that?

He just does not understand evolution

You just showed proof of the same blind faith that Richard Dawkins thinks you are a complete idiot for having. Why are you so angry at a movie that just made evolutionists and atheists question their "faith" in their beliefs? All the same evolutionary professors do to young, impressionable, students (many times Christian) when these professors and teachers have an intellectual advantage over the students they issue grades to. At least this guy approached them without having them under has thumb with test scores, grades, and class failure! Why can't you be intellectually honest?

Low-hanging fruit, Dana. My classes are entirely about how to think critically about evidence. All of the observational evidence in this case points in one direction: the diversity of life relates to evolution by natural selection, not divine creation. Ray Comfort has no interest in the evidence. Indeed he dismisses the fossil evidence as somehow irrelevant when it is obviously critical to the interpretation of a lineage. As a creationist, he isn't even honest. In a defense of a critique of this clip he implies that he has no problem with the long timescale implied by geology - the timescale over which divine intervention is neither required nor plausible. Yet, at the end of this piece, he pushes the Creation Museum in Kentucky. The Answers in Genesis folk at that museum are adamant that only Young Earth Creationism is admissible. Those positions are wholly incompatible.

ForumLight The evolutionary pathway from fish to humans: lobe-finned fish to tetrapods, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to primates, to humans. It took about 400 million years. Prof. Myers's quip was evidently in full knowledge of such facts, which are established beyond any reasonable doubt in the scientific community. (The anatomical evidence is overwhelming.)

Nicholas Christie-Blick Yes, I know but (sigh..) Forum Light will not want to engage in a *real* science discussion regarding evolution. This observation is, alas, from experience. All the air went out of his balloon when someone showed him that the Universe couldn't possibly be only 6,000 years old. He disappeared, defeated, but apparently is back now for more trolling.

ForumLight Please re-read what I wrote. Given that you're not a scientist (obviously), I recommend Neil Shubin's 2009 book, 'Your Inner Fish': Vintage Books, 237 p.

🤣

Professor of Lunatics?

😭

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!

Melissa Armenta 😂😂

We can claim to not believe it all we want. 2000 prophesies that have all come true, locally and globally, up to thousands of years later, and dozens of facts about reality that even scientists could not figure out until up to thousands of years later will all leave us without excuse for a lifetime of sinning, refusing His free offer to forgive and forget, and think we'll be able to say "well how was I supposed to know?!". We're kidding ourselves trying to suppress the truth of God and instead pretend we're all just a cosmic accidents, and that rats are our distant cousins. Our conscience knows the truth - it's why people spend hours a day attacking that which they claim does not exist. Please think again.

@@ForumLight We're not pretending though, you can look at the DNA between people and animals and see similarities, we can look at crystals and use carbon dating to determine the Earth's age. Your religion is inherently based on the belief in the improbable and supernatural instead of things that have an actual basis in reality.

​@@thunderwhip7056 Hello. Evolutionists can never address any of what I've said. They'll just say "you're wrong", can't SHOW it, while attacking belief in God, all while believing populations of fish, frogs, reptiles and more could learn to talk in countless human languages, read, write, publish books, design airplanes, pass laws, program computers and more if you just "give it enough time". If there were two initial life forms, who says there'd be 0% dna similarity between those two lines of life throughout history? Nothing. If two living things have eyes, they'll have some DNA similarity. If two living things have brains, they'll have some DNA similarity. DNA similarity does not equate to them being related. Banana plants and human beings have 50% DNA similarity - that does not mean you're in any way related. It's contrary to science to start with the ASSUMPTION that human beings and animals or even human beings and plants are related. The topic is science, hence that must be established as repeatable, verifiable reality FIRST - not a belief, and "here's why we believe in it" in so many words. We know human beings are related, so we can now look at DNA similarity to help discover more specific relationships. To ASSUME living things are related that is contrary to biological science repeatable fact is an anti-science farce. And no, fossils only shows that something lived - it doesn't in any way show "these evolved into that". Evolutionists think if you look at fossils and make up a belief about them that never happens, it nevertheless makes the fossil an "observation" or "evidence" of the belief they made up about them. Anti-science circular reasoning. Same for dna similarity and beliefs they make up ABOUT it. Evolutionist "That's a transitional fossil - and here are reasons I believe it is" "How do you know it is?" Evolutionist "Because common descent from a first life form evolution is true" "How do you know it's true when it never happens?" Evolutionist "Because that's a transitional fossil - and here are reasons I believe it is" (repeat) Evolutionist "DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins - and here are reasons I believe it shows that!" "How do you know it does?" Evolutionist "Because common descent from a first life form evolution is true" "How do you know it is true when it never happens?" Evolutionist "Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins - and here are reasons I believe it shows that!" (repeat) It would be similar to the analogy of someone else making up a brand new (unrelated to evolution) belief like "populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings" and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are "evidence" or "observations" of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce. If there were initially multiple life forms that led to all life we see today, then large groups of life would in no way be related yet they'd still have some degree of dna similarity, some degree of visible similarity in their fossils, which also shows making assumption about dna similarity or fossils as if it means life is related with a common ancestor is circular reasoning and anti-science. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. The age of anything does not prove "these evolved into those (because they're older and [insert other reasons to believe it here]". Again circular reasoning, starting with the anti-science assumption, then giving reasons to believe in it instead of adhering to biological fact. It's not 'reality' that animals are related to humans - it's a mythological anti-science belief. So ask any evolutionist to show populations of living things that never had brains / ears / hearts / eyes / digestive systems / reproductive systems / [countless more things] 'evolving' such things over generations. They can't, because that claim is CONTRARY to biological science and the topic is SCIENCE in countless cases, not what they demand we believe in instead. So they bring opinions and questioning belief in God. I bring observable, repeatable, verifiable fact that common descent is CONTRARY to, and not one evolutionist's in the entire world can cite otherwise. They can only fall back on why they believe in it and why we should too, or ad hominem, or questioning belief in God. Be not deceived, friend.

@@ForumLight Literally everything you said you is wrong. DNA similarities are proof of relation because that's literally how reproduction works, two pieces of information are combined to create new information, if every living thing on Earth shares some level of DNA than that means the information all came from the same place that's common sense. Furthermore, scientists have plenty of evidence regarding evolution, we have countless fossil records and animal remains from up to millions of years ago that show changes in animal species as well as certain species began and ended. Not only that but we've witnessed evolution and random mutation occur first hand. And for the record don't act as if you use science or logic at all. You believe in a magical sky man who created the universe for shits and giggles and holds the award for most abusive dad ever 🙃

@@ForumLight ain't got nothing better to do but spend every day commenting on this video. When was the last time you left your basement?

And notice that Ray was gaslighting them by making up a load of nonsense.

@Jax Callum " but Ray has convinced me that there may be God. " By pushing nonsense. " what if there was no evolution? " Actual research shows that there is. " What if something else happened instead of big bang and evolution" What if apples were oranges and Ray didn't lie? Oh there might have something that is not quite what BB theory is today but it would have to similar to produce the evidence we have. As for evolution, that is part of reality, how is theory, and natural selection fits the evidence. "but let's not blindly follow everything." Good, right idea, now stop blindly following Ray. I am not going blind, I am going more than ample evidence. Ray just plain lied about the BB, its NOT everything from nothing because there is no such thing as nothing in our universe. Its human concept, not a part of reality. Let me get you started in your journey to reality. How evolution works: First step in the process. Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place. Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random. Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this. Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations. The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur. This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction. There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution. Some books to get you started: Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is. Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work Book by Kat Arney This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins. Your Inner Fish Book by Neil Shubin Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll Now evolution is a lot simpler to understand that Big Bang cosmology but if you want books on that I have a few for that as well. Wikipedia covers both quite well and has links to more dense information. Ray make his living promoting his religion learning critical thinking will protect you from snowjobs and fact free nonsense like what Ray uses. A Creationist favorite these days is to simply create a false version of how science works and then lie that if you cannot see something happen today then it never happened and their god did it. Wikipedia - Critical thinking Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.[2] It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[3][4] and sociocentrism. Ethelred Hardrede

@Axle Parker They will never learn about reality if they are only exposed to silly nonsense.

@@ethelredhardrede1838 an entire dissertation of “its likely, it’s possible and open to discussion and much debate”. Evolution that claims evidence yet none has been provided. This video thoroughly exposes the absurdity that is evolution. Wikipedia: Uncertainty

@@warrr_machine At least they are willing to consider a different perspective. Unlike most religious people. They fall out with everyone, even those that have a belief in God, but a slightly different take on it. And no one has ever accosted me in the street to drone on about evolution.

That’s the point you can’t disprove him..in other words Yahweh is king God bless😂🙏🏽

It’s on purpose Bc when you start looking into evolution it becomes apparent we should have found transitional fossils yet we haven’t which is strange don’t you think. I’m not arguing either way just stating a fact.

