1. Ark of Noah part 1 VOD

    23:34

    from Beyond History / Added

    0 Plays / / 0 Comments

    Geologist, Excavator, Creationist, Archeologist, Scientist and Ark Hunter Don Patton, explores a very popular topic, Noah’s Ark. Dr. Patton shares his many climbs on Mount Ararat and his first hand experiences on the findings he believes to be the real Ark of Noah.

    + More details
    • Ark of Noah part 2 VOD

      23:34

      from Beyond History / Added

      2 Plays / / 0 Comments

      Don Patton, Archeologist and Ark Hunter continues in ARK OF NOAH Part II, to share his findings and experiences on his quest to Gods’ Ark, The Ark of Noah.

      + More details
      • The Summit Lecture Series: Myths of Evolution with Sean McDowell, part 6

        07:19

        from Jefferson Drexler / Added

        33 Plays / / 0 Comments

        To purchase the entire DVD set of the Summit Lecture Series, visit summit.org. Let’s look at Darwin’s Tree of Life. At the bottom of the diagram is the first ancestor and over time, it shows a development through random mutation and natural selection into all the living organisms. It’s like they’re branched together like a tree. This was one of Darwin’s most famous examples that he pointed to in his efforts to clarify his theory. He went on to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Darwin himself realized that the evidence they had when he presented his theory did not support his own Tree of Life. He believed that over time, scientists would discover the proof that supported it. He held that the fossil records were merely incomplete, but as we find more, his theory would be corroborated. So let’s take a look at it. To start off, we won’t look at the relationship of humans to apes yet, because they are so close together on Darwin’s Tree. Instead, we will look at the big picture – the fossil record from the top down – from a macro level view. For example, phyla is the greatest division within the animal kingdom. Starting with “life from non-life” (domain), then “plants from animals” (kingdom), then within all animals, the next division is called phyla, which basically means your body structure or morphology. So from a body structure plan alone, consider how different a flatworm is from an arthropod with an exoskeleton. You can visibly see that in mere terms of bodily structure how radically and fundamentally different they are. So the question rises: should all the different phyla emerge at the beginning of the evolutionary process, or should they emerge at the end? In other words, on Darwin’s theory, when should these major bodily differences emerge? The answer would presumably be at the end, after a long process. However, in actuality, what we find is that even if you believe in an “old earth”, evolution as Darwin’s Tree of Life depicts does not fit the fossil data. The Cambrian Explosion is dated to have occurred some 520 million years ago. Others call it the Biological Big Bang because in a short period of time, geologically speaking, the majority of major phyla just appeared as if they were placed into the fossil record, without any precursors before them. This is a major problem for Darwin’s theory. If his theory rang true, than the fossil record would show his tree and all its various branches in place for centuries before the Cambrian Explosion. But it’s not there. Some people say that the soft-bodied organisms couldn’t be preserved for the fossil record. But we have found microscopic organisms from the pre-Cambrian Explosion period preserved, so that excuse is eliminated. So, imagine a football field with the beginning of earth’s history on the left goal line and present day on the right goal line. The left goal line is marked by, let’s say, 4.6 billion years ago. Life first showed up (for argument’s sake) 3.8 billion years ago, which would be at about the 17-yard-line. Now, Darwin’s theory would predict that life merged, grew out, and developed throughout this whole period, and all across the earth. But, keeping with the football field timeline, the Cambrian Explosion happened a mere eight inches away from the 17-yard-line. In that tiny amount of time, the fossil record shows all these different body types just showing up as if they had been placed there without any substantial precursors at all. The fossil record basically shows: simple, simple, simple, simple, BAM – complex phyla show up without anything there before them. The problem that this presents for Darwin’s theory is that to go from simple to complex, there must be more information; and information comes from a mind. So, Cameron’s Explosion actually points to Intelligent Design and there’s no known mechanism in the natural world that could cause this type of Explosion or Biological Big Bang to happen. Even Darwin said: “The manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdoms suddenly appear in the [Cambrian]… at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views entertained here.” Again – when both sides of the argument are looked at, does evolution sound like “Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact.” to you?

