Why do evolutionists insist that there must be a great heat loss in an "open" system for there to be an increase in order in that system? This is actually just the opposite of reality. This is why Creationists cannot take Evolution seriously as it goes against scientific law.
This video contains the same fallacy of ray comfort's soda can argument. Its no wonder why creationists don't believe in evidence, they don't know what evolution is.
Contrary to what creationists believe, evolution doesn't apply to non-living objects, nor does anyone claim it does.
it seems that humans have evolved again after 100 billion years, to the higher form of homostupidus or those who by a common tongue are called "evolutionists"...you guys really are as dumb as i thought. if all things came about without a creator then we all shoould be sharing the wealth on every invention and technology, since we all come from the same primortal soup, microsoft where the HELL is my check...lol
@hotchizel It's sarcasm. Creationists say that there are no hard evidence for evolution, but there are many. So following their logic soon we will be questioning math, because we can also ignore everything logical and say there are no evidence to support math.
Erm, Apes didn't give birth to Humans. We share a common ancestor. And Dogs have not been around since the birth of time, they all -ALL- descend from wolves. By the hands of man. We bred them... thats how they evolved. Fact.
The creationist debate really is silly and redundant, and only people as ignorant as Hovind can accept it.
WTF is this guy an idiot? He can talk over people and say that origin does not matter when it does. Origin is the question that people are TRYING to answer and the god/gods believers are trying to justify there religious views as scientific fact. It is a theory to explain what we did not know AT THAT TIME. To tell you the truth people can think what ever they like there ALL theories. HERES THE TRUTH WE ARE SPACE COWS HERE TO BE EATIN BY SOMETHING ELSE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I ran out of space :( if you what to believe in your dumb-shit then believe in your dumb-shit & let us know are dumb-shit stop trying to make others believe in your voodoo if they want to believe in voodoo then let them if not then let them isn't that what that god person/thing told you to do anyways. Really real people that live in the really real world know and understand the laws & rules of this world & we are understanding it more & more AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR REALLY SCARED OF IN THE 1ST PLACE
@gregrutz Hey, you accidently mixed in humans and apes. I think you meant to say
Humans are still Humans.
Apes are still apes.
Can apes do what humans do? (drive, build, create, imagine, etc) No. There I answered it for you. On top of that, have you seen an ape give birth to a human, or a human an ape? I sure haven't, but you must produce MUCH faith to believe that apes become humans. Not going to happen.
@gregrutz So you are saying "yes" to having seen an ape give birth to a human? You said "Chimps are our closest relative, they are a different species and will never make humans, they have evolved as long as we have." That's my point, monkeys are different and will never make humans. (You contradicted yourself in this whole thing, sorry had to point it out.)
@gregrutz "Ape = Chimps, Gorillas and Humans." But you said apes are also chimps and gorillas? So by what you said, you're all 3 of them at the same time and not just a human ape. Please tell when the first time an ape turned into a human and what gender it was, unless.. 2 apes at the SAME TIME evolved into a female and male human.
Kent hovind has a point here. Why do we even bother with all this evolution and big bang crap? It is clearly very imperfect and has many pieces of the puzzle left to be fitted together.
@7tylerjb Evolution has so much evidence in support of it - so much so that it is universally accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. It is the only theory that can explain all the scientific data available. Kent ovind wants us to think that there is controversy among the scientists about evolution - yes, there is controversy, but it is not about whether evolution happened or not, it is about the detailed mechanisms involved, whether it progressed gradually or not, etc.
@rpk58 Lol dude your so sure it happened. Have we truly observed macro evolution or chemical or even cosmological evolution? No we have not. We can't go back in time. We never will observe these things because according to scientists it takes a very long time for them to happen.
@7tylerjb No I am not 100% certain, but there is a high probability that it happened so. No we have not observed these events because it is not possible. But direct observation is not the only way science gathers evidence. When direct observation is impossible, we rely on fossil records, geology, radio dating, genetic evidence, etc. We formulate a theory that can explain all the evidence that we have - so far, we have discovered even a single evidence that can prove evolution to be false.
@rpk58 Scientists observe the fossil record. Geologists directly observe rocks. They sequence DNA and observe the markers which prove evolution happened.
@7tylerjb The power of a theory is that it can be used to make predictions - no, not predictions about future, but predictions about what kind of evidence we are likely to discover.