@@allenporter1496 we have. we have many miacis fossils. the ancestor of both cats and dogs

// There is nothing wrong with believing in God or sharing that belief with others, // but when that belief causes us to willingly blind ourselves to the nature of the // world and ignore basic human intelligence and reason, that is completely unacceptable. Except believing that populations of fish, or reptiles, or frogs and more could over generations learn to read, write and speak countless languages, design and program computers and more, if you just "give it enough time", is not "intelligence and reason" but willful ignorance. // hopes that the idea that Religion and Science are incompatible can be dispelled: Belief in God and science are perfectly compatible. The issue is fish to mankind evolutionism is anti-science. // Evidence =/= Direct Observation Science starts with something that actually happens (observable, repeatable, testable), then a theory is made about how it happens. Right or wrong, that's science. Objects drop to the ground: observable, repeatable, no belief required. Diseases spread: observable, repeatable, no belief required. Matter affects matter: observable, repeatable, no belief required. No matter how many generations go by in the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds, flies remain flies, and so on for all animals: observable, repeatable, no belief required. But the mythology that populations of fish could 'evolve' over generations eventually into animals we'd clearly no longer consider fish? anti-science belief, nothing more. // you don't have to have an eyewitness to have enough evidence to convict someone of a crime; // it certainly helps, but security camera footage, DNA, or fingerprints will do just fine in most cases. Utterly faulty comparison. Here's the correct analogy for fish to mankind evolution: Walking into the courtroom with "evidence" of the "crime" that someone turned your friend into a tree. The judge holds you in contempt of court and says to not come back until it's first established that such a thing is actually possible first. See the human race has observed this thing called "crime". So now that it's established as scientific reality, we can look for evidence of even MORE possible crimes. To instead pretend to have 'evidence' for made up anti-science mythological beliefs is the farce that is fish to mankind evolution. // Also, what is a "kind"? - Domain? Kingdom? Phylum? Class? Order? Family? Genus? Species? // You're going to have to be more specific... Who needs the word "kind"? Evolutionists claim that populations of fish evolved over generations eventually into amphibians (animals we'd clearly no longer consider fish). Since they claim their beliefs are science, ask evolutionists to show what they say happens: an example of populations of fish morphing over generations ('evolving' they call it) eventually into animals we'd clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it's observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*. Here's what *is* science: It's observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists: _(a) _*_Ignore_*_ that scientific fact_ _(b) Make up a belief _*_contrary_*_ to that scientific fact_ _(c) Where that belief _*_never happens, can only be believed in_*_ and hence can't be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact._ // Throughout this entire video you can see that the people being interviewed are pained // at the questions that are being asked. The producers of this video want you to believe // that is because their beliefs are wrong, Thank you for unwittingly proving that fish to mankind evolutionism is just a belief. But the topic is science, and as I detailed above, science is not about things that can only be believed in, and give reasons to believe in it. And no, the students are realizing they were duped into believing something that doesn't actually happen. // To me it seems, however, that they are pained at the bullying, willing blindness, and // perceived ignorance of the questioner. The only bullying are by those who do not like the fact that, whether one believes in God or not, fish to mankind evolutionism is anti-science. It's an anti-God, anti-science belief system forced upon everyone else's kids and grandkids in all schools. // Please do not do this to your friends who are not Christians. It is hurtful, and it // destroys the reputation of intelligent Christians everywhere. It's not being an "intelligent Christian" to call God / Jesus Christ a liar, all over an anti-science mythology that was concocted precisely out of rejecting belief in God. It's not being an "intelligent Christian" to believe that populations of fish, or reptiles, or frogs and more could over generations eventually learn to read, write and speak countless languages, design and program computers and more, if you just "give it enough time". (continued ...)

(continued ...) The fact is, one is likely not a Christian if they do not really know Christ and instead believe in a false version of Him that they're less embarassed to believe in. (1) Jesus himself says God did what He said He did: creating Adam and Eve, male and female, in the beginning. *Mark 10.6* *_"[Jesus said] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."_* *Matthew 19.4-5* *_"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"_* So as a Christian you’d be calling Jesus Christ / God a liar. (2) There was no suffering and death until man sinned. *Romans 5.12* *_"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"_* *Genesis 3.19* *_"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."_* *Genesis 3.17-18* *_"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"_* So again, Christians that believe in the_frog to man story of evolution are in effect calling God a liar, teaching instead an anti-God gospel of God creating a world of suffering and death through no fault of mankind. (3) When Christ returns, He will ultimately restore the Earth to what it was before the fall. If we live in a world of suffering and death created that way from the start by God, what is there to restore the Earth to? Again, preaching an anti-God gospel, making God a liar. (4) Since Jesus Himself pointed to God creating Adam and Eve, let alone at the beginning, not at the end after billions of years went by, such “fish to man evolutionists” claiming to be Christians really seem to be ashamed in Jesus saying that God did in fact create Adam and Eve. How’s it going to work that anyone is ashamed of the words of Christ? *Mark 8.36-38* *_"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."_* *Luke 9.25-26* *_"For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? 26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."_* Consider: many will be doing works in the name of Jesus Christ, NOT denying He did what He said He did and yet Jesus told us they’d still be cast into hell: *Matthew 7.22-23* *_"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."_* What chance do people have who deny the very words of Jesus Christ / God? (5) Many who reject parts of God’s Word often say they do believe the Ten Commandments. Yet look at what the Ten Commandments indicate: *Exodus 20.8-11* *_"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."_* So are we going to now dismiss the Ten Commandments too? (6) So is God’s Word a lie which tells us many times God created in six days? *Exodus 31.17* *_"It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."_* (7) Jesus Christ made all things. Is Jesus Christ now a liar as well? *John 1.1-3* *_"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."_* *John 1.14-15* *_"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me."_* (8) Want to talk about actual science: what IS observable and IS able to be shown in repeatable test cases (i.e. this is scientific FACT) is that it’s physically impossible for a person who has been dead for hours, let alone days, to come back to life. That is scientific fact. Observable. Repeatable. So, do we now believe God *didn't* do what He told us He did and raise Christ from the dead and raise others from the dead because science in this case actually *does* contradict something God / Jesus Christ did?! Of course we believe God. Then why are we being hypocritical and denying what Christ and God said He did *in the name of a made up mythological_belief (really a lie) that is not even science*?!! That contradictory behavior alone should wake us up to the truth that we are believing a lie: the fish to man mythological story of evolution.if we are a professing Christian and yet believe in the fish to man mythological story of evolution (which is NOT science, as proven above), it’s possible we are not yet a born again believer in God with the indwelling Holy Spirit which guides us to all truth. (Not guiding us to the lie that God’s Word can’t be trusted and_frogs of old are our ancestors). We are instead believing a lie, calling Jesus Christ a liar, ashamed of His Words, calling the Word of God a lie where people will now have to individually pick what they claim is God’s Word. Think twice - the_mythological belief of frog to man evolution is deceiving many. *1 Corinthians 1.27-29* *_"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (29) That no flesh should glory in his presence."_* // Instead, share your beliefs in a meaningful and convincing way while respecting the // beliefs of others. It's not respect to allow people to believe an anti-science, anti-God lie that has people headed to hell. Jesus said to preach the gospel. Not to mention to point out the lies people are believing. 2 Timothy 4:1-4 "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." And turned unto fables indeed. The frog becoming a prince fairy tale, just add millions of years - a fable many professing Christians have turned to, claiming God / Jesus is a liar. If we're ashamed of God and His Word because we fear others may call us unintelligent, God says in turn He will be ashamed of us. Please think again.

So do you believe in evolution or not? "Species" and "genus" are both Latin for "kind". There is also mankind and humankind in current usage for that matter. The thing is everyone knew exactly what Ray Comfort was driving at and they were embarrassed because they were basing their lives on an unproven hypothesis. Wishful thinking does not good science make. Good science involves reliably replicating a phenomenon and thus establishing it as scientific fact. This has not been accomplished with evolution to date.

No, I don't "believe" in evolution - that's like asking me whether I "believe" in gravity or relativity or quantum physics. Am I naive enough to believe that the general scientific consensus is complete or completely correct? If that's what you're asking, No - obviously there are holes and flaws in any scientific theory or discovery (although the flaws are continually being pruned, and holes filled in). Do I base my worldview and understanding of natural phenomena on the multitudinous evidence supporting evolutionary biology? If that's the question, then Yes - I feel that it is very narrow-minded and ignorant to restrict one's understanding to one method of learning. Religion has its place in my life as does Science, and I have faith that apparent conflicts between the two will be fully explained as I continue to gain more and more knowledge. I believe that God wants us to think for ourselves, examine the evidence, and seek to understand things in any way we can, and be willing to admit fault when we are wrong so that we can find greater understanding. I would ask you - if "species" and "genus" both mean "kind", do you not believe in evolution from one species to another? Or more accurately, one species into variant descendant species? At what point do we draw the line and say "well, fish can lose or gain a fin here or there, but legs are out of the question"?

// No, I don't "believe" in evolution - that's like asking me whether I "believe" in gravity Only shows how dishonest you're being. Objects drop to the ground: observable, repeatable, no belief required. Diseases spread: observable, repeatable, no belief required. Matter affects matter: observable, repeatable, no belief required. No matter how many generations go by in the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds, flies remain flies, and so on for all animals: observable, repeatable, no belief required. But the mythology that populations of fish could 'evolve' over generations eventually into animals we'd clearly no longer consider fish? anti-science belief, nothing more. Your points were addressed in my reply, but that you ignore them only shows you're not being honest in your claims and don't have a leg to stand on.

How is dating fossils visible evidence for evolution? Please explain how that work? In the meantime I'll give you something to chew on a bit. This article is from evolutionary scientists. www.springerprotocols.com/Full/doi/10.1007/978-1-61779-585-5_1?encCode=TkVHOjFfNS01ODUtOTc3MTYtMS04Nzk=&tokenString=c/RZgls0P4xBLHb1pmBUdQ "Because the direct evolution of species is not observable (not even in the fossil record), relationships are often inferred by shared characteristics among extant taxa." Tangled Trees: The Challenge of Inferring Species Trees from Coalescent and Noncoalescent Genes By: Christian N. K. Anderson, Liang Liu, Dennis Pearl, Scott V. Edwards. This article was published 3-31-12. If you google the title you can find this information.

