Ken Ham "Do Animals Evolve" Debunk 2of5

[CoopersQuill]

Ken Ham is right in what he teaches. To think that a cockroach given millions of years will transform itself into a sperm whale is beyond desperate to deny the reality that there is a Creator. Ken never said that evolution created prejudice, he simply implied that it promotes prejudice like many other things do. Like most deniers of God, the critic of K Ham is willing to twist logic and the words of others to promote his illogical point.

[Legend1One]

I wish you would have allowed the video to play uninterrupted. Your interjections are annoying. I'm leaving to search for thie unedited version of this video. Thanks for introducing me to Ken Ham.

[gregrutz]

@Legend1One He is showing how uneducated and wrong Ken Ham is, and you want to watch more bull shit from Ken? LOL You people show more stupidity every day.

[gregrutz]

@Legend1One He is showing that ken ham is a liar dummy.

[Legend1One]

@gregrutz Not every viewer is as slow as you and needs "pop-ups" messages to guide and steer our opinions; so clearly you misunderstood my point, It's not about ken ham is a lair, Einstein!

[ilovetheview47]

why is it that ppl who say we didnt come from apes look like them?

[Southwestrepresent]

dont waste your energy on this ignorant Southerns. They fuck their cousins, hate black people, and believe in bronze age tradition.

The fact that they are afraid of different believes that dramatically change their perspective shouldnt surprise anyone, look how hard they fought to keep segregation and racism in the south should it surprise anyone that they are afraid that science is telling them that another of their core beliefs is utter horseshit

[braedencowbrough]

@Southwestrepresent I know it is probably a lost cause but we still have to try. Even if we just change one mind that makes it all worth it. You can still be religious and accept evolution. Im not religious not because evolution but because I was never raised religious, plus, books with contradictions and intelligence below that of modern day humans does not prove to me of a supernatural being.... plus noah's ark seemed like bullshit from when I was 5

[patrickledford420]

evolution is obviously fact and the variations is exactly the same as evolution just over longer time dumbass you can add enough feet to get enywhere if you have enough

[cwallace8]

no matter which way you slice it, evolution is a religion, you have to believe that these things took place over "millions and millions of years" the thing that still blows me away is that its still tax funded

[solomon4451]

couldn't have said it better my self

[braedencowbrough]

@cwallace8 Okay so if evolution is religion it keeps the same dogma from begginning. Evolution hasn't. They theory has been updated slightly now and again in order to fit the observable evidence. For example, punctuated equilibrium and hardy-weinberg principle. We have documented evolution in modern day, we just mean for the time it takes to completely have nearly zero outside resemblance of a common ancestor (bones may still be similar) it takes a while.

[braedencowbrough]

@cwallace8 For example, do you think you could tell your ancestor from 1000 B.C.E ? You do have one from then because everyone one of your ancestors were winners in evolutionary terms, because you exist.

[BriantheCarson]

It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution, what 'evidence' are you talking about??? Evolution is not an exact science it is a theory. You may argue that what Ham says is also not exact science, but listen if we evolved and are the same as animals this is what it means, it is ok to kill, have abortions, steal, engage in all sorts of sexual activity with no boundaries, destroy each others property, why does it matter how we treat each other, we are simply evolved monkeys!!

[Yujifanik]

Really?

& according to the Bible we could kill, steal, rape etc. if they don't believe?

& last I checked they haven't corrected those little 'misconceptions' yet.

[BriantheCarson]

your comment makes no sense, if you believe in the theory of evolution then please come up with something a bit more substantial than that, tut tut

[Yujifanik]

Read the Bible all the crimes you just listed are deemed acceptable if they're done to non-believers of the Bible.

& don't tell me its not a mis-interpretation of scripture! If it wasn't meant to be there in the first place than it shouldn't be there now!

[BriantheCarson]

I have read the bible, (several times!), I also have a theology degree but have no idea what you are meaning. Can you please give me the references so that I can check what you are meaning

[gregrutz]

@BriantheCarson - If you work on a Sabbath, you should be killed [Exodus 31:15]

- If your son disobeys you, murder him [Deut 21:18 -21]

- Sell your daughter into slavery to pay the bills [Exodus 21:7]

- If your children curse you, kill them [Lev. 20:9]

- Women are subservient, they must remain silent [1 Tim 2:11-12]

- Slaves must perform any act you wish [Titus 2:9]

[braedencowbrough]

@BriantheCarson The first evidence came morphology, as well as a little help from malthus. Darwin realized with malthus's help that we aren't overun with the fast breeding organisms because they die out and not every single one reproduces. By reproducing you pass on your hereditary. If you were successfull and so were the next 50 generations of your ancestors, there will be a lot of the one hereditary in the gene pool in comparison to others.

