These Scientific Papers Destroy Evolution 

Thank you!

I would have to strongly disagree with the guy who said it's not the parents or the Churches fault that kids are going into colleges unprepared. It's have to say that's exactly whose fault it is. I'm not condemning them, because I am one of them. But if you have children, it's your duty to prepare them spiritually for adulthood.

Oh yeah... And that was a great video. Thank you for sharing! And I have been saying for years that evolution was dealt its last fatal blow the minute we discovered the complexity of the cell. There is no naturalistic explanation for how hundreds, thousands, even, of extremely specific chemical, information-rich, and electrical internal connections could have been organized and implemented to integrate with trillions of other cells to facet the whole of an anatomically diverse but completely functioning creature such as humans, bears, blue-footed boobies or any other creature you can name.

laugh·a·ble so ludicrous as to be amusing.

@@lederereddy Yep. The cell is NANOTECHNOLOGY.

Democrats have owned science for some time, that is why it is all messed up. After a Democrat names something a Theory, they IMMEDIATELY call it a fact. After that 97% of extorted scientists agree on the new fact (let's call it global cooling, no lets call it global warming, wait a minute, lets call it CLIMATE CHANGE. Later this new FACT, all scientists MUST AGREE or they lose their incomes mostly in the form of grants, then they lose their positions, their homes, and cushy lifestyle. Kinda how we play the Climate Change game and then it is unleashed onto an unsuspecting middle and poor class as they watch their money inflate and erode. Then everywhere looks like a city in Venezuela or worse yet another Democrat city.

​@@JewonastickAnd follow the science of chemistry to the logical conclusion, abiogenesis is impossible.

@johnglad5 - human from dirt looks like abiogenesis. So it is possible

@globalcoupledances Please show me dirt becoming human. Politely while being facetious. In the creation event God made man from dirt, matter. Abiogenesis claims matter became life. Goes against the LAW OF BIOGENESIS. Scientists have been trying to make life for decades using every concoction they could imagine. Basic chemistry and entropy show this to be false. The more we know about life the bigger the problem becomes. Just the CODE OF LIFE written on DNA screams intelligent design. PTL

@johnglad5 - "dirt becoming human" is in Genesis: matter became life. Scientist just try to do the same. Not basic chemistry. Entropy has nothing to do with it. Many things are now possible, so it has to be possible. Real scientists are intelligent. So they are doing intelligent design

@@globalcoupledances Dirt did not become human, not by itself. God formed the dirt, matter, into a man and breathed life into him. Chemistry and entropy are physical laws that apply everywhere in the universe. Anything is possible, then it's possible that God created. Using your logic. Theory of information says codes only come from intelligence. The code of life came from intelligence before there was a living thing in the universe. Just like God communicated to us in the Bible.

That is a pretty wild premise for Science Fiction!

Going to have to say brown dwarf . Too small for fusion

***yes everything dies, everything that born will die, one poet once said "...the universe is always change taking a new quality every moment...***

***get a life***

"... Evolution’s dead.” - - Red Dwarf pilot episode - So, Fiction!

True. Except that we're not allowed to question the efficacy of covid vaccines.

​@@KenJackson_USThe efficacy, do they prevent, is obviously false. And to make it worse vaccines have been shown to cause damage in some. It may be a small percentage but if you're in that group it doesn't matter. And to top all that the drug manufacturers have immunity by law from damages done. Grace

Ask away, seek and you will find. Some things are unknowable. My God tells me to test all things and one way is to listen to all opposing views. Evaluate what they say with reason and common sense. Unfortunately many do not believe they have either. Blessings

It’s too bad Carl didn’t take his own advice.

There is a difference between skepticism and "Skepticism." The first is healthy thinking, the second is the religion of nihilist humanism.

Authors notes: Despite contradictory evidence we still hold our personal beliefs. This is peak evolutionary science.

😂😂😂

The NDE prove Consciounesse to be not a brain process. That destroys Evolutionary theory. The Consciounesse can exist outside of physical body. The organic chemistry proves that aminoacids cannot randomly build lifes relevant peptides. Never.It simply doesnt work. Miller Stanley experiment, highly regarded by secular science,never took place in the reality. The earky earth Atmosphere were never reductional. Paolo Sossi and Team have proved that after they conducted old rock analysis .

The summary on the first page says, “almost all animal species have arrived at a similar result consequent to a similar process of expansion from mitochondrial uniformity within the last 1 to several hundred thousand years.” All ANIMAL species came around 1 to several hundred thousand years. Not millions, saying humans came from fish.

@@matthewvandenelzen2337 Well . . . Not exactly. I think the study indicates the most recent common ancestor of each of the species studied, and thus a possible indication of a bottleneck, not when the species came about. Bottlenecks could be caused by a few things, including catastrophes and mass migrations. If we're looking at about one to two hundred thousand years ago, ice ages could be an explanation.

​​@@sciencerules8525maybe it's because you don't really understand the science. The 100,000 years is arrived at by using the phylogenetic rate-they use it because they assume common ancestry with primates. When they instead use observable mutation rates in humans (as 1 of the speakers in this video clearly said), the date lands at around 5000 years ago. This was the date that mitochondrial mutation rates initially showed, but they didn't like the results (we all know why) so they decided to use the "Monkey" rate because that gave them an age they'd like But for argument's sake, the 100k age is granted because it's still a huge blow to evolutionary theory if all life emerged at the same time

@easyminimal_6130 Funny they refuse to consider the basis for their science is contrived.