How is a story book physical evidence of being created by a God? Half life dating shows that we a chronological time scale of creatures that have evolved into other creatures. I do not want to hear your contradictory thoughts if you do not understand the point I'm making.

You're missing the point. He said in the video that the definition of a scientific method is based on the collection of data through *observation* and experimentation. If there is no physical observation, then it is considered a theory. There is no proof, despite any carbon dating or anything else shown. He's not wrong, you're just not understanding it.

Okay. So I will assume that you are a creationist. What evidence is there to currently prove Christianity as a fact? None. But, we can OBSERVE actual remains of organisms that are proven to be older that 6000 years. That alone disproves Christianity as a whole.

Wayne, we are able to know how old something is by simply using half life dating which I've said multiple times. This gives an accurate age of an artifact even millions if years old. You need to do your research before you preach. Everything you've just said was no doubt phrases from the bible taken out of context. Just because a tomb was empty and a very insignificant amount of people claim to have saw Jesus after death is not proof of anything. You have no evidence other than blind faith towards your religion. Do some scientific research instead of paraphrasing a book written thousands if years ago by men that you have never even met or seen before.

Mermaids. LOL!

If humans evolved from fish , we would have kept the gills , like The Man From Atlantis !

@Andrew Davis God made Adam and Eve. Humans are from them. For it was You who created my inward parts; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. Psalms 139:13 HCSB

@Andrew Davis Just under 6,000 yrs ago. Satan is the king of lies Aborigines are human descendants of Adam and Eve

Andrew Davis aboriginals could have been exiled from ancient civilizations

How come?

@Jnr Burns Lol, It was a joke But evolution is still extremely illogical, just use your brain lol

@Jnr Burns What truth of the matter?

@Jaren Groves how do you know god is real?

@@abigailm.7196 have you even seen how evolution works? Why do most animals have the same bone structure? Why are we slowly loosing our molars? Because we don’t need them and we had them in a time where our ancestors used them. It’s not blindly believing if the evidence is there and yes we don’t know all about the world and that’s why we are still learning but simply believing in a being that created everything and knows everything you do or think is blindly believing Lol she took away her reply

the older people have had more time to harden their heart against the Holy Spirit.

The past cost our elders more than it does us in our musings and intellectual experiments.

@@sweetsav11yes it’s sad, they get offended I think their pride and ego blinds them from the truth

I have a question for all you Adam and Eve believers ... explain pygmy peoples? explain different skin colours? explain why asians have narrow eyes? explain neanderthal fossils? If we're all descended from Adam and Eve why do we have so many different looking races? Hmmm ... could that be adaption, which, of course, is the mechanism that leads to evolution?

It is science. We can observe evolution through evidence. Bacteria speciation is proof of descent with modified, it is observable even within a human lifetime.

@Jaren Groves can you first define what a kind is? Is it a species? A kingdom? Genus? What is it? Nobody seems to know what kind means, probably because it is meant to be vague.

@Jaren Groves no that is not specific enough because a cat and a dog are in the same kingdom, while a toad and a chicken are in different kingdoms (amphibians and birds). You are going to have to be more specific than that.

@Jaren Groves okay so I'll assume you mean a kingdom. I change of kingdom or "kind" is not possible. All birds share a common ancestor from reptiles, in fact this fossil was named Archaeopteryx. So if you observe it's bone structure, it is similar to the reptiles of that time period (millions of years ago) but also shows characteristics of modern birds, (ie. Feathers, extremely light bones, and primitive wing appendages.) It is safe to conclude that based on the genotyping/phenotyping of this dinosaur, that this represents prehistoric reptiles diverging into what we recognize to today as birds. Even today, we know that birds diverged from reptiles through the use of sequenckng whole genomes of bird/reptile dna and we can see that they are consistently more related than ANY OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS. Hopefully I answered the question? Maybe anti-evolution people should find a better argument against evolution.

To clarify what I said in the beginning, a change of kingdom is not possible, it simply cannot happen in one generation ( or even thousands!) It take millions of years for the divergences to be noticed. Such is the case for birds and reptiles.

@@ambrosebussey4672 Prove it is false

@@ambrosebussey4672 Prove the Bible is false. If you cannot prove the Bible is false then you are going by faith, and you are more gullible then a toddler.

Really? did you decide to be born?. Did you decide that sometime in the next week or so you will drink liquid or you will die?. The rules humans make are social/political/economic etc rules. All this anthroposphere ( human social world) is underpinned by natural laws.e.g. Physics and biology (inc evolution).

Great observation! Plus: you shall not have other gods before Me.

@evo: Yes humans make "rules" Duh, BUT humans can't create squat like your creative, magic lighting bolts into the primordial swamp evolution! / religion! & Why not? Not even a simple life form. Doh. but don't let that discourage you! BUT having Godless government enforced your silly faith base mother Gaia Evolution religion on us the living is shameful !

evil exists because of our free will. talking from rather pessimistic view we are a big experiment to see what creatures with this level of intelligence will do if given the optio to do what ever

Please point out one thing he got wrong and back it up. Every time evolutionists try they end up showing what he said is totally accurate.

@@ForumLight To pretend that we can't know anything that happened in the past because we weren't there to observe is to suggest that we can't know how mountains formed because we weren't there to observe their orogeny. And yet, we know exactly how the Himalayas formed and so on. Also, the explanation here of the appendix and the coccyx are rudimentary at best. Vestigial organs can still serve a purpose beyond their original function. Of course ligaments and tendons still attach to the coccyx, just because we don't have tails anymore doesn't mean that the vertebra is completely useless. But to pretend our vestigial organs were somehow designed specifically for the human anatomy is problematic to say the least. Are you telling me god designed the appendix with a significant death rate attached to it? Seems like a suboptimal design if so. The animal kingdom is rife with vestigial organs, such as pelvic bones in whales, our erector pili, etc, all indications of evolution. Lastly, check out Tiktaalik, it's an incredible discovery that evolution predicted would exist, and indeed it did and we have fossil proof of it. Just because this guy caught some people off guard who weren't able to give sufficient answers doesn't mean evolution is false. Again, gotcha journalism at best.

Why don't you prove to me that God exists? Huh? Can't do it? Didn't think so.

RetrosaurusRex 98 You really know God exist from his creation, Evolution was made to blind you to the existence of the creator. Everyman really does know inside that there is God, but they reject the truth to believe a lie.

there is absolutely evidence for evolution both in the fossil record and molecular genetics but he just rejects it because it clashes with preconceived beliefs

James edmison If there is this absolute proof of evolution; which is "NOTHING" making everything by complete accident, Why could not these learned professors point out one conclusive example of evolution. That being one animal being radically and skillfully engineered into another complex animal life form, and doing it without any intelligence, guidance, intention, or knowledge of biological anatomy, DNA, biological systems... How does complete blind, ignorant luck keep getting it right over and over again trillions of times... Kind of like hitting the lottery everyday for 10000 years..

+James edmison ha did you even listen to the movie thers not !

@Jnr Burns Religion?? What's religion got to do with it? Jesus says To come unto Me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest! It's an individual choice to come to Jesus... religion is a man made word. It's your choice to believe or not.

Jnr Burns but didn’t an atheist say those words?

Thats called history....... If u dnt believe history then ua dumbass......

Evolution is herd mentality.

@Jnr Burns Jesus and god is real evolution is fake

No, he's pointing out the fact that they have to have faith in something that's supposed to not require any faith: science. Science is not about faith - common descent evolution IS about faith and is CONTRARY to science. Evolutionists can never address the following, so instead they'll just ignore it. Science is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science.

@@ForumLight wow massive cut and paste answer to my comment. Tbh got bored reading it. Science is not about faith. Science is about reviewing the best evidence and making an informed decision based on that verifiable information. No faith.

Didn't he, amen and praise God.

Bill D 😂😂😂😂

@Louis Juarez He/she didn't even quote something from the Bible. It's his/her own words. He/she just added a chapter about it.

You only see what you want to see.

Stop

@@linkthepig4219 That post is just a tad sparse. Try saying what should 'Stop' at the very least. It would also be efficacious to explain why.

@@ethelredhardrede1838 Stop the evolution denial ig, basic biology explains genetics, mutations and macroevolution.

Shut up

For some there is a scripture, "thinking themselves wise in their own eyes they become fools." One can''t change or help a fool unless the person wakes up to reality and their ego gets deflated enough to recognize reality and truth. In the meanwhile pray for them. We can bind the Satanic demonic spirits from controlling them and loose/intercede for God to intervene. We have no control over any human, such is evil, however we have Jesus authority and should use it to set people free.

Reasoning is not necessary, just thinking you are right and others that disagree are your enemies and hate mongers and right wing extremists, etc. Saul Alinski trained many well to defy God and authority and create chaos. The bad thing is they think they are in control while they are being controlled by demons, hate, selfishness, lust for power and control over others --- all while not recognizing they are the problem because of their convoluted/warped/egocentric/non-sensical thinking.

Slurp you don't see your brain, so I guess u dont hv one

This opened my eyes as to why most religious people are complete idiots with no grasp on logic or science. Thanks video.

Hello. Science is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, felines remain felines, canines remain canines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science.