[braedencowbrough]

@BriantheCarson Lol we are accountable to each other. Even animals have social structures where killing is not appropriate. for someone with a theology degree I am surprised you aren't a little more educated in your own readings. We understand the bible is an allegory, but it still condones killing, genocide, incest, slavery, infanticide, stoning of children, killing of non-virgins, that we are all inbred as fuck and all manners of things.

[braedencowbrough]

@BriantheCarson By the way it wouldn\t even matter if evolution did condone all that, which is doesn't, it doesn't make it incorrect. I can bitch and moan all I want that the flying spaghetti monster is the one and only god, but it doesn't make it anymore right.

[Lookin4TruthDotCom]

Macro evolution (one species to another) would require an increase in genetic complexity not just a shift in gene frequency (alteration within species).

[djarm67]

Speciation requires genetically reproductive isolation not an increase in genetic complexity. In addition please demonstrate how a change in allelic frequency "cannot" result in an increase in genetic complexity.

[bobthecat420]

@Lookin4TruthDotCom  Micro evolution IS macro evolution; small changes build up over enough time and constitute macro evolution when two speicies emerge from one.

[braedencowbrough]

@Lookin4TruthDotCom Scientists tend to avoid the term macroevolution now. It is just called evolution... There are documented cases of speciations in which a foreign population originating from the native population can no longer produce viable offspring with the native group. One cool example is ring species.

[djarm67]

This is a strawman. Your definition of evolution is not the definition of evolution.

[warriorprince1010]

Evolution - new information in the genome of animals thats brings a new working positive function that is passed via the sperm or egg cell of an animal to its offspring. Science = We have no evdience that this is possible, we have never seen it and therefore it is deemed impossible by science.

[Mithcoriel]

You should study genetics a bit. Yes, it is possible for the amount of DNA in a genome to increase. Yes, it is possible for changes to happen that are beneficial. There are even observed instances of speciation. No, no part of science deems this impossible.

Please don't just repeat random claims by creationists.

[djarm67]

Evolutionary theory predicts the following facts. Any violation of these facts and Evolution heads back to the drawing board to explain them.

No bunnies in the Cambrian

No birds with nipples

No flowering plant pollen in the Permian

No mammals with feathers

No T-Rex poo with zebra bones

[braedencowbrough]

@djarm67 SHHHHHH you can tell them how to prove evolution incorrect all you want but they aren't listening :)

[ccrpalex]

What you doing here is you are looking at other peoples views and where they might of make mistakes. Look at atheistic points they everything and I mean everything based on a theory no facts whatsoever... Except for what we study now. NO facts about past... Everything what Ken Ham talks about is based on bible and it is fact because people wrote this who lived in those times and experienced it... What prove do you have that earth and universe billions of years old.. did you live that long???

[djarm67]

This is not simply another point of view. This is a corporation making millions by lying and misrepresenting science, promoting ignorance and wanting to have their dishonesty taught in science class. They lie and misrepresent facts in an attempt to justify an extremely narrow theological view based on a specific literal (when convenient) interpretation of scripture. This is not atheism versus the bible. I am a christian. You have been lied to by these charlatans. Let me help you realise this.

[ccrpalex]

Well name me one fact of evolution point of view where scientists know how long have animals lived??? Ask any scientist he is gonna tell you it is ALL a theory... no facts what so ever....

[Englishdosser86]

All scientific theories are based on facts. A scientific theory isn't a guess. Even tree rings prove that the Earth is older than 10,000 years. Then you have ice rings, radioactive dating, geology, astronomy (to name a few). There were people that wrote down stories about Hercules and the ancient Greek gods around the time that it supposedly occurred. Does that make it a fact?

[ccrpalex]

DUDE HOW OLD ARE YOU? 10? Do you even listen to your self?

"All scientific theories are based on facts."

THEORY: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural.