@sciencerules8525 Did you just miss the part that says your science is based on assumptions were from chimps? Those papers are secular, and they won't budge from that atrocious starting point. But at least the papers show your views have to adjust significantly. Could not predict that at all!

@mirandahotspring4019 Nah it does not- because it's still a secular paper that believes were from apes and fish. Get real dude. Mutations can't make a compost heap let alone specialised life. You're oxygen depleted or something.

@sciencerules8525 Mate, I don't care what it says, that was just my comment. Validate the context. Let's call them primates. It did not occur, and so why should it be incorporated into a study result? No transitional fossils that aren't fragments of filed down frauds.

@@sciencerules8525 Thanks for the reply! Another question if you have the time: how is it that they're able to observe mutational rates in mtDNA in order to make such estimates on a longer scale? I thought the studies on bacteria mentioned in the video determined that these mutations occur (if at all) over thousands of generations which would be unobservable for organisms with longer generations.

@@sciencerules8525 I see. Thanks again!

It's because the people who conducted the study believe we came from primates. Once you ignore that their data shows evolution is a myth.

36:08 Saint Augstine is celebrated today orthodox, non-heretical churches. It is his 'feast day'-- think of a party. Imagine Christians celebrating your life and contribution to civilisation in the year 3,700!! His nationality? -- Algerian (in modern terms).

​@@sciencerules8525You said it, you're an ape.😂

I think the point is that regardless of what the scientists say, the evidence isn't showing that to be true. You can agree or disagree with the video, but that seems to be the fundamental assertion. If Science has been gripped by a religious cult, you certainly won't figure that out by asking their opinion, right? Mosts cults will say they have the truth on their side, even when they're clearly delusional, (Branch Davidians anyone?) so what people say isn't a good indicator of objective truth, even if they've been labeled as a Scientist.

Of course these Creationists would conveniently ignore all of that! What else should we expect from liars for Jesus?

It would appear many people left comments without actually reading the study... Not just the parts they picked out

It would appear that some got as far as the first three of the points that were ridiculous about the point of "killing evolution" It didn't even dispute the facts.

That is just saying that the fact that these findings about evolution are coming to light does not automatically mean the belief in God. The middle way is better than just saying everything about revolution is wrong and vice versa

They don't care, they simply jerry-pick any scientific study to make their claims that "evolution is dead". They've been making that claim for years. They thought they "killed" evolution when they came up with their Intelligence Design claim. Which went know where & was proven to be simply creationism to be used to push the Christian god (and only the Christian god) in schools.

I'm certain we can find the study online. I plan on reading it for myself. I think he said it was from The Journal of Human Evolution from 2018.

they can't afford to go into detail, because that would expose their dishonesty. They are lying. They are not representing the science accurately.

@@melanielinkous8746 they are pinned in the comments

Yep. We need actual devil's advocate-level discussion. In a quick search I found biologos had a response to the way creationists view the first article. If we're going to cite these kinds of articles to unbelievers or even take them into account ourselves as evidence, we have to be able to dig deeper.

@@davidrobinson5180 you just have to represent the papers honestly - in which case they would be useless to creationists because they affirm evolution.

​@@TheHairyHeathenMuch truth was divulged in this video. It would be wise to make conclusions from it.

@@TheHairyHeathen Until evolution can be proven, a mechanism is needed, it should be put in the shadows of science. Thank God creationists did the Encode Project and falsified junk dna. Genetics would still be in the stone age if not for Christians. Every time evidence comes forth that disproves evolution changes to it are made. 60 million year old blood and vessels are the latest discovery. We constantly find OOP artifacts. We find Orfan genes which have no ancestors. Fossil find after find claiming to be the Missing Link are shown to be fabrications. In geology we find immense layers of sediment in the wrong sequence. PTL

Look up dna bar code study done in 2018.. if that's the one your asking about... I read that one a while back it's a good eye opener.

@@vikingskuld How do I find the video interview with the scientists that did the study where they say they were surprised by the results? Is it on RU-vid?

@@teslasnek sorry not that I'm aware of. I have seen others talk about this paper and say the same thing. Your best bet is to look the paper up and read it yourself. Doing that allows you to know what's in it and that there is no exaggerated claims. It's going to take you what a half hour to go through it. You can skip around in it if your in a hurry then come back and read it. Do you honestly think a group of evolutionists would make it so easy for you they would read that part out and basically make evolution look bad? Sorry they are not typically going to do that. I'm just glad they have been as honest with the results as they have been. Yet several in that community say well its just a bottle neck and they obviously didn't go back far enough in time to see the common ancestors. That it's not going to show them over a few thousand years. So it's all about mindset noone is going to change beliefs by one paper. Best if luck to you

We've pinned a comment with links to these studies.