Absolutely brilliant comment. When God Created the Earth, He Created everything Full Sized. The trees, the mountains and animals, everything. I believe He created the Earth to look much older than it truly was. A little God patina if you will. Someone asked my Preacher, "What came first the chicken or the egg?" He explained that God did indeed create the chicken first and full size. Love your comment. :)

@@timgiles9413 Why did he need a worldwide flood to murder innocent babies and animals then? Couldn't he have just banished all the 'sinful' people and started over? No need for a flood.

CG but everyone was sinful. It was stated in the Bible. Even the babies would grow up to be sinful since they had sinful parents, and God knew that. We can’t ever forget that God is all-knowing and he had a plan. It’s not blind faith, it’s just faith that leans on the fact that God is good and cares for all humans, even though we are all sinful and in desperate need of help.

@@bennettoneill203 I'm sorry but murdering innocent babies is disgusting. Think about what you just said again.

@@bennettoneill203 A plan to allow an innocent child to be born to be murdered by him soon after ( which he would have known ) a plan to allow children to be born with permanent disabilities and illness from birth. What kind of sick monster do you worship?

I was thinking that as well. I am sure they would rethink their answer.

Absolutely!!

Yea I remember the first time I watched this video I was shocked. But then I realized a lot of people think like that. Very sad.

Yes I do love dogs and I don't love my neighbors, but I would save my neighbor first and then I will save the dog. First love God then love your neighbor is what the bijbel says (that is the second and is just as important says Jesus), but I live in a bad neighborhood and I hope that my neighbors will think the same way about it if I am drowning. I do know that they love there dog, so they could not be real bad people.

This is what Jesus says in Matthew 22 vers 34-40 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” So save your Neighbor first, and after that if you got time left to can do it save the dog.

@@Facts-Over-Feelings What?! No it wasn't

lol. Not that it matters but there is no "if" in that quote from Romans 3.... Every man is a liar and God is true.

@@rwatson2609 it does matter! Don't change a dot or a tittle!

We actually share 50% of DNA w/ bananas and 97% w/ Chimpanzees. This isn’t disputable, it’s a proven fact. This shows a high possibility of a common ancestor. If creatism is true, then these DNA coding similarities presented by god have got the be the biggest troll ever.

A A Actually, if you payed attention in biology class, you’d hear about genetic similarities. It was Stephen Woodford.

No, common descent from a first life form evolution is completely anti-science. Science is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science. I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any religion, church, denomination claims they say. We'll all face God for a lifetime of lying, stealing, lusting, hating, coveting, blaspheming and more. There are only two religions in the world to address this: Countless versions of "DO this or that and you (might) be saved" and God / Jesus Christ's truth of "It is DONE by Jesus the Christ on the cross and we believe on Him along to be saved - received by faith - and what goes along with it that God does (that shows us our 'faith' is genuine) is we have a change of mind and a change of desires about sin and a new desire to instead follow God.

@@ForumLight Wow, you've spend a lot of time writing that, and you're wrong. Evolutions IS proven well beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm sorry, but you're ignorant of the evidence, or you're not willing to see it. Fossils, genetics, embryonics, lab tests of different kinds and many other independent lines of evidence exist.

@@danielduvana Fossils don't show 'these evolved into populations of those" over generations. It just shows something lived. Evolutionists think if you look at fossils and make up a belief about them that never happens, it nevertheless makes the fossil an "observation" or "evidence" of the belief they made up about them. Anti-science circular reasoning. Same for dna similarity and beliefs they make up ABOUT it. Evolutionist "That's a transitional fossil - and here are reasons I believe it is" "How do you know it is?" Evolutionist "Because common descent from a first life form evolution is true" "How do you know it's true when it never happens?" Evolutionist "Because that's a transitional fossil - and here are reasons I believe it is" (repeat) Evolutionist "DNA similarity and our beliefs about ERV's shows this and that are cousins - and here are reasons I believe it shows that!" "How do you know it does?" Evolutionist "Because common descent from a first life form evolution is true" "How do you know it is true when it never happens?" Evolutionist "Because DNA similarity and our beliefs about ERV's shows this and that are cousins - and here are reasons I believe it shows that!" (repeat) It would be similar to the analogy of someone else making up a brand new (unrelated to evolution) belief like "populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings" and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are "evidence" or "observations" of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce. If there were initially multiple life forms that led to all life we see today, then large groups of life would in no way be related yet they'd still have some degree of dna similarity, some degree of visible similarity in their fossils, which also shows making assumption about dna similarity or fossils as if it means life is related with a common ancestor is circular reasoning and anti-science. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table.

@@ForumLight You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. The fossil records absolutley proves evolution in and of itself, and then there's a bazillion other pieces of evidence. You need to ask yourself why you're resistant to accept evolution? What are your biases? Are you persuing the truth no matter the cost or are you trying to protect your already held beliefs? Evolution is true beyond any reasonable doubt, the evidence is overwhelming. The only way to not accept it is to be ignorant or to be resistant to the truth. Btw, accepting evolution is not a problem for religion. Lots of christians understand that evolution is true and is fine with that. Please take a course in evolution or something.

@@danielduvana _"The fossil records absolutley proves evolution in and of itself"_ False. Looking at two fossils does not "prove" "populations of these 'evolved' over generations eventually into populations of those" except in the minds of evolutionists and why they insist we throw out all of science and biology to believe them instead.

Evolution is a religion the pope is an idiot

tim rose I’m truly sorry that you feel this way but Christians have no reason to be “dishonest” when it comes to evangelism. What benefit would it bring to us whether or not you choose to believe in God? Ray is only seeking to spread the truth to people so they may be saved and brought into eternal life. Evolution is an extremely flawed theory and that is becoming more and more evident today through science itself. I suggest you check out the interview with biochemist Michael Behe on the new science about DNA that challenges evolution (Darwin Devolves)

Dave Littleton Michael Behe is not considered a reliable source. Watch his dismissal as a creationist during the Dover trials than outlawed intelligent design as religion. Yes, Ray is a charlatan and ridiculed as the banana man. His editing and stupidity of his questions was laughable. There is no such thing as a kind!

tim rose you say he is “not considered” a reliable source, and yet what does that really mean? He is not considered reliable by whose standard? The evolutionist community? Well of course he isn’t because his research refutes everything that they stand for and believe in when it comes to the origin of life. It is actually laughable to me how arrogant a person must be to claim that their worldview around evolution is superior to that of intelligent design. Scientists don’t even have a clue what 95% of our universe truly consists of (aka dark energy and dark matter) but we somehow think it’s reasonable to entirely rule out the possibility of a divine creator. Believe what you may my friend, but I pray that one day you might let go of your pride just as I did so God can reveal himself to you

tim rose well I guess we can agree to disagree on this topic. Wishing you all the best

Evolutionary Biology and the Bible Genetics and Darwinism are independent ideologies. I never made an argument against genes being real

Hello. It's so sad that people think common descent from a first cell is real. Ask them to cite a reproducible case of population of living things that never had brains 'evolving' brains over generations. Same for eyes, or ears, or hearts, or lungs, or digestive systems and so much more. They can't because it's contrary to all of science, all of biology and all of reality. Be not deceived, friend. When we face God for a lifetime of lying, stealing, lusting, hating, blaspheming and more, it won't work to say "well how was I supposed to know?". I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any religion or church has claimed they say.

what do you mean by evolution? if by evolution you mean adaptation/speciation within each family, nobody hasa problem with this, if you mean common ancestry between families, that is a heavily outdated idea from 19th century western europe that has no basis on reality

didn’t you watch the video?

​@@lookherekook1258Bruh did you think the video includes any kind of 'sense'?

I have a question for all you Adam and Eve believers ... explain pygmy peoples? explain different skin colours? explain why asians have narrow eyes? explain neanderthal fossils? If we're all descended from Adam and Eve why do we have so many different looking races? Hmmm ... could that be adaption, which, of course, is the mechanism that leads to evolution?

Look around trees oceans animals..🤔 thats evidence of creation.. I personally have experienced the unseen supernatural in my own life , so i only will speak for myself , i know , not beLIEve there's a creator That makes no sense ,, ''' demonstrate a creator first '' Hmm . , so by your logic not being able to identify excatly who build what , doesn't mean or prove anything, there are many structures in the world that we aren't sure who built them ? So what does that prove other than you don't know who created them.??

@@shawndamkani6833 Calling it "creation" makes your reasoning circular since you're presupposing a creator. The fact that things exist does not prove they were created; it just shows they have an origin which may or may not be conscious.

@ Dino Hall you right , i cannot prove who created a rock , but the fact it's here begs the question where did it come from?

@@shawndamkani6833 Exactly, the question is "where did it come from?" And where it came from is not necessarily a creator. A "creator" must be conscious, and we have many examples of rocks being formed by unconscious forces.

How does nothingness start?." "We don't know"

Wrong. Do you have evidence? Don't say the Bible. You know the Bible is a book of lies, right? Have you ever seen a talking snake? Wake up.