        + More details
        • The Summit Lecture Series: Myths of Evolution with Sean McDowell, part 5

          08:13

          from Jefferson Drexler / Added

          30 Plays / / 0 Comments

          To purchase the entire DVD set of the Summit Lecture Series, visit summit.org. Charles Darwin proposed a mechanism that causes the process of evolution from a common ancestor to take place without an intelligent agent involved. His mechanism is natural selection acting on random mutation. That’s the core of Darwin’s theory. So, with that being said, let’s take a look at some of the evidence: First off, let’s look at the Miller-Urey Experiment. In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey sought to find out how life first emerged from “non-life”. So, they took a beaker and put in it the elements that they thought existed in “early earth”, heated the beaker so that the gases traveled up a tube, and shocked the gas with electricity. However, upon chemical analysis of their results, they found amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. This was heralded as a major scientific breakthrough. They thought that if one simple experiment, imitating the early atmosphere on earth, produces amino acids, then imagine what would happen as science progresses… scientists would be able to explain the origin of life easily! Or, as Carl Sagan put it: “The [Miller-Urey Experiment] is the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos.” Now, right away, you should be noticing something that is suspect about this experiment – it is totally intelligently designed. Certain chemicals were chosen (at the exclusion of others); they were placed in a controlled environment; the chemicals and gases were directed into a certain place… information and intelligent human input are all over the experiment! Instead of being a purely blind experiment, it is a directed experiment where information and input are parts of its innate process. Another problem with the experiment is that there is no evidence that this pre-biotic soup ever existed. Too many people assume that there were prehistoric pools of chemicals and elements that would blend to create life, but there is no evidence that these pools ever existed. Thirdly, the early atmosphere was different than the chemicals that Miller and Urey actually used. We know now, due to residue on rocks that we have found through the geological record, that other gases were present than were used in the Miller-Urey experiment. If they were to have used the correct gases, they would get nothing more than a chemical sludge containing no amino acids and is not even remotely close to something that could produce life. But the most crippling aspect of this theory is the fact that amino acids are not life. Even Richard Dawkins said in The God Delusion that the simplest form of life is a living cell. The difference between an amino acid and a living cell is like the difference between a single brick and the entire city of Chicago! You see, when they performed this experiment, the scientists didn’t understand the way that life worked. They thought that it was simple. Now that we are able to peer into living cells, we have discovered such incredible technology within them, that now scientists are looking at cells and bacteria to get ideas about how to build better computers. And we’re supposed to believe that this came about by chemicals in motion? I don’t have enough faith to believe that. Now, since 1952, some scientists have conceded that the problem is greater than they had originally thought. Even Stanley Miller stated: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” Then, outspoken atheist and fellow scientist Massimo Pigliucci said: “Unfortunately, Miller-type experiments have not progressed much further than their original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.” So, when both sides are looked at, does evolution sound like, “Fact… fact… fact?” Yet, Miller’s works are published in over 30% of our nation’s textbooks today. In many of them, Miller says: “This and other experiments suggested how simple compounds found on the early Earth could have combined to form the organic compounds needed for life.” Not a hint of the other side of the argument or even possibility that an intelligent agent is involved.

          + More details
          • The Crimson Thread VOD

            24:04

            from Beyond History / Added

            0 Plays / / 0 Comments

            In this breathtaking sweep through human history, Dr. Michael Sprague chronicles God’s passion for people and the price He was willing to pay for an eternal relationship. The story moves from cosmic treason to spilled blood throughout the ages and climaxing in the Crucifixion, finally answering whether the Crucifixion is history’s greatest hoax or greatest claim. No one can ignore or should ignore the greatest story ever told- the Crimson Thread.