​@@vikingskuld Dude logic science 101 Law of contradiction A=B impossible contradiction Non life caused the effect of life? Really? Lets check A non life caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of life As a scientist I must test a hypothesis for A=B impossible contradiction that will render the hypothesis as impossible not possible A non intelligence caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of intelligence Dude, logic science 101 doesn't lie. A no brain organisms prokaryotes caused evolved = B brainiac organisms like a worm EVOLUTION is a impossible contradiction, really dude? You believe EVOLUTION is true contradiction? Your intelligence was caused by intelligence not non intelligence.😍👍😎

How does DNA survive 125 million years? Does Gutsick Gibbons refute that?

The third isn't an article, it's the Long Term Evolution Experiment.

@@travisbicklepopsicle I'll respond properly tonight , but for now I'll state that No1 is grossly wrong. That there are vastly more people alive today than in Darwin's time is proof of this.

Darwinism is a virus, like influenza. However your immune system gets rid of this poison, a new variant will always emerge to attack reason, logic and scientific, empirical research. It's zombie science.

A bit like god then

@@Emiliocab47 you are correct , to be alive = to be part of Continuum = time , space and matter . Since God is not part of Continuum but the One that designed it you are correct. God can not be alive or dead God is.. same like a computer programmer when designing a game with NPC s in it is NOT part of the digital environment that he designed . it is quite simple for kids to understand this fact today but it seems a bit of a problem for those that do not understand basic coding . in short God is.. you can not ad your laws to God same way NPC can not ad NPC laws inside of the game to the programmer.. see how simple it is ? 2024 .. kids get it today super fast

@@jankopandza1072 Made up mumbo jumbo

Yeah, why wouldn't God ask any of us "What we think about how we should be created?".

"God created man in his own image"...apparently

@@Emiliocab47 beauty is in the eye of the beholder, apparently

His image is more than physical. Smart one. Who had buildings and shapes the land with ideas, expresses themselves and can guide some animals to replicate it. Knows right from wrong as animals simply exist not really knowing until humans teach them... Like an ape will rape a man and to it... it's just what it does as an animal even if they can think kinda like us. And that actually happened to a man at zoo. A dog...They just hump whatever even girl dogs do it which does nothing. Will even mate with things they can't impregnate and don't have the concept of it or just don't care.... Could even be a non living teddy bear... Humans are nothing like the animals that so many want to be equal to. People condition themselves or get conditioned to not respond to the thoughts saying stop doing that it's wrong or bad.... Animals get conditioned to be orderly and follow right as wrong may be viewed the same.. Doesn't like it but doesn't care like humans either... Camels even chew cactus needles like they don't notice. They do they just don't care it gets water and food and they can handle it. Sort of sometimes not great going through...

@@Blazeww Some animals look after their young, mourn their dead, look after their injured family/group. They don't need a God to do these things

Yes, they do.

Newton was a creation scientist who discovered the laws of motion. Galileo discovered the motion of the earth around the sun. Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction. Need I go on. Do you therefore believe in stupid design? Do you believe that a watch could come into existence through natural promises? The consensus of scientists believed in bloodletting, junk dna, and abiogenesis. All have since been proved false.

Cause we all know "science" is what a lawyer decides. 🙄

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 And we all know scientific theories becomes wrong when creationist propaganda sources claim ''it's dead''. The Dover VS Kitzmiller case had several scientists testifying. It's strange how when creationists pretend to speak about or for science it's always way, waaaaay different from what the actual scientists are saying. Strange, right?

How exactly were they debunked? I want details.

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 It wasn't ''a lawyer". It was lawyers, judges and dozens of testifying scientists.

Hey, if the facts aren't on your side, you need to be "creative".

Give this guy more time. . That's what darwinists need. . More time. . Like a trillion yrs to evolve. .only way their formula works. . Our creator put life here in 6 days. . Factual. . Need help or more time ??

@@nickstreeservice4454 Ah, yes, a creation myth so factual that all observable evidence refutes it lol.

@@dinohall2595 which story book do read ?? 160 yr old darwins "orgin of life" ?? Story. . No fact. . Nova is fact. . Let there be light. .

@@nickstreeservice4454 Charles Darwin wrote _On the Origin of Species._ Not the origin of life. And while he made some speculations about life originating in "a warm little pond", he did not include them in his books, because he realized he had no evidence for them. What he did have evidence for, and that overwhelming, detailed, and falsifiable, was the evolution of life on Earth. And in the 164 years since the publication of the _Origin,_ there has been a flood of evidence from many different fields- genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, anatomy, ERVs, etc, that Darwin was right on the whole: life evolved through inherited changes (Darwin didn't know what mutations are) and natural selection. But believe what you want. I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely.

Have any debates with Darwinian dreamers ever eventuated in an intelligible display of evidence that does not reveal their core data as being " we don't know" ?

@rboland2173 The imbecile level integrity of your troll comment shows you're loitering because you're God curious but haven't got the skill to talk technical evidence to defend your views. But you feel better now you've had your attention seeking dopamine fix and used emojis. Not classy. Not intelligent. J

@@rboland2173 Only imbeciles use emojis. Did you face palm yourself after realising? J

@rboland2173I mean atheists do the same thing all u have to hear is “I’m not convinced” or claims aren’t “evidence aren’t claims” and it’s a slam dunk. Btw I’m not a Yec

i cannot explain why the laryngeal recurrent nerve is designed the way it is. but can you explain why the fossil record does not document the evolution of this nerve from one organism to another?