@@ultraviolet.catastrophe I have evidence of the making of the universe of GOD and do you not see that it is very beautiful very well made if it happened in bigbang theory the world should be very close if there is a beginning then there is an end and if the universe is good someone made it but GOD designed it. and you can imagine the right distances of the stars and planets if we have the ability to think and make paintings so we can design it and that is also how God made the universe if we can design so also of GOD and if in bigbang theory from all its called accident is there an accident the result is not good right why do we have love for ourselves ,we have love for others we have the ability to think and why did you say that the bible is a lie and it is written in the bible that the world is really round and that life is in the blood that things was discovered before they developed the technologies to get out of the earth and that NASA discovered that the earth is round

@@ultraviolet.catastrophe why did the scientists say that the water came from the meteor but why not on another planet why only the earth has it possible that no meteor fell on mars and why our planet is so beautiful and I have discovered billionaire people is preparing for the destruction of the world maybe they are afraid and no one can live in the wrath of God he is very angry with us because we have done many bad things and you are one of them you do not recognize God he is angry because other people do not believe in him and do you know the scientist then who discovered the telescope he believed in God then and life was still peaceful then there were very few bad events and events like hurricanes, wildfires did not continue but now they continue. because God is angry with us now and JESUS ​​is coming for the servants of God and the DEVIL is preparing and the things that God has given him the intellect are attracted by the devil so that they do not recognize God to look at to them that the bible is just fiction so that they make discoveries and the devil does that the scientists that they believe in their intellect the devil does that so they just ignore all the works of GOD in the universe and the devil does this so that he can be with someone in hell so that he can be with them suffer there the devil is not in hell he is here in our world to sow evil the devil is also smart so he can fool you so he can harm you and why do you really want evidence that if there is a God he should show up in the BIBLE so that "blessed are the people who serve me even when they do not see me" and why did you say that the bible is wrong they did noah's ark on mountain ararat in 2012

@@jhadelhernandez6454 i hope you were joking. Cause if you weren't, your evidence sounds so dumb.

@@khacthinhnguyen17 I'm not joking I'm telling the truth all I said is truth duhh

You have a very well reasoned, respectful, and organized approach which I like. However I disagree with many of your statements. Something to think about is that I no longer believe it is possible to be 100% non-biased in today's world. Especially on topics like this. If a person does not want God, then they will ignore any evidence of it. If one does want God, they will look for it. The world view can't be avoided. But all evidence is not measurable or quantifiable. One thing to consider, the Bible itself claims that the evidence provided will be 'sufficient'. In other words, it will not be overwhelming, if it were overwhelming it would adversely affect a person's decision to believe. We are looking for a verdict by circumstantial evidence. The question each person needs to ask for themselves: How much circumstantial evidence do I need to conclude that God is a reasonable conclusion? This question must be answered honestly, must like if you were to be a member of a jury. Or as I like to put it: "How many trees must I see to acknowledge that I am in a forest?" Your first point: You show bias towards a much larger time-frame by referring to 6000 years as absurd. Upright fossilized trees can only form rapidly otherwise they decay before fossilization sets in. This shows that these events ARE possible. God would not be set out to deceive us, however our understanding of a scenario can make it seem like that. The rocks you refer to being in whatever condition, how are we to know the true events that took place? If you find an area devastated by a tornado that you witnessed. How are you to know whether all the visible damage came only from the one observed tornado? Could many tornadoes have cause the damage? Your third point: You claim there is no evidence of a global flood. What about the 90+ culture's across most continents that have flood legends? How about the fossils that were found with their head/neck craned backwards as if gasping for air? (This 'death pose' has no measurable property and therefore is not considered science but is still evidence.) Or the fossil that was found in the middle of eating? Or the fossilized trees standing upright, penetrating several layers of the geologic column? Your fourth point: I have come across a theory you might like to watch on youtube that can attest rheology you're looking for in the global flood. Search for "Dr. John Baumgardner - Global tectonics and the Flood". Also, a note on the flood. Study of the Sahara Desert, via satellite images and terrain composition etc, came to the conclusion that the Sahara Desert is approximately 4,000 years old. Does this prove the flood? No. But certainly does not contradict the Bible. Pretty amazing 'guesswork' by people 3500 years ago on stuff they could know nothing about. Your fifth and sixth points: While much of what you said is beyond what I'm capable of talking about with any confidence, I understand enough to know that I've seen some theories you might be willing to look at since that's what you claim to be missing. Also on youtube you can search for "Black holes and white holes - Dr. Russel Humphreys". He presents a theory that fits within Einstein's relativity equations to explain how we can see so many stars of the universe AND maintain biblical accuracy of creation in 7 literal days. There are also videos available on youtube with Dr. Humphreys explaining how he used biblical clues to come up with a theory on planetary magnetic pole strength. I look forward to your response. God bless.

M LEET Thank you for posting very informative answers and doing it with the utmost of respect and kindness. I hope the response is in kind.

actionfiguremovies Thank you! I try. We all have a world-view. We can't escape it. It's the worldview that affects how everybody can can come to different conclusions with the same evidence. Sometimes all people need is a gentle nudge to setdown their worldview and look through yours for a moment instead of trying to look at your worldview through theirs. God bless!

M LEET When it comes to the evaluation of evidence, the existence or non-existence of God isn’t relevant. Ham’s problem isn’t that we don’t know or that interpretations depend on assumptions in the way he supposes. It is that he has no evidence for any of his assertions, and the core of his story is contradicted by mountains of independent evidence with no wiggle room even remotely close to what would be required to preserve his views. My first argument is the most robust because it requires no assumptions at all. Merely knowledge of Earth’s geological history as it has been pieced together by geological mapping over the past two centuries. A underlies B. C offsets D. E intrudes F. Think bigger than a tree. Think about the time represented by the development of a mountain range like the Appalachians, and the opening and closing of ocean basins commonly associated with such belts of deformation. Now think about dozens of such features, with ages demonstrably different because the sedimentary successions involved can be shown to be different from first-order field relations. In the western U.S. alone, in Ham’s interpretation, three such events have to be accommodated within just one year - the rocks assigned to Noah’s flood. How does that make any sense? I do not need to repeat my point on the sedimentary and fossil record. The observational details of that record, which are very well established, are incompatible with the flood idea, no matter what may have been imagined about the death poses of individual organisms. Ham’s response: to ignore the data in their entirety. John Baumgardner is an accomplished scientist who left the rails years ago. There is no observational support for his idea of catastrophic plate tectonics. And he runs into the greatest difficulty for the span since 4,500 years ago (in the creationist interpretation), the span in which rates of phenomena are supposed to have slowed to their contemporary values. Examples: opening of the Red Sea and the entire North Atlantic Ocean between Europe and Greenland, the development of the entire Alpine-Himalayan orogen, more than 100 km of displacement along the Dead Sea fault. All that happened while no-one was watching? Your final paragraph runs into difficulties of the same kind: ad hoc assertions for which there is no basis, and that run into well established physics.

Nicholas Christie-Blick As my friend J. Vernon McGee.said, the world is not waiting for the sunrise of evolution's pipe dream. The pipe dream of evolution will never come true

I believe in the divine Creator, but could you please elaborate? I don't think that athiests will be convinced by this statement and I don't quite understand how either.

@@stillfritz2807 What a joker, what are you talking about? 😂

@@stillfritz2807 🤣 there is no cutting between the time I mentioned and this is RU-vid so living waters can't block anything. You are not making sense sorry.

@@stillfritz2807 I searched for it but couldn't find it that's because it's not my comment so it would be hard to find and there are 94k comments on this video, I can't read or search for all of them.

@@stillfritz2807 you seem like a nice person so what are you trying to say to me? Don't you believe in God?

@@stillfritz2807 😂 you have a habit of misunderstanding people and coming up with conspiracy theories. I just said you seem like a nice person in the way we are chatting nothing else. "Why would you believe in God" well you don't have to but know this He exists no matter what you believe and without the Mercies and Grace of God your sins can't be forgiven. Whether you believe this or not that's your prerogative there is no real purpose in life without God. Jesus Christ loves you and paid the penalty for your sins, if you sincerely repent and put your trust in Jesus as lord and Savior your sins will be forgiven and you can know that once this earthly life is over you can call heaven your home and not hell. I have been were you are so I understand a little but thank God by the grace of God I know him and I have found a peace that surpasses all understanding. You might not understand or know the importance of what I am saying but I pray sooner rather than later your eyes will be open and your heart will be receptive to the truth that is before you daily. Listen Fritz, don't harden your heart don't make an eternal mistake that you will regret, God loves you and He can change your life for the better. Trust in Jesus Christ He is the Way the Truth and the Life. Take care and have a good day.

GOD bless you too...❤️❤️❤️❤️

no

I’m confused. If God is the one and only true god. Then what does that make Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit?

@@abdelll9737 That is his forms. The Leader, the messenger and the Provider

Oh well maybe he forgot all those poor children suffering from hunger and decease. All of those people that have died from covid too. But he will protect Ray then everything is good. Sure.

Hello. I pray that you get a Bible. If there are those professing Christians who claim "God used common descent evolution [because of science]" ask them if they believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. They'll say yes. Then point out it IS reproducible scientific fact when a person dies and body grows room temperature they're not coming back. So the resurrection IS contrary to science, yet we believe God anyway. So why throw out other things God makes clear over a common descent belief which is contrary to science. It shows that science is not the issue - but being embarrassed to believe God over what unsaved mankind says.