            + More details
            • The Summit Lecture Series: Myths of Evolution with Sean McDowell, part 4

              06:45

              from Jefferson Drexler / Added

              19 Plays / / 0 Comments

              To purchase the entire DVD set of the Summit Lecture Series, visit www.summit.org. So, Charles Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands and noticed several different finches with different beak sizes and wing projections. They looked a little different from one another, so he concluded that they must have evolved over time. Perhaps they did, but the finches still remained finches. Therefore, it was change within an existing kind or species. Now, I agree that natural selection may cause this. Natural Selection may work on a limited scale as Darwin proposed. The problem is that he suggested that this explains everything. Then, in 1977, scientists visited the Galapagos Islands during a drought and noticed an average of 5% beak change toward the larger due to the lack of water. (The animals with the larger beaks could more easily get to the food and survive and the ones with the smaller beaks died out.) They then concluded that this is an example of evolution. If you gave the process longer periods of time, you can imagine what results we would get! So, they extrapolated that if this phenomenon happened within five years or so, then within a span of 200 years (much less 10 million years) evolution could result into an entirely different species. However, what they actually found was that the process within the finches was actually cyclical. As the food supply and water supply ebbed and flowed over time, so did the size of the beaks. Therefore, the phenomenon wasn’t moving toward any new anatomy, developing new beaks or new abilities – it was simply a change within a species or kind. This is called micro-evolution. Newsweek Magazine addressed this. A reader responded to one of their articles by writing: “They say there’s no evidence for evolution, yet here is some within my own lifetime. My older sister was one of the patients saved by the wonder drug penicillin, which probably couldn’t save her now because microbes have evolved to the point that penicillin can’t kill them anymore. That’s fact, not theory- evidence that life forms can change over time.” What the writer got wrong is that this is merely evidence of micro-evolution. The bacteria that the penicillin was trying to kill was still bacteria. It didn’t become a new organism. Micro-evolution is change within a kind, and it’s not controversial. Darwin was right about this. What is controversial is Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution. A friend of mine put it this way: “From the goo, to the zoo, to you.” It’s basically Darwin’s grand theory that all organisms in all the living world came about by a natural, blind process. It has two components: Common Descent and Common Descent describes the theory that first there were one or many single-cell, simple living organisms, which over time branched out and became all living organisms that we see today. By the way, this was not a new theory that Darwin came up with. Even before Christ, many ancient Greeks believed in Common Descent. But what they lacked was a mechanism to show how this process could develop apart from an Intelligent Agent. Therefore, it’s possible to believe in Common Descent, but disagree with Darwin’s mechanism about how it takes place. Consider Michael Behe, a Catholic Intelligent Design proponent who looks at the natural world and says that certain things are designed. He also believes in Common Decent, but also believes that this cannot happen by chance – Darwin’s mechanism – there has to be intelligence involved. Therefore, whenever Michael is presented with fossil evidence that might seem to support Darwinism, he easily agrees with the fossil evidence, he simply doesn’t agree that natural selection and chance can get us there. But Darwin’s theory is even more than Common Descent. He proposed a mechanism that causes the process to take place without an intelligent agent involved. His mechanism is natural selection acting on random mutation. That’s what is at the core of Darwin’s theory. For more engaging and enlightening videos and podcasts, visit the E-Squared Media Network at www.e2medianetwork.com

              + More details
              • Various Christian Views of Creation

                03:17

                from shirley rose / Added

                11 Plays / / 1 Comment

                Mark Driscoll names and briefly explains different views Christians have on the creation account of Genesis.