@@hatchet3755 It's very, very rare that delicate soft tissue like nerves are preserved in fossils. It does happen, look up '520 million-year-old fossilised nervous system' for one example, but I'm unaware of fossil samples were this specific nerve was preserved. But when one is found I would be very surprised if it wouldn't show the nerve using the same needlessly complicated path it does in modern animals. Except for fish, where it is still the most sensible path. Edit: Look, it's good to believe in God! I do. Faith gives us the stability and hope we need in our lives. I believe God is a genius with a masterplan who laid the foundations of life billions of years ago and used the process of evolution that gloriously lead to our creation. Amazing! What I don't do is take scripture literally. The bible was written by humans about 1,900 years ago. Yes, the various authors where inspired by the Lord, but except for the ten commandments He didn't dictate to them what to write word for word. So they interpreterd His visions of Genesis as best they could with the limited knowledge they had. They didn't knew about DNA, enzymes, mutations and all the other stuff about biology humanity only discovered millennia later. They only understood _that_ He had created them, but not exactly how. For them he really did work in mysterious ways. But we know better now. That is what I believe.

not understanding a design choice and not having any design are two different things, OP

@@bany512The thing is we do understand the why, because we understand the how. God used the processes of evolution to create all the plants, animals and ultimately us. Scripture says that creation was a proccess. God didn't just snap his fingers and poof, there everything was. No. Instead He commanded the earth/nature to make the animals. Inspired by the Lord the authors of the Bible wrote: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24). Only the old Hebrew didn't yet have the understanding we have to today. So they couldn't understand His full meaning. We now know that God used the workings of evolution to carry out his will. At least for that part we now better understand God's creation. We no longer have to say: It happend through God's mysterious ways. The initial creation of life itself however still still eludes us. But over time we will figure this one out as well. After all He gave us the free will, curiosity and ingenuity to understand the world around us. So we shouldn't squander those gifts by getting stuck on the level of knowledge from 2,000 years ago.

@@uzul42 I am confused, you started your OP with "most compelling argument against ID" and now you are talking about theistic evolution ? which is it ? do you believe in God or not ? lastly, I dont care about any form of macro-evolution since we can not see/replicate or otherwise prove it.

I don't need evidence bit I do love hearing evidence that proves athiests to be nothing more than lost son's who are using athiesm as their " distant land" out of The Father's sight

Amen!!!!

Faith is not blind. Rather, it is based on the realities that are seen, that proves the promises that are said. That is what’s straightens our Hope. So hope is the fruit of our faith. 😊❤

​@@michaela.kelley7823Atheist here, doing just fine in that far away land.

Oh, and you really got to see or read something besides the INSTITUTE for CREATION RESEARCH!!!

Just watched something like that- I think Answers in Genesis did that. 3 main suppositions that can't be verified/controlled for

Keep whistling. The evidence for evolution is vast and overwhelming. Creationists have been mewling for decades about its immanent demise...it's still here and going nowhere.

​@@travisbicklepopsicle You don't understand that Aristotle is the foundation of biology. So 😂😂.

So once again, follow the money. I wonder who's behind the funding and accreditation?

​@@MatthiasOfEvangelismos NAS? Which is made up of 90% atheists that, up until recently, were mainly educated white men. Not to say Atheists are racist, but Darwinism has some roots in saying black people were less evolved....

​@@mirandahotspring4019 I'll admit it is hard telling someone that what they've been taught their entire life is not true. Rather than tell you that, I'll start off with something a little easier. If you're so convinced that evolution is true, then answer me this, why do the following all believe in God as the creator: Frances Bacon, Johanne Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linneaus, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, Samuel F.B. Morse, Charles Babbage, John Herschel, Richard Owen, Louis Agassiz, James Joule, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, William Thompson-Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, James Clerk Maxwell, John Ambrose Fleming, George Washington Carver, William Mitchel Ramsay, William Ramsay, Wernher Von Braun, Arthur E. Wilder-Smith. This is just a small list of the many more scientists who believe in creation. You might notice a lot of these names are the founding fathers of our natural laws in the textbooks. Secular scientists are a bunch of loser scientist wanabies who are funded by the government.

@@mirandahotspring4019 The first paper sheds doubt on all the historical claims of evidence. There's no proof, only a philosophy of bottlenecks. The 100,000-200,000 year old claim is likely bogus, since dating methods use a confirmation bias and assumptions to "guide" the desired dates. There's a secular paper that shows that dating methods used without evolutionary bias actually date things way much earlier than expected. Why hasn't that been broadcast yet? If you can't admit why, I'll encourage you to stay away from the Kool aid if they tell you it accelerates your personal evolution. 🤣🤣😞😞😞

Possibly, but the main reason it is not taught by colleges is that none of these creationist claims are true.

Yea it's easy to convince people when you leave out 75% of a study 😂 my god you people are seriously hilarious

@@debbieburton938 Evolution is a pagan religion wrapped in pseudoscience.