Science is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuaIs", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science. ===== Part TWO ===== Here are a few objections/claims they may bring up when they cannot address the above observable, repeatable and verifiable facts: *Evolutionists sometimes try to claim you're against science.* Science is fine and requires no belief. In the entire existence of the human race: Objects drop to the ground. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: Diseases spread. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: All populations of: canines remain canines, fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, animals that never had hearts do not evolve hearts, animals that never had digestive systems do not evolve digestive systems (or brains, or eyes, or reproductive systems and many, many more cases like these). Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. *Evolutionists sometimes try to say they don't claim that populations of 'animals turn into other animals' over generations* Quite the opposite. Evolutionists claim the first life form was a single cell. They claim that it is the ancestor of all living things today. That's "animals turning into other animal" over generations of mythological proportions. They claim humans, apes, rats, banana plants (50% DNA similarity to human beings) are all related - that's again "species turning into other species" of mythological proportions, claiming all life is related. At some point reptiles did not exist in their worldview. That means they cIaim over generations some populations animals that were never reptiles 'evolved' over generations eventually into reptiles - That's "animals turning into other animals" over generations to mythological degrees. At some point no animals had brains. This means they claim over generations some populations of animals that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations. Yet when called out on this some evolutionists even try to say "evolution doesn't say species turn into other species", which again is just not honest. It shows they not only know they're wrong, but they show their intent to push this falsehood anyway. *If you point out evolutionists "populations over generations" claims, and some will dishonestly pretend you're claiming evolutionists are saying that one kind of animal 'gives birth' to another kind".* Which again is clearly deception. Science shows *populations over generations* do not do what they claim. *Evolutionists typically imply making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it,* which of course is false and is just circular reasoning. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or ABOUT DNA *that never happens* does not then make fossils or DNA 'evidence' or an 'observation of' of the belief you just made up about them. *Evolutionists also typically resort to the crime analogy.* For example, since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they ignore: the thing called a "crime" is already observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some *MORE* possible crimes that no one is left alive to have observed it. By sharp contrast, what evolutionists do would be the same as giving 'evidence' for some strange new crime that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this crime that never happens actually happening (for example: a "crime" of turning someone into a tree). *Even some people factually observing something that's never happened is not science if it's not repeatable and also verifiable.* So for example, hundreds of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead (or that He raised others from death), and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's *not repeatable* and not *verifiable.* There's also evidence He rose from the dead, and some have observed Him alive after the fact, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* And so it goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not *repeatable,* not *verifiable,* it's not even *observable* either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could. But neither of them can be called science of course. ===== Part Three ===== *Evolutionists almost always are against Christ but are teaching their religion* that goes along with their belief of common descent from a first life form - the belief of 'nothing did it - it all just happened on it's own, including life - you're just another animal related to all animals - so live how you want and you'll rest in peace when you die". But they also pass this religion off 'you are god' off as science as well. That in mind, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for ourselves and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ to live for Him instead. John 3 : 14-21 *_"[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."_* Live forever, friends!

and? :)

I have a question for all you Adam and Eve believers ... explain pygmy peoples? explain different skin colours? explain why asians have narrow eyes? explain neanderthal fossils? If we're all descended from Adam and Eve why do we have so many different looking races? Hmmm ... could that be adaption, which, of course, is the mechanism that leads to evolution?

Evolution is still fake. God is real and He made all the life on the Earth. Believe in God.

Indeed. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many then just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're really about deception that's contrary to actual science. Evolutionists typically deceive and pretend making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it, which just goes to show how they're just about deception. Evolutionists also typically deceive and try to pretend that since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they hope no one notices: the thing called a "crime" is observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some *more* crimes that no one is around to have observed. What they do is the same as giving 'evidence' for something that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this belief that newer happens, which is just more deception. That aside, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for the world and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ. John 3 : 14-21 *_"[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."_*

Just because it takes a long time doesn’t mean it’s not true. Show me some hard evidence of God that isn’t personal experience

Great point

@JacksonI mean most of those happened hundreds of years ago. The only one with evidence had one scientist do one experiment, which is dumb as he could have made a mistake or he could have just lied. Look up pictures of watermelons in the renaissance. They have lots more seeds and much less flesh. The reason watermelons look how they do today is because humans specifically bred them for more flesh and less seeds. In fact this can be seen for almost all fruit you see in a supermarket. This isn’t evolution happening naturally, as in the wild having more seeds and less flesh would be an advantage, but it is proof that mutations occur and it is possible for species to evolve. And if this is true, then it makes perfect sense that if an animal has a mutation, such as a distant relative of a giraffe having a slightly longer neck, or a distant relative of a human growing a slightly more intelligent brain, then they will get more food, or become a more attractive mate, and then those traits will pass down and more and more of the population will have longer necks or better brains until the other ones die out because they can’t get enough food. That’s without giving any pictures of fossils or any form of evidence. Evolution is common sense, and that’s why almost everyone that gets information from anywhere except the bible knows that evolution happened.

@@zacknight5960 does not a piece of art speak volumes about the artist,? Look around, creation speaks volumes about the Creator.

hell is a lie taken by roman catholic church in 3-5 cenury(dont know exactly) from some pagan religions. helll is a false word, replaced by word Gehenna - which is something like dumpyard where carcasses were burned along with trash, located in front of Jerusalem walls. Remains still there today. As a believer I must say that after Judgement there is nothingness, or there is eternal life. its 0 or 1. Have a nice day!

That doesn't make any sense. God is also a Judge. There are always consequences to your actions. You can be the son of a judge who loves you very much, but he still has to condemn you for your actions because you refused to follow the law.

The only problem with the doctrine of eternal punishment for the unsaved is that it’s unbiblical. The Bible says over and over that to have eternal life we must believe in Christ. Those who don’t believe in Christ *do not have eternal life* . Hell is eternal and the lake of fire is eternal, but not any particular visitor stays there forever. It says they die, face “destruction”, are “completely destroyed”, burn up like stubble, will not last, perish, “disappear like smoke”, etc. It says we should “fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mat 10-28). Do people not know what the word “destroy” means? The only possible argument you could make is that false prophets go to Hell and continue to exist forever: Rev 20-10 “The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” But even there the beast and Devil and false prophet could be archetypes, because just a few verses later death and Hell are thrown in the lake of fire to burn forever. And there is ONE verse about those who blaspheme the Holt Spirit (covered later) but that is unclear. Against all of the below, we have Matthew 25:46: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” In isolation it would be hard to argue that “eternal punishment” is annihilation. But because it is even harder to argue that “complete destruction” means eternal life of suffering, we are obliged to settle the apparent discrepancy that way. Eternal punishment can with some difficulty be seen as annihilation. Complete destruction cannot with any amount of effort be seen as eternal life. Again we might also say it cannot be eternal life of any kind based on the scores of times it says we must accept Christ to have eternal life of any kind. Finally, this distinction is even more clear in the Greek. That’s the sum total evidence that the unsaved burn forever. Yep. That’s it. Counted against almost 100 verses that imply or directly say the opposite. It’s easy to say “Oh people don’t like Hell so they deny it.” I agree that “wanting it to be true” isn’t evidence that it’s in the Bible. But “NOT WANTING IT TO BE TRUE” ... isn’t evidence it’s in the Bible either! Everlasting punishment for infinite time is simply not Biblical. Eternal life is. Not having eternal life means you don’t live forever. If you don’t live forever you cannot be tormented forever. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” “..whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.” “..you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” “broad is the road that leads to destruction.. narrow the road that leads to life” “..the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” “Whoever sows to please their flesh.. will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit.. will reap eternal life.” “.. those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.” “..as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” “Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” “Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that ENDURES to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” “For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!” “Whoever keeps commandments keeps their life, but whoever shows contempt for their ways will die.” “..we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” “..the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.” “..the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” “..They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.” “..for me and the gospel will.. receive a hundred times as much in this present age.. and in the age to come eternal life.” And in case it isn’t clear: “..will not forsake his faithful ones. Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed; the offspring of the wicked will perish.” Can we really argue that “perish” and “completely destroyed” are unclear? --- “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” This might say blaspheming the Holy Spirit does, but the age to come is not generally infinite time and often just means after death. Again, against ALL of this, we have Matthew 25:46: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Addressing those who go through the tribulation/apocalypse, the second death is used for the result of judgment after physical death (“second death” not “second live forever in endless torment”): Rev 2:10-11 I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. 11 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death. Rev 20:6 (still those alive during tribulation): Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of the Messiah, and they will reign with Him for 1,000 years. Rev 20 (Judgment) 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (To, as we have seen: die, perish, be destroyed, be completely destroyed and perish, disappear like smoke, not last, ..)

What you're describing is referred to as ring species. Ring species are not an example of Darwinian evolution, which requires an INCREASE in genetic information. As two separated populations of the same animal experience mutations and lose different parts of their genetic information, it can result in sufficient genetic differences such that there is no longer a sufficient match in genetic information so as to allow successful breeding. This is a degradation of life and the opposite of what Darwinian evolution needs to be. Evolution is not compatible with Biblical Christianity as it requires you throw out the words of Jesus and call Him a liar for what He said in Mark 10:6. The same with Paul as he cites Adam in Romans 5:14, in 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 15:45, as well as 1 Timothy 2:13. For that matter, throw the whole Bible out as it would deny the fact that death entered the world through sin.

_"The question is set up to fail. Evolution does not state that one kind turns into another"_ Absolutely false. They claim the first amphibians 'evolved' over generations from some populations of fish. They claim the first reptiles then 'evolved' over generations from some populations of amphibians. They claim the first mammals then 'evolved' over generations from some populations of reptiles. They claim the first apes 'evolved' over generations from some populations of mammals. They claim the first human beings 'evolved' over generations from some populations of ape-like animals. That's a change of kind of mythological proportions. Contrary to all of science, all of biology and all of reality.

And until it's shown to be reality that, say, humans are related to reptiles, claiming they are related "because there's not 0% DNA similarity" is circular reasoning. Evolutionist "DNA similarity and our beliefs about ERV's shows this and that are cousins - and here are reasons I believe it shows that!" "How do you know it does?" Evolutionist "Because common descent from a first life form evolution is true" "How do you know it's true when it's contrary to all of science, all of biology and all of reality?" Evolutionist "Because DNA similarity and our beliefs about ERV's shows this and that are cousins - and here are reasons I believe it shows that!" (repeat) Be not deceived - the belief of common descent from a first life form evolution is a religion (where man is god) masquerading as science.