FACT: a truth known by actual experience or observation.

If earth is millions of years old and there was an evolution where is evidence? There are no fossils that show fish turning in to land animal.

and remember FIRST comes theory and after observing and proving theory, comes FACT. ASK ANY PROFFESSOR. Do research. I DID MINE

[gojaggiesgo]

wow, ccrpalex... you sound utterly clueless.

[Yujifanik]

Ignoring what you see doesn't prove they don't exist.

Plus a Theory is a framework of built on observed facts & common laws of nature.

A theory NEVER comes first, what your thinking of is epiphany where you suddenly realize an answer based on experience.

A fact is something that is irrefuteable even against the strongest faith. For instance if you stick your hand in fire you'll get burned even if you're devout Christian.

[ccrpalex]

If you read books of DARWIN he admits in his last books that he failed that didn't find any evidence of evolution. If you would like to argue with me about please do. But every evolutionist that I ever proved that There was no evolution they get mad at me and stop talking couse they know they are wrong or can't prove anything. I was an evolutionist once myself but after spending few years in researches I saw that there could not be an evolution...

[Englishdosser86]

You have not read the books of Darwin in their entirety. You have looked at some quote mines collected off creationist websites with an agenda. Do you know how I know? Because you're wrong. If not, then give me the quote of where he says that. Also, did you know Darwin invented his theory 150 years ago? It has developed alot since then, improved and been tested multiple times in ways he couldn't conceive.

[Englishdosser86]

You're telling me you've spent a 'few years in researches'? That's a lie or mischaracterization of the truth. I believe this because:

Your definition of theory is in the colloquial sense. The definition of a scinetific 'theory' is completely based on facts and hypotheses etc (it is even defined on wikipedia - pretty poor research).

'First Comes theory and after...' - WRONG. Research the 'scientific method'. First comes the facts, then hypotheses, then predictions and tests - THEN theories.

[JesusFreack101]

But humans can be wrong.......no matter how many times tested.

[Yujifanik]

On that note your right.

Even in the area of religion, people can be wrong no matter how sure of their beliefs they may be.

[Yujifanik]

When you hear the word Theory do you also think of the word Epiphany?

[Yujifanik]

The people who wrote the Bible were writing down things said by people who weren't there to hear the meaning of the original sources. Those people were saying things that they claim Jesus said & since Jesus was dead & didn't stick around to make sure they got the message right. So they just took whatever came off the top of their heads & then tacked it on to something Jesus said or they made it up completely.

[JesusFreack101]

Not necessarily true, in the new testament John the apostle wrote St. John and the book of Revelations.

[solomon4451]

this is a common misunderstanding those who were preaching Christ's words were actually converted jews. in that time it was common practice for jews to memorize the entire old testament as well as the teachings of there rabbi's. So it would be silly to say that memorizing Christ's words was a challenge this is simply what the jews did. Also there is evidence that Christ spoke in poetic rhythm which would make this task even easier

[Yujifanik]

Y'know if that is the case then why haven't people corrected or clarified these issues publicly??

Or is it what is, a matter of interpretation?

[solomon4451]

people do talk about these issues publicly there are even books on the subject such as The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel. the problem is that nobody listens. Jewish tradition cannot be a matter of interpretation though.

[braedencowbrough]

@ccrpalex Seriously? # 1 atheism is a rejection of proof without evidence regarding supernatural entities. You can be atheistic and not support evolution... #2 hey so you weren't around when the bible was written, you sure it wasn't just some nutjob with a pen? You don't need to seed the exact event to know what happened. For example, we can find out who your parents were without seeing them fuck through DNA. We can tell how old the earth is through radiometric dating. Seeing isn't believing

[terskip]

Lol! Thanks for proving my point.

[terskip]

Just as people claim ignorance of creationism. I find these debunking videos perfect evidence of the atheist ignorance of the creationist argument.

[Zed1967]

Creationists don't really have an argument, there isn't one scientific journal that has stood up to peer review.

There is a mountain of scientific journals in support of evolution by natural selection, not one of them contradicts this theory in the 150 years since evolution was proposed.

[sammyman2210]

Great video. Only shame is that more people havn't seen it.

[Yujifanik]

Don't worry you should go to the account ExtantDodo, he was the original director for this debunk series the ones he uploaded himself have a LOT more views.