@@debbieburton938 do you think science can determine truth? Do you think a person like Dr Fauci can be science? You have been deluded by the great deluder

@@cjgrysen I just can't with you people 😂 science does a pretty good job at finding out the truth.. Fauci oh dear I'm not a dumb American..why do you people think everyone on the Internet is American.. It really does show the educational divide... Why are Americans so dumb compared to the rest of the world... I would honestly like to know.. I find it fascinating how one country has completely screwed up on educating the population..what is it sweatpea.. Masks?? Tell you what when you can explain barrier nursing and how it works.. You may.. May just have a argument.. The fact that you choose not to read the entire study and believe those cherry picked.. Fallacies is all I need to know about your... Opinion on anything "scientific" read a book...Last time I checked Fauci wasn't a evolutionary biologist so why you bringing him into it.. Clowns

@@cjgrysen okay here we go AGAIN.... Evolution does not depend on Darwin for a start. Darwin got many things wrong but being in the 1800s he had no way to test his theories.. He wasn't even the first to think of evolution., he was just the first to write it down.. You can remove Darwin and it changes NOTHING.. All life came at the same time this is normal it's natural and happened multiple times.. We have a very fragile ecosystem. You could have something as simple as a virus taking out a small amount and a entire ecosystem can collapse.. You are completely ignoring all the life that came before and the 1 in 10 that was here before us.. Maybe if you hid all the fossils and specimens around before modern day you may get away with it.. The actual study proved evolution if you actually bothered reading it.. You going to hide all the transitional fossils??.. In fact the people who did this study literally put in the first line.. Our study is grounded in and strongly supporters Darwins observations.. They found the older the specis tend to have a greater average difference in mitochondria DNA.. Making sense as generic adaptations tend to accumulate over time.. Which can lead groups of individuals within a species to diverge into entirely new species.. When they do mitochondria DNA is notabley different.. Mitochondria dna is hard to date they have different mutation rates from the rest of the genome.. Tracing the Linage back to one individual does not mean that individual was the only person alive at that time.. Only that the genetic lineage coalesced that it cannot be traced back further due to evolving emerging new species.. You look at a family tree you see how many people never produce and progeny. They may die young never marry or never produce male offspring..so there lineage will collapse.. Real lineages don't coalesce quickly.. Unless something out of the ordinary happens.. When they do coalesce always due to stochastic processes... The authors of this study said.. The reason for clustering within species and separation between species is a bottleneck event ( a population crash for all species that essentially reset mitochondria dna) we already know population crashes have happened throughout history.. Either from catastrophic events like the dinosaurs.. Viruses, ice ages volcanic activity ecosystem collapse.. Meaning if the ecosystem collapses other species cannot keep up with the loss of food or habitat.. Bit like a domino effect.. Also they can only really trace back humans as not enough DNA from other lifeforms to make a conclusion... So goodbye creation 👋 and also.. So where did people go before the bible.. Where did the people in valhalla, svarga, elysium, waheguru, hades, pacha, xibala, ya ha, wakan tanka, summerland, tian, Takaamanohara go once the concept of heaven came along.. Was they allowed to leave there religion's "heaven" these are from religion's before and current... Amazing isn't it.. There is ZERO evidence for your god.. The problem is YOU don't understand science... You would rather believe in some imaginary being.. Because a book written long after the events by anonymous sources tells you to.. There is evidence for all these other religions because people believed for 1000s of years before "god" came along....

There's no debate whatsoever. Creation has no standing outside of a mythical story.

I read the same text on the article. I posted that 3 days ago because I had missed your comment

A fact is that the imaginary First Cell (Universal Common Ancestor/UCA) could not have had enough genetic information for millions and millions of new life forms.

@jounisuninen - 1/64 of mutations create new genetic information

Good reminder to do your own research. Be a scientific Berean so to speak

​@@anthonybasile6079 - Not enough information was given. Publication and year is insufficient. A proper citation is needed - author(s), title, perhaps full date.

***David "we can take the horse to the water, but we can not force the horse to drink"***

All these Creationists lie. One would think God would disapprove of lies - even when they are in His name!.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@user-xp4fm2st8u you are absolutely correct... woe to the inhabitants of the Earth for Satan has been cast down to you filled with rage, for he knows his time is short... Look around. Deception, violence, hate and immorality are everywhere... Christians teach many false things... They themselves are not entering the kingdom of GOD and are preventing those who are trying.

@@Mxxx-ii9bu One truth is the lake of fire🔥 is not torment for ever and ever but rather the second death where body and soul are destroyed forever... So you can stop with the synchronized swimming lessons. It will be somewhat quick and absolute. 👍

Embracing a comfortable lie ( that the universe was made JUST FOR YOU and that you'll live forever) is easier than accepting demonstrable reality that is incredible, but doesn't make us as special as you want us to be.

If you want keep you job you better state that your study supports Darwinian evolution whether it does on not. Biology Professor Loses Contract in Creationism Dispute By Courtney Leatherman APRIL 14, 2000 A biology professor accused of teaching creationism at Central Oregon Community College isn’t likely to be doing so next year. Administrators have recommended against renewing his contract. This just one example among so many others.

Kent Hovind explained how the persecutions happen in the schools infested by evolutionists. Read the book: Slaughter of the Dissidents Paperback - Illustrated, April 8, 2011 by Jerry Bergman. Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself. Fear is great among evolutionists ... It is the sign of feebleness.

We've pinned a comment with links to these studies.