@@LivingWaters And now you are strait up lying. There are known mutations that add to DNA strands.

@@LivingWaters There is an increase in genetic information in evolution, this is how we have complex brains compared with other invertebrates. There isn't a degradation of the overall information, both creatures become more complex, but these changes in complexity eventually lead to incompatible genetic matches. It's ok to say you don't believe in Evolution, but don't twist and warp it to try to make your point. The very fact that you argue that evolution is random and not able to do certain things devalues God's creation. Regarding the new testament. In Mark, Jesus is quoting Moses and talking about divorce. He's referring to scripture they would have already known and is not providing any new or different information. But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,… One could also argue that 'from the beginning of creation God' is stating that it was God's plan from the beginning to make humans male + female, not that he made them at the beginning of creation. Also, to be pedantic, the beginning of creation was day 1, not day 6, what counts as the beginning? For Romans, correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't a quote from Jesus, it's from Paul. Regardless, it states "Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come." Which could be interpreted as Adam being a metaphor/representation of man's choice not to trust God but go their own way, which itself is timeless. I believe the story of the garden of eden and what it represents is far more powerful of a message than it being a specific man 6000 odd years ago in a garden in the Middle East. Corinthians, again, could be interpreted the same way: 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. Adam being 'mankind' and Christ being God. The message here being that if we follow the ways of man and choose knowledge over faith and loving God. Corinthians 15:45 again is speaking about first man being human and physical and second man (re-born through christ) is a spiritual man. Timothy again is just reinforcing submission and quietness of women, are you sure this is a verse you want to use to make your point? Just because we don't necessarily agree on certain points its a tad extreme to throw out the whole Bible, don't you think? The whole point of the Bible, if nothing else, is to acknowledge that Jesus, who is God, came down as a human to die for our sins so that through him we can have a personal and eternal relationship with God. The age of the universe and other similar disagreements at the end of the day are irrelevant as long as you believe. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Will if you want you can watch them on there channel.

He's not calling creation by God science. Evolutionists are calling their anti-science belief science. These are things that prove God/ Jesus Christ is real, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that we will be without excuse when we face Him to give account for our lifetime of sinning *AND* refusing to be forgiven for it: The Bible is the only 'religious' book that dares to make prophecies, almost 2,000 that have come true after the fact of them being written down, locally and also globally, even up to thousands of years later, proving its divine origin. Easily searchable. Although it is not a science textbook, there are dozens of facts about reality in the Bible that scientists didn't and couldn't figure out until hundreds and thousands of years later, also proving its divine origin. Easily searchable. All religious texts were written in one lifetime by one person - the Bible was written over 1,500 years through 40 people and reads as one mind. The grave of all false religions' prophets has their bones - the grave of Christ is empty - although they're desperately trying to find it to try discrediting Christianity. You can_kill thousands in the name of a false religion like islam, and people of that country will bend over backwards to help you build a church where you did it. You dare mention Christ, hand out a tract, and you're met with the utmost hatred. As Jesus said: *_"[Jesus said]If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."_* [John 15] People who profess faith in Christ have major changes instantly from the inside out that they were unable to overcome over a lifetime. ?Information and instructions on how to build something are proof of an intelligence that created it - scientific fact. It's observable, repeatable, verifiable fact that information and instructions only comes from intelligence. Yet information and instructions encoded in our DNA makes our most advanced computer programs look like a joke - instructions and information on how to build organic machines, more than the biggest Encyclopedia set. But also a mechanism that can decode these instructions and act on them to do what they say to actually build the organic machines with eyes to see, ears to hear, brains to think, hearts to pump blood, blood to be pumped, reproductive systems, immune systems, skeletal systems and so much more. When we first saw Stonehenge, it was clearly proof of intelligence - no one would be foolish enough to claim even such a crude circular arrangement "just happened". Yet we look at the entire universe, galaxies, solar systems, stars, suns, planets, moons, mathematically precise laws of nature and in the biggest display of willful ignorance, contrary to even Stonehenge claim "nothing did it - it just happened". For us to claim there's no proof of God (or at least of a supernatural intelligence) is flat out willful ignorance on our part at best. It won't really make people believe who want to reject the truth of God, but we know all we need to know - the world seeks to keep us blind to the truth of God. When we face Him, it won't work to say "well how was I supposed to know?" We know all we need to know and will be without excuse when we face God. We need to think again - it doesn't matter what false claims the entire world makes up - when they face God it won't matter. I implore people to re-read the gospels yet again and forget what anyone or any religion claims they say - religions deceive as much, if not more, than those who claim God doesn't exist. *_"I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."_* [John 10] *_"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."_* [1 Corinthians 1] I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any religion has claimed they say. Religions poison God's truth. Jesus Christ is seeking to adopt individuals into His eternal family, forgiving and forgetting their sins - given by grace received by faith.

How about archeological evidence. In the Bible, you have real places such as Rome, Babylon, Greece, Isreal, Red Sea, Egypt, etc. If these places were real, and the scriptures were based of events that happened, wouldn't you think that the events were real? Obviously, you don't have to believe this, though they are proven real. Many people deny these event because if they do, they acknowledge God.

@@wilsonmartinez2025 Yes, archaeology proves the Bible correct every time as well! May God bless!

@@ForumLight no. No… it does

Not

People with a PHD can’t even answer the question. Looks like your the dishonest one.

Ed Forbes ahahah.

lol It has to be something because is exposes what you want desperately to believe. It isn’t bias at all it’s just shows how stupid evolution is. But hey if you wanna believe your ancestors are tadpoles go ahead

Me too cause is illogical than nothing.

Bacteria are still bacteria. They've never "evolved" into a more complex life form, not into a higher kingdom. Everything looks stagnant to me.

@@quasimobius Yes,bacteria and multicellular life have a common ancestor(in the first ever cell),that's what evolution means,not things completly changing,but life becoming more complex,changing a little bit over time. Edit:Evolution at least makes sense,unlike creationism,also do you believe in the 6000 year old earth?

Harry ,just Harry how does that make more sense than creation? You can’t observably proof evolution. Evolution is a belief created and accepted by people who simply DON’T want to believe in God.

@@globalcoupledances lol, 7 million? That's not human.

So apes would be grasping at straws, but humans definitely are descended from fish right? That sounds a lot dumber than apes haha. Can't believe you think yourself worthless enough to believe you were once a fish. We are intelligently designed by an all-knowing God. Takes 5 seconds of your time to google it.

@@lizaneeleroux Which do think is more likely: (a) Humans descended from primates and evolved through impersonal laws of nature; it's no coincidence we share so much DNA with great apes. (b) Through an act of will or magic, an invisible, immaterial, all-powerful being (that nonetheless "walks" in the book of Genesis) created humans. This being suspiciously shares in common with humans such traits as jealousy, anger, and love.

@@CeramicShot Did he not make humans in his own image?

@@CeramicShot Definitely b. You're right, it isn't a coincidence that we share so much DNA with apes. Nothing is a coincidence in God's creation. Corinthians 1:27 "But God chose the foolish things in the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things- and the things that are not- to nullify the things that are, so that no-one may boast before him". To you, it may seem illogical, which is exactly how God intended it to seem. He made himself out to be an invisible man in the sky because to a person of earthly intellect, it seems foolish. Faith is the key here. Each person who believes in God needs faith and needs faith especially in those initial stages of going from evolution (that at the moment makes sense to you) -to as the world might call it- 'foolish belief of Christianity'. John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life". Just because you read the Bible, doesn't mean you'll become a Christian and understand it, God provides divine understanding after you've accepted Jesus. God bless you!

Franco Evolution makes more sense than the God of the bible story.

Hello. The word kind doesn't matter. Common descent from a first cell evolutionists claim that the first amphibians 'evolved' over generations from some populations of fish. They claim the first reptiles 'evolved' over generations from some populations of amphibians. Then they claim the first mammals 'evolved' over generations from some populations of reptiles. And so on. All of this is contrary to all of science, all of biology and all of reality and they demand we call it science anyway and throw out actual science/ biology because of their reasons they believe in it. Likewise they claim populations of living things that never had brains 'evolved' functional brains over generations. Same for eyes, or ears, or hearts, or lungs, or digestive systems, or reproductive systems and so much more. And all of that is contrary to all of science, all of biology and all of reality. Saying "well our beliefs take millions of years" doesn't change the fact that it's contrary to all of science, all of biology and all of reality.

+ *james* And yet we humans do. Might go to show how we're not so similar to paintings.

@@demiligne3456 There's reasons as to why it's questioned, I don't know if you've ever read the Bible but it's said that Satan fills people with doubts of God, for all we know, he could have fed Darwin the theory about Evolution without revealing himself to start this whole Evolution vs God argument.

Why do fossils exist then

@@tylerscampinghuntingandsur4957 thats the most stupid thing i have ever heard. "Satan was the one who tricked Darwin into coming up with evolution" Was he also the one who planted fossils and was also the one who gave us all the other evidence to support it? You guys seriously come up with the most stupid arguments to back your beliefs

Humans are not paintings lmao. You are PRESUPPOSING design where none shows or were ever needed to explain anything.

No, Ray's pointing out there *is* none.