For example, There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
@7tylerjb "Have we truly observed macro evolution or chemical or even cosmological evolution?" These are terms made up by Hovind. When biologists talk about evolution, they're talking about biological evolution (the combination of what Hovind calls "micro-" and "macro-") And yes, both of these have been observed, witnessed first hand in laboratories.
@7tylerjb So your argument is that if there are some pieces of the puzzle science hasn't yet figured out, everything they HAVE figured out must somehow be wrong, and we should instead believe in an ancient fable for our historical information?
The bible says that God made us I dont care if you believe in evolution or creation because God made us either way and his message is love each other even when you have different opinions.
This man is seriously deluded and dangerous. On what authority does he challenge a scientific theory approved by the majority of the scientific community? On the authority of a book written in bronze age? Doesn't he realize that that is not the only such book available, and because of that his position is an opinion, not a fact?
Why am I bothering to write? There is no way to reason with people who cannot see reason.
@rpk58 It is called free speech. Lol @ he is deluded and dangerous. Is that why scientists actually debate him? Your criticizing him because he is opposed to your theory.
@7tylerjb Not "my" theory - it is the scientific theory, which has the consensus of the scientific community, which is arrived at by a process of observation, empirical reasoning, testing, verification by thousands of scientists all around the globe. It is a process which has self correction built into it, and has been responsible for our progress. Kent wants to throw all that away and depend on a book without any evidence to support it. I am opposing him because he makes no sense.
Hovid: "Don't discuss origins because, either way, you'll upset somebody.
Me: I don't care if it upsets you. Evolution happened. Six fields of science have hundreds of thousands of points of evidence for it. The creationist view has ONE point of evidence - an incoherent collection of 4000-year-old desert scribblings by some bronze-age murdering, raping, enslaving and genocidal goat herders. If that upsets you, then hide behind a different book.
@BailiffQuimby The theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence. That scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a creation, followed by a global Flood. Stop acting like there is SO MUCH evidence to back up evolution it gets annoying.
@7tylerjb "That scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a creation, followed by a global Flood."
I'm not going to sit here and list off the books worth of information confirming evolution (they're there, I've read them). Let's just pick one at random. Explain how the phenomenon of chromosome #2 is better explained through creation and a flood than by evolution. (YouTube search for "Ken Miller on Human Evolution")
Holy fucktard. Yes, surgeons do use their knowledge of evolution and development on a daily basis. It explains variations in anatomy, why parts are where they are, and genetic basis for congenital disease. If you remove evolution from biology, you are left with a sparse, disconnected science.
why are these people so backward - dogs breed dogs ? do they realise that dogs are a perfect example of how humans have changed a species via artificial selection - 5000 years ago there was the wild dog, now there are 100's of breeds of dogs - that evolution !!! the only difference is that nature naturally "selects" the "breeds" that survive and it's called natural section - over millions of years we can get from a bug to a human - WAKE UP PEOPLE !!
Hey there, just to let you know, artificial is the human intervention. Natural is not artificial. They are polar opposites.
Darwinian Evolution Theory (Matter + Time+ Energy + Natural Selection = Abiogenesis & Evolutionary Speciation) states that through NATURAL processes, life can happen. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics refutes this completely, but there's more too.
Creationists state that Matter + Time + Energy + Information = Life
Moronic idiot no wonder he is jail. At least natural selection will knock out these bosos as women will not want to reproduce with them. In fear of their children being taught this crap.
Ehhh shut up.. just shut up. I'm an atheist i don't care what you believe in, I would still love you because you HUMAN, but i do care on the action you take. don't be an idiot you know what i mean
The cutlery analogy is just reductio ad absurdum. Also remember that cutlery can't self-reproduce, the very requirement of evolution.
Understanding how evolution works is not pointless because people use its principles in today's life. Farmers plant their crops in such a way that only the characteristics they want (bigger fruits, no seeds, etc.) survive the population pool. Besides, if you don't agree with the theory taught using taxpayer's money, just take your kids off public schools.
Why do people listen to kent hovind look at his educational background please anyone before listening to the absurd comments coming from his mouth. His comment at 4.20 is unbelievable in any other country in the western world he get laughed off stage for that, but no in the christian run states he is applauded for his ignorance.