EVOLUTION is A=B impossible contradiction A prokaryotes with DNA that reads never make a nucleus or mitochondria or mitosis or meiosis caused evolved the contradiction effect from nothing in DNA = B eukaryotes with a nucleus and mitosis and meiosis and mitochondria from DNA from prokaryotes that read never mitosis or meiosis , never a nucleus and never mitochondria as demonstrated in labs studying prokaryotes and eukaryotes. SOMETHING FROM NOTHING DOCTRINE A=B IMPOSSIBLE CONTRADICTION A nothing caused = B the contradiction effect of something This is A=B illogical impossible contradiction period. Any science that is A=B is FALSE SCIENCE. EVOLUTION depends on non existent dna to cause the next species with different DNA from its host, ie. Prokaryote evolved into a eukaryote. INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT LOGIC SCIENCE 101 LAW OF CONTRADICTION A=B IMPOSSIBLE CONTRADICTION A non intelligence caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of intelligence This is a false SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS that can never be true. A a DNA non brain organism caused = B a DNA brain organism contradiction This is an IMPOSSIBLE CONTRADICTION HYPOTHESIS, why do scientists ignore A=B impossible contradiction and claim A=B is possible? Smoke another bowl Einstein's.😍👍😎

​@@icrscience GOD IS A PACIFIST DOCTRINE based on logic science 101 My argument Law of contradiction A=B impossible contradiction A god is a non-pacifist that said thou shalt kill B god is a pacifist that said thou shalt not kill To avoid A=B impossible contradiction concerning god A isn't=to B objective logic EITHER A god is a non-pacifist that said thou shalt kill , moral just and legal OR B god is a pacifist that said thou shalt not kill , moral just and legal Not both to avoid A=B impossible contradiction Closing argument Your honor if A God is a non-pacifist that said thou shalt kill is moral just and legal, then B God is a pacifist that said thou shalt not kill MUST BE IMMORAL UNJUST AND ILLEGAL, to avoid God being A=B an impossible contradiction. Only killing would be legal and god would exterminate humans and then commit suicide because killing is moral just and legal and non killing is immoral unjust and illegal. GOD IS A PACIFIST JUDGE NEVER GUILTY OF KILLING ANYONE BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES.😍👍😎

At 4.00 minutes info on the papers is mentioned, I found them in minutes

I and my father are one.

@@JessicaSunlight Amen💕

How is man destroying the earth? As far as I can see we are destroying ourselves boath physically and spiritually. The spiritual is the wise of the two.

I love your faith. But keeping your eyes on Christ has to do with Moses lifting up the serpent. Now days people are worshiping the end times instead of the creator. We must worship the creator, whom we steadily look to for the forgiveness of sins, and sanctifiction of the soul. We do this patiently laboring until His return. Not stoping the labor because we supposedly know it's the end. Because we do not know when the end is and the final trumpet sounds.

@@87DAM1987 I'm not stopping. Are you? Every day I work for my Master. We are to watch and wait: that does not necessarily denote complacency (?)

A lot more years, because we are still waiting for the first tidbit of evidence to back up this religious dogma.

Amazing how many 'peer reviewed' journals retract thier articles despite being 'peer reviewed'

@mirandahotspring4019 You have a head full of lies. The paper shows they know nothing genuine in evolution. It can't just chop and change- you don't seem to care as long as you think there's no designer and creator. Take a good look at yourself. You're not related to a moth. Did chimps come from fish? I don't believe you've ever had an original thought of your own.

@@Moist._Robot how so?

​@@Moist._Robot So tell us what the truth is.....

@@ronfox5519 He can't because evolutionists never can. Physics is the basis for all modern natural sciences. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Evolution theory is against the discoveries caught from empirical studies of natural science. According to professor Laughlin, the observations which are used to justify evolution theory are questionable at best, and at worst they are completely false. Laughlin says that empirical natural science does not need the evolution theory and the evolution theory does not get support from empirical natural science.

Thumbs up lies?

World is full of gods made by man. Only one God is manifested in Bible. Only one God took human form and walked with us. There are many other religions with their holy scriptures, but none of them give a description of world creation and beginning of life that would match with the discoveries of secular science. Not that all discoveries of the secular science are correct! The secular science rather comes behind the Bible. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that all matter decays by time and advances towards maximal entropy i.e. maximal disorder / maximal equilibrium. That is the principal direction of all matter and it can only temporarily be stopped or reversed by using the continuously diminishing free energy. This means no abiogenesis and no evolution. This is what Bible predicts and this is what we see. God's deeds and the discoveries of honest human science are in total harmony. Sun is immensely bigger than a light bulb so it just takes more time to burn out - but burn out it does, and after that there will be no free energy for the earth anymore. So there are no miracles, just the way how God created our universe and how He will roll it up. This all is told in Bible: Hebrews 1:10-12 10 He also says,“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” Thermodynamics is working all the time just as God intended - “they will all wear out …”. Bible told thousands of years ago the fact which evolutionists still don’t understand - there is no evolution. Just entropy and devolution. The Law of Entropy rules the whole universe. That's why we are heading towards the universal heat death where the universal temperature is near 0°K and there's no free energy anymore. All this goes like the Bible says. Genesis tells what science is trying to discover. Accordingly, the deeper science advances the more it discovers, and the more it discovers the more it proves of Genesis. Genesis tells the work of God, not just the work of a vague Intelligent Designer. The Intelligent Designer indeed has name - Jesus Christ. He is not a religion but the Truth. I prefer believing in something that is NOT scientifically proven non-existent (God) than in something that IS scientifically proven non-existent (abiogenesis and evolution). Atheists do not have the magic wand to make their visions become reality. Instead, they use their magic wand to make themselves believe in their own fairy tale world.

