This video talks about Genesis, should it be taken literal? Or should it not?

You will love this video that answers the question that all critics of theism have!

Evolution never predicted to find genetic boundaries, yet they did. This destroys universal common ancestry and confirms independent origins. This is the best evidence to confirm the Biblical model of ancestry and the only video you will ever need to expose evolution for what it is, a lie made up long ago to push Biblical Creation out of schools and the text books.

Critics often have questions regarding now Noah could have tended to all the animals, what did they eat, how did he clean up after them, what about inbreeding after they got off the ark? Is there evidence in geology for this flood that took place in just 1 year? Is there a heat problem? etc... All of this and more get answered !

In this video you will learn about our Created Heterozygosity Model and why it is the best plan for us.

The Bible is somewhat vague on specifics regarding Eden and where Noah' Ark came to rest. My studies have helped me find not only where eden was before the flood, but where Noah's Ark came to rest. This answers many other questions as well, such as; Does scripture describe the earth as flat? Was the Earth the same as it is today? What people groups inherited what regions? So much more!

Learn what Y.E.C. is, what predictions have been made and are being made in the field. Learn what a "Kind" is. Learn about Missing links, genetics, biology, falsifications of evolution and much more. The written section to go along with the video covers every possible topic you can conceive. ERVs, Chromosome 2 fusion, Genetics, Biology, geology, paleontology, cosmic and stellar evolution and more. Some of it is very technical, so that book is not the for fait on heart. But refer to it anytime you need to solve an argument.

When God Finished his Creation He said "It is Good". Eons of death and killing is not what God considers good, so how was original creation? Did the lion eat the lamb? Did man have to worry for his life?

You will learn that the hypothetical chromosome 2 fusion theory is nothing but a made up story. You will learn that the so called internal remnant telomeres are not that what so ever but just telomere sequences found that are the same on every other chromosome. You will learn the that alleged 2nd centromere is actually an active gene site, and not a dead centromere like they tell us. You will learn that that the hypothetical fusion site is missing a critical element called satellite DNA, which should be their if a  telomere to telomere fusion event occurred. You will learn about multiple conserved genes that would have to break INSTANTLY for a fusion event to occur in humans which is not even plausible. You will learn about telomeres, and why they matter and how senescence (old age) is the critical factor for allowing any fusion event to even be theisable. You will learn that anyone who has ever had a chromosome fusion on other chromosomes end up less fertile, lowering the odds of a fusion event getting passed on from generation to generation, yet this chr2 fusion supposedly overtook the worlds population of all humans. You will learn that the human chromosome 2 is missing 10% missing of its size compared to chimp chr 2A and 2B. That equals about 24 million DNA bases. Such a large amount of genetic loss would be catastrophic and fatal to life. You will learn that and much much more!

And above all, you will learn that even IF the fusion did occur, it cannot be used for evidence of a fusion because it would have only happened AFTER human split from apes anyway! This is highly technical but a must for every christian to understand, as evolutionists need this fusion event for their entire theory to work. They know, if its wrong. Evolution is wrong!

In this video you will learn what actually started the Global flood of Noah. Many theories exist but most are speculative. This have evidence for multiple sources throughout history to validate it.

This is a look at what happened during the flood of Noah and how it shaped our current world.

In this video you will learn a lot. You will learn that the modern day theory of language formation called the "bow wow" theory is 100% wrong. You will learn that God taught Adam language and there is no way around it. Then you will learn what that language was!

In this section you will learn how superior our ancient ancestors were both physically and genetically. How the World was superior and more conducive to life extension and much more. The book that goes along with this will teach you how to apply life extension to your own daily program as well.

Evolution tells us that we evolved from Australopithecus africanus which evolved from Sahelanthropus which evolved from chimps during a split around 6.5-7 million years ago. This is all fabrication and I will show you how they line up a chimp, then Lucy, then a human and say see. Clear evidence the foramen is moving towards being a human. I falsify this nonsense with visual evidence including adding orbital tilt to the scenario which complexly falsifies their imaginary story.

In this section you will learn exactly who and what the Nephilim are. You will learn via linguistics, Biblical connection and logical deduction. You will also see genetic evidence and physical evidence.

This video answers the phylogeny challenge posed by evolutionary critics of Creation.

Did Dinosaur and man ever live together? If so why is there no physical evidence? There is evidence! It is just not presented to the public and one has to search for it. The evidence is not just footprints of man with dinosaur or finding an artifact in a dinosaur layer, oh no. Far better!

This video I set out to investigate a popular anti-theist critic and put his claims to the test. It looks like everything he tries to tell his fan's is nothing but pseudoscience at best. Literally every claim he made was easily proven wrong. It is amazing how easily people are duped, and sad to see faith is lost because of people like this. Enjoy the destruction of one of atheist favorite online gurus.

Enjoy this video as I let an evolutionary science educator on supposedly ancient man give his evidence followed by me exposing them.

This video not only answers the global flood bottleneck using genetics, but it answers the question that Creationists get asked all the time... Where can we draw the line in phylogeny? This is they Phylogeny Challenge that evolutionary critics have with our model.