There is over a million fossils in university's and museums. Not one is a transitional between two kinds. Look up the Asian wild horse on you tube: the Przewalski. It remains unchanged my man's breeding direction. It is the original horse in the fossil record, but it is alive today. Search engine: Plesiosaurus snagged in Japanese fishing nets in 1977. Maybe dead for a couple days/months. Not 60 million years old. They are lying to you. Satan is so happy to keep people in the dark. Go to Ilustra media and check out the latest DNA/Cell science in there documentary: Unlocking the mystery of Life. MINDBLOWING.

herbielina Not one transitional fossil: What do you honestly make of the hominids, such as *Homo erectus*, for instance? If they were humans, they had brains that are several hundred cc's less than ours. Where did a small-brained, ape-like humanoid species come from, in your opinion? The best answer I have seen from your group is that all early humans dug up were diseased or mutated. But if 100% of fossilized hominids were malformed, this defies the creationist worldview, where disease/mutation should be *increasing*, not decreasing.

herbielina And what would a fossil that is transitional between two kinds look like, anyway? You guys have been offered walking, lunged fish; flying therapod dinosaurs with feathers and hollow bones; reptilian mammals with their jaw bones intermediate between reptile jaw bones and mammalian ear bones; the basilosaurus whale with its tiny, useless hind legs. *Honestly: What would a transition look like, if not these*?

ForumLight Since when is it bad science to consider all possibilities? You say that this is "utter blindness", but I would say that asserting you *know to be true* what you *believe to be true* is far more myopic. (And the pig hypothesis is one guy's work--while interesting, it has not received much support.)

Yes, a person could only make a Rose with supernatural abilities, because there’s no way we could ever have one evolve with our hands, and that’s incredibly silly since that process would take a lot of time and the right selective pressures. Your ‘gotcha’ moment doesn’t work and is incredibly stupid.

@@laserfan17 what do you think about the entirety of this video?

@@Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord That it’s pure crap, full of misinformation, ignorance, lies and anti-science religious propaganda.

Ever heared of selective breeding?

Of course a human can't make a rose. That doesn't mean it requires "supernatural abilities." A rose makes a new rose. A human makes a new human. That's how biology works. Not sure how this is a difficult concept.

Hello. Because we're not calling creation by God science. However, that said: information and instructions on how to build something are scientific proof of an intelligence. So information and instructions encoded into DNA on how to build brains that think, eyes that see, ears that hear, hearts that pump blood, and so on, and mechanisms that decode those instructions and do what they say to build it is scientific proof of an intelligence far beyond ours and a power far beyond us. The only non-science faith part would be Who that Designer is. I implore people to re-read the gospels yet again and forget what any religion / church / denomination claims they say. When we face God for a lifetime of lying, stealing, lusting, hating, blaspheming and more, and having rejected God/ Jesus Christ's free offer to judge our sin for us and give us the gift of eternal life, it will be our own fault for not checking.

Creation by God is not science. But it's true.

I always laugh at atheists who have stupid arguments with no evidence

@@BigStew993 says the guy who believes we came out of nothing, yeah you don’t have brain cells

@@BigStew993 answer ray's questions before you make such statements lol

@@BigStew993 For evolution to work the universe had to exist first, the precision of the universe and its laws requires mathematics, numbers are an abstract concept that only exists in an intelligent mind, therefore the universe had to be created by an intelligent agent, use a little logic and your God given common sense and you'll realize it makes perfect sense.

​@@spamm0145This is utterly wrong. Universe was formed. Mathematics was made and are what we use to measure the universe. That doesn't mean the universe was designed. It means the chaos settled enough to where the laws of physics were formed.

Hebrew 11:6 "6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Yes, exactly, it's about belief. Those of us that prefer evidence will choose the path of evolution as an explanatory device. And if you want to call that a belief, as the creationists do, then that "belief" is substantiated by the rigors of scientific inquiry, multi disciplines arriving at the same conclusion. The reward of whicy you speak holds little sway for me, I have many rewards, free from the archaic notions of religion and that afford me a freedom you will never experience, for which I am genuinely saddened.

mark y Hey Mark, Thats a great point we can't see back to day one in an observable way, so we do have to look at all the evidence. What i would say is that the bible has shown over and again to be historically accurate. Both in regard to evidences found though archeology and external sources confirming the dates and events mentioned in passages of scripture. Such as the enslavement of the Jews. On top of this we have got "world" held beliefs e.g. the Great flood, many tribes all over the world who have not heard of the bible have a flood story, aconcept of Sin and the awareness of a spiritual realm which we pass into once we die. So in light of this I would argue that the bible has a lot evidence in favour of its accuracy as shown through many different fields of Study. In regards to the issue of intelligent design vs Darwinian Evolution We need to understand Darwin's world view. Darwin was not an atheist in the modern day sense the only evidence we have is that he left his faith due to the tragic death of someone close to him causing him to struggle like many have with the issue of suffering. But at no point dose Darwin state or claim that God dose not exist rather he moves to a more deist view, with a creator God who is not active in the events of the world. In fact it is very note worthy that many leading scientists where men of faith and it was there faith that fuelled their scientific enquiry. Science and christianity have never been at war well not true science and true Christianity. The widely held theory of the big bang for example was actually first proposed by Georges Lemaître who was a catholic priest and a university Physics professor. Also the biblical account isn't at odds with theocratic evolution it is at odds with the philosophy of evolution by chance. In that for example the bible says man came out of the mud. In fact there are many christians today who do hold to theocratic evolution, therefore one dose not have to necessarily choose simply between evolution or God, at my Bible college there are lectures on both sides some argue for intelligent design others argue for theocratic evolution and both have piles of data that to be honest is above my understanding. The Issue i think that firstly this video is trying to highlight is the way that Blind Evolution has been sold as truth and has been used to claim that the christian faith is un-scientific or unintelligent something that annoys a lot of christian academics as there are some amazingly intelligent and scientific christians such as John Knox, Alister McGrath and N. T. Wright and the argument that is uses angst christians is in many ways argumentum ad ignorantiam. So here we find someone put the shoe on the other foot as it were and respond to Evolutionists they way they have treated creationists for quiet a while and in doing so revealed to them that in fact they are believing by faith not by science in that they do not know the science. As said from my own personal study i have concluded that based upon the complexity of bacteria, the human obsession with beauty and art, our natural moral system and the evidence supporting the authenticity and accuracy of scripture, along with my own experience. There has to be a Creator God and i believe that to be YHWH. As for Evolution vs. Intelligent Design i just don't think there is enough evidence either way to conclude and thus i will wait till a time where i find sufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other.

That is a very thoughtful and extensive entry, thanks for that. Making a scientific case, for anything, is different from making assumptions based on vague references to events and questionable historical accounts. Cultural beliefs and folk history are anecdotal. No offense meant , but the bible is written from those perspectives. I understand your need to accept a religious perspective on these matters, this is what gives you a sense of wholeness and comfort. I come from a different world view. Believers object to the cold and random nature of evolutionary thinking. The reality is, and let's go with the assumption that we are part of that outcome of chance, we are also equipped with all the aspects necessary for a life full of art, love, meaning, etc. We are born and given love, pleasure, we learn and grow physically, emotionally, spiritually. We create traditions and culture. These things exist with or without god, god belief is a natural outgrowth of several factors none of which are proofs of gods existence. I don't feel any emptiness without a god belief because I find "god" within me, and within you. God is the highest statement of self, that part which is most distant from my animal needs, that part of my consciousness that is the most deliberate in making judgements of value, meaning, and beauty. We are born with this internal god, it is a legacy of evolution and we can trace back through our primate origins all the understandings of the nature of our relationships and culture, evolution is far from blind in that sense. I understand this is difficult for believers to accept, because you have been inculcated with the belief system that tells you a different story. This explains your willingness to accept the bible as some accurate and detailed exposition of how the world is, taking floods as some proof of geological evidence...there have been many floods in man's history, we had one recently in New Orleans. Your belief system has primed you to accept things like biblical flooding as some sort of proof. I can't accept that because I don't have that need to believe. If Ray didn't know that dogs are descended from wolves, would he say a Chihuahua is a wolf? There is a living example of evolution at work, with man as the natural selection proxy, with dramatic results in a short period of time. Does it not seem preferable to accept this transition of wolf to these lesser dogs as strong evidence, relative to the notion that god created each and every species , put a couple of them on a boat, and the rest is history. That is your accurate biblical account to which you referred, and that which I cannot accept, forgive me.

No creationist says that creationism is 100% fact unlike evolution. It is our faith, and why have faith that we evolved from monkeys?

Yeah it's really good 😊 U shouldn't love the world cause it will take you to hell

"Enlightenment" is actually speaking just as much about weight as it is light. The body is dense, the spirit is light, and rises easily. Enlightenment can only be achieved by dropping the spiritual density.

@@quantumleap4023 No offense but where did u hear that crazy idea

@@emmanuelthwala2809 That is a piece of some ancient spiritual knowledge. It has been known for centuries: the spirit is not physical, but more like vapor or smoke, the soul is likened to water, the eyes are the window to the soul, the eyes contain salt water, the eyes can see, aka SEA. The body is likened to the earth elements, made up of the dust of the earth. Language is spelling, spell casting. to lighten your density is to transfer from the flesh or the physical, to the metaphysical and spiritual realms of being. Too much to get into right now...

@@quantumleap4023 Eh ok I get that the spirit , soul and flesh be different but this new age stuff just gonna take by the arm and pull you to hell my dude💔 so plz just get JESUS 🙏👊