First RNA-polymerase reads and copied the code. Then ribosomes read that copy and assembles what is written

@@mirandahotspring4019 isn't duplicate = copy?

Just like with reproduction in animals, DNA and all that, hospitals have also evolved over the millennia; they did not always have high tech diagnostic machines etc.

You love religious propaganda?

The micro\macro question is only referenced by creationists and others who don't understand evolution. Biologists do not distinguish between micro and macro, the only difference is the time scale upon which the allele changes occur.

time scale, ouh yes, the almighty time scale that magically transforms rocks into cells 😂😂😂

And it took the so called God 100s of thousands of years after man appeared to even be found in history - if God created man and he cared about the laws that man lives by, why did he remain so hidden for so long? It must not have been a big deal with God or perhaps God was never there to begin with!

@@RC6790 if you’ll read the Bible you will find out it wasn’t hundreds of thousands of years. You are trying to limit God within an evolutionary time scale and that’s not the way it happened. Yes, I know I wasn’t there to see it with my own eyes but the evidence is all around us. Finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones is proof that they are not millions of years old. Even scientists admit that soft tissue can not last for even one million years. The geologic time scale was made up out of thin air by Charles Lyell with zero evidence to back up his theory. Carbon 14 is found in the remains of animals from every geologic period. Carbon 14 is also found in coal and diamonds which are supposedly millions and billions of years old respectively. An understanding of how carbon 14 operates will demonstrate that all of these shouldn’t have any carbon 14 at all in them. Only a young age for the earth and a great flood can explain all the evidence around us.

@@RC6790 You have the wrong basis. Man was created only 6000 years ago.

@@jounisuninen That is one of the silliest statements ever. There is zero evidence for such a claim.

@@RC6790 If you call DNA -evidence as zero ... Then nobody can help you I guess.

It's fun to listen to: Grown ups trying to skew science to fit creation. LOL

I think I just threw up a little…

@@markl8679 As long as you're okay.

Totally…

Good.

"macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly IMPLAUSIBLE (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is NOT salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms." Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology Volume 172, August 2022, Pages 24-38

No, but it probably won't hurt you to believe that if it makes you feel better.

​@@wooddoc5956excellent take down... you've convinced everyone with your intelligent, well-thought out argument

I doubt if they've convinced everyone as much creationists are immune to reason.

​@@Mxxx-ii9buthe only ones immune to reason are people like yourself... even the authors of the paper say they're stumped by the discovery but internet atheists believe all is swell in evo-land

If by several thousand, you mean 200,000-as the paper suggests, sure. Do you believe life has been around for 200,000 years? Do you believe that “arose” means “evolved from previous organisms”-as the paper suggests? If not, you should throw out the paper anyway, and not use it to argue your position.

Surely there is natural selection. Natural selection however can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution. Natural selection could produce evolution if it could deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not found in the population. Natural selection however delivers nothing, it just destroys individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or too rare) which means that on population level everybody's genome gets specialized. This is adaptation, this is good for a while, but the specialized genomes are more one-sided than the original gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and often goes extinct. We can observe that natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like "dealing a deck of cards"). This fact makes impossible for subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.

Well, actually, that was Wallace's idea. And that is not darwinism. Darwin claimed to have found a mechanism that could account for the emergence of all life forms on earth, that required no intelligent agency, descent with slight modifications, acted upon by natural selection.

Fake story or idiotic teacher?

@sciencerules8525 Still living with your parents and playing pokemon it seems. Wow

@@sciencerules8525 Except # " we don't know" is not evidence you can be proud of either.

@@sciencerules8525 If you want to learn the scientifically verified facts go and study science instead of listening Darwinist preachers in government financed schools.

@@sciencerules8525 "If you want to learn the scientifically verified facts..." "A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science How many times has evolution been repeatedly observed or experimentally measured, getting positive empirical evidence? Answer: Not once. Evolution has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical test has proved that evolution can not happen. In a long test of 72 000 generations of bacteria the result was only more bacteria. Nothing else but bacteria. The same goes with fruit flies. During 100 years and thousands of generations of empirical tests simulating millions of years of mammalian evolution - no evolution, no new body plans, no new species, only intraspecific variation.

The NASA definition for life on Earth is……. . Life is a self sustaining chemical system, capable of darwinian evolution. . This is NASA , the people responsible for man on the moon, Hubble and James Webb telescopes. The people who only employ the world’s best chemists, biologists, biochemists, astrophysicists , astronomers. . So ask yourself a honest question, who is most likely correct ? . NASA or a bias Christian social media platform ?

You do understand that the ICR does not do science, right? They merely do propaganda.