This video is a little different from my others which deals with proving the validity of scripture through science. This specifically addresses the aspect of evil. Why does it exist and why does God allow it. Why didn't God just kill the Devil right away? I answer this the best I can for you. Enjoy

In this video you will learn how Native American Migration is not an argument against YEC. The matter of fact the evidence is actually for YEC!

Irrefutable proof of Gods design and how we humans actually mimic it.

This video proves that Heavy Elements were created During Noah's Flood, Including Limestone. Other topics as well are briefly covered as they are popular questions YEC get.

This is more of a visual presentation rather than educational. However you will see the physical sights mentioned in the Bible with your own eyes and in High Definition.

Regarding the Rate of substitutions, well this is based on how often is a population going from one allele, to the next allele, to the next allele, over and over again. So what is the Substitution in the wild type allele for a population? Well the rate of substitution, is based on assuming a mutation rate of MU (per locus mutation rate to a new allele). So assuming that beneficial mutations are rare, the overall rate of substitution should be determined by the rate of neutral mutations outside of selection.

Kimora discovered this, and since most substitutions are not seen by selection being neutral, the rate of substitutions is the best observable mutation rate anyone can use and why we use it over phylogeny based assumption rates that do not aline whatsoever.

Consider that the authors of the 1997 trio study referred to the pedigree-derived “mutation” rate as the substitution rate. Let’s examine more closely how they arrived at their conclusion. “Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr [i.e., 2.5 mutations per mitochondrial DNA position per million years], is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA [i.e., the mitochondrial DNA Most Recent Common Ancestor—the time at which modern Homo sapiens began] of only ~6,500 y.a. [i.e., years ago].” How did the authors calculate this ~6,500 y.a. date? The authors cited a previously published estimate of “an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a.” Then they simply divided 133,000 (which is one of a range of estimates) by 20 (the fold-difference in the mutation rate measurement between the pedigree-based studies and the evolutionary timescale-based studies) to get the age of ~6,500 years ago. Clearly the observed substitution rates when placed next to evolutionary rates disagree and validate YEC.

Remember, secular evolutionists build phylogeny trees based on an assumed split/divergence, then compute the number of changes (substitutions) on each branch. Then date the split using fossils or geology, then infer the age of another split. So their entire evolutionary mutation rate is built around their own model assuming evolution is the only true theory and it's built off pure assumptions of the past that they admit they do not have evidence for, all to obtain the answers that agree with them.

Now how do I know they are wrong? EASY

Their own Data proves them wrong. You see, when looking at their charts you can see that the Cow and Horse supposedly diverged at the same time as the Rodent and Rabbit. Even though the rabbit and rodent have a much faster generation time they have exactly the same substitution rate! This should NOT be the case if evolution were true. This is why they cannot see the obvious because their theory won't permit it.

Remember, we should expect populations with shorter generation times to diverge faster. But that is NOT what they saw in nature nor experiments. The chart above exposes them.

Their rescue device for this is that maybe selection is removing them because of how large our population size is now. Sadly for them when they looked at substitution rates of multiple species including small populations of nearly extinct gorilla’s the substitution rate was basically the same.

Evolutionists hold to the Selectionist theory (Gillespie et al). Basically, molecular clocks are untrustworthy. They could have been faster in the past and many fixations are beneficial.

Even in the study done by Parsons in 1997 and his colleagues followed the evolutionary time scale, but because of this conflict in age, the 1997 authors immediately sought other equations to reconcile their results with evolutionary archaeology: “What could account for the disparity between the observed substitution rate and those derived from phylogenetic analyses?” In the paper, they explored corrections to the equation based on “mutation ‘hot spots’,” based on “random genetic drift,” based on mutational reversion, and based on natural selection. So when critics complain that Parsons was a christian and that is why he obtained the YEC results he did, they have no idea what they are talking about.

This is how ignorant the critics of the Earth being young really are. For example when Dr. Mays asserted to YEC Dr Jeanson that the mitochondrial DNA mutation rates/substitution rates must be calibrated on the evolutionary timescale, he proclaimed his bias and ignorance all while forming a circular reasoning argument. He wants evolutionary timescales to be added in conflicting observation rates because they do not agree with his narrative of history. If that is not bad science I do not know what is.

In YEC Dr. Jeansons own words, he makes it very clear that he has never made up his own mutation rate, he never overlooks data and he doesn't ignore conflicting studies. All have been accounted for...

It should be obvious from discussions and quotes from Replacing Darwin that I do not “throw away” data and equations contrary to the 6,000-year timescale. I do not arbitrarily reject other coalescent equations. I do not arbitrarily reject the reliability of ancient DNA. I do not ignore the role of natural selection, the distinction between mutation rates and substitution rates, or the claims about the need for calculations based on “neutral variation.” Rather, I ask what testable predictions flow from each of these considerations. I have found only one model that makes testable, accurate retrodictions and predictions, and I have endeavored to explore and advance the predictions that flow from it.