                + More details
                • The Summit Lecture Series: Myths of Evolution with Sean McDowell, part 3

                  08:11

                  from Jefferson Drexler / Added

                  20 Plays / / 0 Comments

                  To purchase the entire DVD set of the Summit Lecture Series, visit summit.org. If science is simply the search for the natural explanation, then any type of intelligent design or creationism is ruled out before we even begin the investigation. Now, this is not, traditionally, how science has been defined. It’s really been just in the 20th century that people have changed the definition of science. And since they have changed the definition of science, evolution has been accepted by default. So, what is science? Naturalist Definition: “The search for natural explanations of the world.” Proper Definition: “The search for truth about the natural world.” Do you see how different these are? The Naturalist says, “We’re going to find the truth, but we’re going to limit the truth to purely natural causation and natural effects. The second one says, “We’re going to search for the truth; and if it’s all natural, so be it. But we’re not going to preclude before the investigation exactly what those causes could be. So, when somebody subscribing to the Naturalist Definition looks through a microscope, and look at things like DNA, would they ever include – given the vast amount of information within DNA – that there could be a Mind behind all of it? What are they going to say? “Boy, it looks like it’s designed, there’s so much information, it looks like somebody placed it there… but we know it’s not, so now let’s go look for the natural explanation.” A person subscribing to the proper definition of science would say, “Alright, here’s DNA, here’s information… what best accounts for this, given all of the data?” Do you see how different of a question this is? It all comes back to definitions. So, to make it a bit more simple, let’s look at what scientists do. They first start by making observations of the natural world. So, if we look outside and we notice that the driveway is wet, some explanations could be: perhaps it rained, or the sprinklers came on and sprayed on it, perhaps someone washed the car… or perhaps the toddler has been running around outside without diapers. There are a lot of possibilities. Then we make a second observation: the car is wet also. Therefore, rain, sprinklers or washing the car are still on the table (unless your toddler has a super-human bladder). So, you have competing explanations for the facts that we know. How do we start to narrow down and determine which explanation is true? We do more investigation. Upon doing this, we discover the sky is clear. So, this rules out rain. Upon further investigation, we discover the lawn is dry, as is the street; and we find a bucket of soapy water. Therefore we know that someone recently washed the car. An oversimplified and easy example? Yes, but it is how science works. We look at the genealogical record, we look at living organisms, and we say, “Here are competing explanations. Which one accounts for the most data and is the best explanation?” So, it’s not about certainty, geometrically proving something, or even absolute blind faith. It’s simply saying which explanation best accounts for the data. Believe it or not, this is the same method that Darwin used when researching his theory of evolution. But, does his theory best account for the data? Firstly, we need to begin with definitions. The problem is that the word “evolution” is equivocal, which means that there are more than one definition for the word (similar to the word “bat”). One definition for the word evolution is: change over time. For example, there are living organisms today that are different than organisms that lived in the past. There have been changes over time in the organisms that lived. Likewise, our beliefs change over time, our bodies change over time, our priorities change over time. They all evolve. This is not a controversial definition. But there’s a second definition, also known as “micro-evolution”, which means: change within an existing kind or species. The most famous example of this definition are Darwin’s finches. And, we’ll discuss them and dig deeper into the definitions and theories in the following weeks. For more engaging and educational videos and podcasts, visit the E-Squared Media Network at www.e2medianetwork.com

                  + More details
                  • DNA, Designed Not Accidental VOD

                    24:04

                    from Beyond History / Added

                    0 Plays / / 0 Comments

                    The massively coded, complex, four dimensional information system of DNA is investigated by Sid Galloway and points clearly to being designed by an intelligent, logical source - God. Sid Galloway then contrasts evolution which depends on mutations that always cause a loss of information and destroy the genetic code.

                    + More details
                    • Bill Nye's Top 5 Reasons Creationism is an Assault on Science

                      02:35

                      from Bryce P. Urbany / Added

                      13 Plays / / 0 Comments

                      Bill Nye shares why the evidence for evolution makes it undeniable. An op-ed video I shot & edited for CBS News.

                      + More details

                      What are Tags?

                      Tags

                      Tags are keywords that describe videos. For example, a video of your Hawaiian vacation might be tagged with "Hawaii," "beach," "surfing," and "sunburn."