#YoungEarth, #BiblicalCreationDebate, #Evolutionfalsified,
Standing For Truth (YEC) and A Rational Empiricist (Evolutionist) debate Creation, evolution, and ancestry. Does the scientific evidence support evolution OR devolution? And are humans specially created or did humans evolve through evolutionary processes?
👉Donate to the Show https://bit.ly/3dN3Byx
👉Support us on Patreon https://bit.ly/3fmqfwL
👉Subscribe on Facebook https://bit.ly/35PA6rZ
👉Our books https://bit.ly/36SbBK0
👉New Articles posts https://bit.ly/2UMSUSa
👉Our MERCHANDISE https://bit.ly/35Q39f2 a one-stop-shop for all Creationists! Shirts, hats, mugs, books, articles & more!
Our goal is to one day do full time ministry. Your amazing generosity, support, and donations has made us closer than ever to this dream! God bless.
Glad you found our channel! We believe that the Bible is true and can be put to the test for validity. We obviously know that the Bible has parables, allegories, poems, laws, short stories, genealogy, proverbs, sermons, prayers, prophecy, proverbial text, epistles, etc. But most importantly History. What we do is test the history with science and let the evidence show itself. We discovered that the evidence is in favor of Creation which just so happens to falsify evolution theory. This is why they know we are a threat and must remove Creation science from the education system at any cost.
As Young Earth Creationists we believe God created only 2 human beings at creation. We also believe Genesis where it says God created all the animals in groups, and our definition of relation actually starts in genesis, that of “organisms that descend from the same ancestral gene pool.” The most popular definition today actually is in reference to the Biblical Flood of Noah’s definition, this is because of Frank Lewis Marsh who coined the term baramin who used the Noah’s Ark definition to define a kind, in which he stated “that the ability to hybridize and create viable offspring was a sufficient condition for being members of the same baramin.” But this is After the flood, making sure that Noah brought species that could reproduce with one another, it’s not the original definition which has thrown everyone off to this day.
We believe as things speciate they lose allele variety and inherit more mutations. This shows us clear limitations with evolution, and shows that ancestrally that things were superior than today.
Dollo’s law of irreversibility also shows us that evolution cannot go in reverse, so when they lose this genetic information after speciation, they can never regain it. This is why all horses today are now homozygous and horses in the past were heterozygous. They cannot return to their once superior state allowing for more diversity.
Evolution falsifies itself constantly but because they cannot allow the theory to die, they just rename and rehash it to the public as though everything is fine without anyone even noticing. A few examples;
*Darwinian Gradualism becomes punctuated equilibrium when they need it too and Darwin’s slow natural processes which do not make leaps, was found to make huge leaps and renamed Saltationism. (complete contradiction).
*Ernst Mayr predicted that because evolution must be true, living organisms shouldn’t share any genetic similarities because deep time would have separated them far too much. Then it was found they share many! So his predictions were removed and now it’s used as one of the best pieces of evidence FOR evolution when it’s actually a falsification of the theory.
*Dead Worthless Junk DNA became non-coding regulatory DNA. A clever rhetorical strategy they often use: Call it evolutionary junk at first; Then when functions are found, call it the “motor of evolution.” Notice their rescued device every time is that they just ASSERT or ASSUME co-option.
* Functionless evolutionary leftover organs become functional organs deemed vestigial organs (lost primary function).
• A Singular Evolutionary tree became a 3 tier domain bush of life = Bacteria, Achaea, Eukarya.
*Mitochondrial clocks (Observed fast rates from trio method) became the slow phylogenetic assumption method because the clocks were falsifying the deep time theory.
source
Genetic entropy is a simple fact of genetics… It's mind blowing that people don't understand that. Paper after paper after paper confirms this (as well as observation).
One of my favorite subjects in apologetics. That was the one thing Rob Rowe could not find a way around. All of his conclusions completely ignored the fact he only had 6000yrs of genetic information to fit his conclusions. He kept using the phrase Cherry Picking when trying to refute it. All Glory to GOD brother!
Dr. Sanford's Genetic Entropy claim is based on the assumption all life was created with "perfect" genomes (whatever that means) only 6000 years ago which have been degrading ever since. There is zero evidence supporting that assumption and a huge amount of evidence disproving it. We have sequenced the genomes of many paleolithic species much older than 6000 years. The current record is the sequenced genome of a mammoth from 1.2 MYA.
Did Andrew make another mess? Did he repeat the standard already debunked talking points? Will there be a weather report from the damage control department? We will see….
Excellent dismantling of Andrew’s position. Good job 💪
I quite enjoyed this discussion, for mostly two reasons. First, I don't get to talk to SFT that often, so this was a treat for me. We had a nice cordial back-and-forth, and I appreciate that. Of course, there's that other reason, which was that this seemed less like a discussion and more like a continuous series of illusive hand-waving. "The whole idea of GE is contradictory," hand wave. "Back mutations and recombination are not accounted for," hand wave. "Effective population sizes are important for selection to act on these mutations," hand wave. I'm starting to think these "often-repeated talking points" are not addressed not because they have been answered, but because creationists have NO valid answers. If you're not open to criticism, if you can't admit that you're model fails observable biological reality, then I'm sorry, you're not doing science. By the way, I looked at the links you put on the screen during the discussion SFT, and guess what? The very paper you provided, right AFTER the quote you put up, details how nearly-neutral mutations are rarer in larger populations than in smaller ones, meaning that now you DO have to take population size into account. Not all populations are affected by these types of mutations. Anyways, like I said, enjoyed the chat, but I hope SFT can do better next time if we do end up doing something on common ancestry.
SFT doing it like a BOSS! 😆 another brilliant conversation showing that genetics proves special creation. God bless from across the pond
Hey SFT i love your debates man, love that your really using science and papers to further justify your point, would you mind putting the links to some of these into the description so I and others can look at the papers
Proof for genetic decay can be found in the recorded race times for the Kentucky derby. With the hundreds of millions spent on genetic selection and a complete failure to breed faster horses , this should qualify for actual material recorded data on this particular topic