This video shows the correlation between atheism and evolution. It shows the type of mindset that is obtained from such a belief.

This video I expose that homology is a biblical Creationist Prediction and we cover a lot more!

This video + Article is all about Cladistics and how they used word play to swindle mankind into the ape kind

You Creationist believe in more evolution than we (evolutionists) do ! Why can’t evolution be true? When was the"ice age"? How long was it? Ice core data What about the meteor impacts on earth and the moon? I thought dinosaurs have been extinct million of years before Noah Why can't we find humans from Noah's flood in the rock layers? Bird Evolution and More!

Why Radiometic Dating is actually amazing evidence for YEC and why this answer solves the problem other Creationists have such as the Heat Problem in CPT flood model

This video exposes evolutions origins were nothing but lies stacked with more lies.

This video goes over technical peer reviewed germline predigree mutation rate studies and how they all point to the Biblical Timeline. Here are the studies and the results they gave...

Pedigree studies in video…

Parsons = 1.2 - 4.0/site/Myr

ADFIL family (73 lineages) 0.0578 per site per generation (1 sub every 17 generations)

Oxford families (5 lineages) 0.029 per site per generation (1 sub every 32 generations)

Amish Families (40 lineages) 0.013 per site per generation (1 sub every 80 generations)

The majority of the lineages came from the ADFIL blood samples which had a substitution rate of 1 every 17 generations. Data was pooled together for an average substitution rate of 1/33.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14126594_A_high_observed_substitution_rate_in_the_human_mitochondrial_DNA_control_region

Parsons 1998

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13695909_Population_Data_for_101_Austrian_Caucasian_mitchondrial_DNA_d-loop_sequences_Application_of_mtDNA_sequence_analysis_to_a_forensic_case

Ann Gibbons reporting = "The researchers sequenced 610 base pairs of the mtDNA control region in 357 individuals from 134

different families, representing 327 generational events, or times that mothers passed on mtDNA to their offspring. Evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations (one every 12,000 years). So they were "stunned" to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations, or one every 800 years. The data were published last year in

Nature Genetics, and the rate has held up as the number of families has doubled, Parsons told scientists who gathered at a recent international workshop* on the problem of mtDNA mutation rates. Howell's team independently arrived at a similar conclusion after looking deep within the pedigree of one Australian family affected with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy, a disease caused by an mtDNA gene mutation". https://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf

Arguments made against these fast mutation rates were refuted by Howell, Mackey, Holland and Parsons https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716008/

Howell et al. gave an estimate of 0.75/site/Myr (1 substitutions in 40 transmission/generations) the mutation rate ranged from

2.6x10^-7 bp/generation to 5.2x10^-5) page 505 and 506 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1914922/?page=1

2001 Evelyn Heyer - This deep rooted pedigree study found the same results as Parsons;"In 508 maternal transmissions, we observed four substitutions (0.0079 per generation per 673 bp, 95% CI 0.0023–0.186). Combined with other familial studies, our results add up to 18 substitutions in 1,729 transmissions (0.0104), confirming earlier findings of much greater mutation rates in families than those based on phylogenetic comparisons. "For the HVI sequences, we obtained 220 generations or 6,600 years" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274355/

R Lundstrom in 1992 1 substitution every 25 generations, same as Howells results in 1996. In the study you will see Ward et al was used to estimate the divergence of human and chimp split but they could not deny the observed results of 7x10^-6 in table 3.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.89.13.5961

2004 D. Rohde, S. Olson & T. Chang et al "Mathematical simulation --"All modern individuals have identical ancestors by about 3,000 BC. and the simulation produce a mean IA date of 5,353 BC. Interestingly, the MRCA's are nearly always found in Eastern Asia".

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842

Cristina Santos in 2005. Another deep rooted pedigree on HVRI and HVRII. "Five hundred samples corresponding to individuals from 26 extensive families with Azorean ancestry were obtained. From this sample bank we selected 422 individuals representing 48 independent mtDNA lineages (fig. 1) corresponding to 321 mtDNA transmissions." Results; 0.2415 mutations/site/Myr) and 6 substitutions, 321 transmission events.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15814829/

2012 Lorena Madrigal 71.1 × 10^−6 substitutions per site per generation, and assuming a (female) average generation interval of 28.3 years, a range of 1.24 × 10^−6, per site per year to 2.51× 10^−6 substitutions per site per year. This is basically identical to Parsons at 2.76 x 10^−6 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.22052

Stoneking’s 2016 9.54×10^−7 and the D-loop was 1.5 × 10^−6 mutations per site per generation.

Jeanson from Ding et al whole mtDNA region 9.55×10^−6 or 0.0063 per site per year and 1.08x10^−5 mutation per base pair per generation for the D-loop = 0.196 mutations per generation with 0.169 average 95% confidence. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9554

Dr. Jeanson used the empirical mutation rate using the whole genome mtDNA mutation rates that were calculated from the raw data in the published literature from Ding et al (2015) he published his work in AiG journal for a mitochondrial Eve living 6,000 years ago using coalesce and the mutation rate.