@@Moist._Robot How can you write a comment like this and not be blocked? You will know soon enough who has been foolish. J

@@Mxxx-ii9bu What science can you display? #"we don't know" !!!

@frankslim592 The guy makes a supportive comment to the channel, and you engage him calling him foolish. That's so sweet of you. Frank, you're headed for the hot place mate. There's no science. Get right.

Answers in Genesis much like this channel contains anti-science religious propaganda to mislead religious people about science.

Evidence is what is needed.

Better get them while they're young. Best at the Santa Claus stage.

Well said. Looks like you picked up some imbecile fans in your comments.

@@wooddoc5956 Children have been fooled more than enough with "evolution". Evolutionary thinking is based on the assumption that random mutations create new biological (genetic) information which is useful for species. That is wishful thinking. Scientists have discovered that only 1 mutation out of 1000 000 mutations is potentially useful [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Even that potentially useful mutation has never produced useful changes to the body plan of an organism.

@travisbicklepopsicle This comment of yours goes without saying. It's very clear most of you barely have two thoughts going on up there let alone ever having gratitude and reverence for the life we have been gifted with.

And that's all you guys have. Blatant lies and wishful thinking. Why aren't these Creationists has ever published a peer review article about their "evidence"? Only talking on platforms and forums where there are no supervision, or any filtering? Funny! :D

😂

Thanks for the likes !! Glad someone understands!! And it's only christan people that can see this. . Bet ya !!

"Truth?" You keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

​@@Mxxx-ii9buis truth not fact?

@mirandahotspring4019 Hey Miranda- the paper is secular, they won't adjust their starting point for ages to report on. You're quite sure your great nanna climbed out of a tree? Sad

​@@mirandahotspring4019You missed the point, all species evolved at a point in the near past compared to hundreds of millions of years. That proves evolution is false. That bottleneck matches up with Noah's Flood in the Bible. My understanding is that 100-200k number has been reduced to match up with the Flood. Grace

@@travisbicklepopsicle You wish

I wouldn't be satisfied with a church that trusts in the establishment more than God's word.

@@truthbebold4009 that is my thought too. How much can you grow in Christ when you can’t believe what he said.

Experiment to find the Truth

Why would a loving God want to use the Cruel method of natural selection?

@@Moist._Robot I don't know why you turned on your parents

@@wooddoc5956 Natural selection via what method? A merrit system? A social pecking order? Or did it need to have been death driven? How did it do it wood ?

Abiogenesis & Evolution of the species are complete nonsense. The Function, Intelligence, Mind & Information Categories ... prove .. the Universe & Life are NATURAL Functions ... composed entirely of NATURAL functions ... and ... can only be made by a ... timeless, infinite, UNNATURAL intelligence ... due to the information every Function possesses especially ... purpose & design. Everything in the Universe clearly has ... purpose ... processes, properties, design ... including space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy which is what the Universe is made of. The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System (Function) with finite matter & energy and increasing entropy(time & Laws of nature) All thermodynamic Systems ... originate from ... the surrounding System ... which must proved the space, time, matter, energy, Laws of Nature ... and ... intelligence to exist & to function. Man believes in "the gods" because Man is a Natural Intelligence with the Mind & intellect .... living in a world where everything is a ..... Function. See. Evolution & Abiogenesis are nonsense.

That is called theistic evolution. I used to be one of the kind but I can't believe in it anymore. Of course I can't know which god you refer to. But if you mean God, then why should he use billions of years to create everything? Why would our benevolent Jesus Christ use evolution - a way of endless suffering and endless deaths? Bible tells it all happened in 6 days and I haven't seen any scientific evidence to disprove it. In fact, now we know through genetic research that all flora and fauna was born in the same very short time.

@@sciencerules8525 Yawn… more clichés. Do better, bud.

Wonder what shark or alligator mitochondria would show? Not a lot of evolution in the last 200 thousand years, I'll bet.

@@wooddoc5956 That, and no relation 😎

@@sciencerules8525 Cool story, bro.

@sciencerules8525 You kids are hilarious. Someday you will need to get a life. Not off to a good start.

All you need now is to hide all the fossils and specimens around before modern day life... Or you could just scream fake like you do.. In fact why did they leave out most of the study 🤔🤔🤔

@@sciencerules8525 The first question you need to ask before you comment on another person's post is, "Who is this person speaking to?" But since it wasn't obvious to you, I'll answer it for you. I was only speaking to those individuals whose comments were NOT specific questions. No one else. So before you tell me that I need to read all the comments before I say what I said, you need to understand what I said.

@@surrenderdaily333 Demonstrate your position is true and win the argument.

billions of years is completely provable.

…and thousands of years is infinitely more believable. LMAO!!!

​​@@StudentDad-mc3pubillions and billions of years without evidence of transitional life between species proves only what the data does prove, the Cambrian Explosion. When you try to scoff and mock, you fulfill a prophecy. Thanks for playing.

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Not even remotely.

@@alwilson3204 you must study to understand. You can't vote for truth or cheat a vote for truth. You should choose to ignore if you choose denial. You will end up finding out. I have told you. Romans 10: 9-10. Choose where you're going, or it will just occur anyway.

None of which indicate that the scientific theory of evolution ''is dead'' like this propaganda communicated.