Why don't you go and do some research first before saying something like that. Here I can help you out go and read up on the lenski experiment or the lizards of pod mrcaru. One more thing if I was you and I thought evolution was science fiction and wouldnt ever have a vaccine again. Do you know that vaccines are developed on the basis that evolution is correct.
1) I have studied each topic and evidence he has presented, and I have found absolutely NO FLAW. All the facts he presents are all as accurate as the fact, Michael Jackson says Hee-Hee' in many of his songs.'
2) He's a true God-fearing Christian. The average Christian doesnt WANT to lie, and Hovind has stated MANY times that he wants to be RIGHT all the time.
3) When you say he's a liar, you're either confused, proud, or lying yourself.
evolution cant teach you. You are confusing Evolution which is a physical science, to philosophy. You are just believe what fundies want you to believe. Evolution is the study of the origin of Species, it has no input on how 1 behaves as much as religion has on some 1 smells. if you rape and kill you are just a criminal. true fact most criminals in jail are christian.
ok lets say that you are right but that still doesn't explain the fact that about 1% off all prison convict are are atheists. why is that I have been in jail btw (punched a cop)and know FOR A FACT that their is a CHRISTIAN bias in jail. And have seen the guilt trip may preachers do to many there. now for your john lennon told me 2 do it then John lennon is evil then or the person is insane. .Either way evoltuon has nothing to do with it.
This came to me last night. Mormons killed native americas saying they were not human. Pope called for the deaths of countless muslims saying it was the way to heaven, in europe and US many were burned at stakes for at the most practicing a diff religion that was locally practiced. Forgiveness is only forgivenss if they become their religion iof not THEY KILL YOU. NO THAT IS BULLSHIT. your anger over this proves it.
No but you can rape, murder, lie, cheat and steal and then find your invisible friend for redemption. Without ever consulting the person who have done the horrid deed to.
evolution is well supported by the best and most current data. This is why you'll find it taught in biology books all across the world, america, european countries, china, japan, etc., etc.
The origins of things are not in the realm of science? How dare he make these false claims. First of all, he does not publish peer reviewed papers, he is not a trained biologist, or for that matter any type of scientist. And if that wasn't enough he graduated from a unaccredited college. So what about his credibility? Forget any apologetic excuse, he is in jail for a fucking reason. He LIED repeatedly so how can anyone possibly assure me that he did not lie in any of his debates?
Why waste time trying to understand how the sun works? Without knowing how the sun works, we still get warmth in the winter, we still get light to see with, we still get plants growing. Why bother learning about nuclear fusion? lol
Funny how the Darwinian zealots could not win debates with their ideas, so they decided to play dirty and have Hovind "investigated." They dug up dirt on him and exploited it to silence him. This does not absolve Hovind of wrongdoing, but it sure is dirty pool.
No... we should ignore the majority of the best scientists who have expertise in a particular field, and instead rely on a silly religious book. Your logic is flawless!
i would suggest relying on what is readily observable and obvious. EG, the Bible says God created animals according to their "kind." and that is exactly what we observe in the fossil record and the animal kingdom. Or, the Bible says there was a flood and, lo and behold, there are stratified layers containing intact animal skeletons that would be consistent with same.
Yeah, but evolution is based observable data and evidence. This is why it's a scientific theory and religion is not. The flood story is very silly. The idea that the koala bears swam across the indian ocean to get to Noah's ark, where Noah had some eucalyptus trees on his ark to keep them fed is silly. Also we don't find animals from different time periods mixed in one 6000 year old layer. we find them separated by time period, over hundreds of millions of years.
Tell me, what is the best "observable data and evidence" for evolution? Don't reply with interpretations of data, conjecture, theories, or speculation based on preconcieved prejudices, etc. I want "observable data and evidence." as you call it. What kinds or groups of animals did Noah have on the Ark?
Wow, you're right! There's no arguing against THAT sound logic. You're a regular Einstein, aren't you? Do me a favor and go back to watching your favorite Lady Gaga music videos. Let the grown-ups handle this one, k?
Sorry guys, I just hate it when people like VarialProductions make pathetic, cruel remarks that make them feel like they actually did something meaningful with their life. I like to call them out on it. I probably shouldn't, as my rection doesn't further the debate.
6). First off, the impact happened a couple billion years ago. The Impact crater has already been filled up when the Moon was, thats right, covered with Active volcanoes. Infact, the moons core is actually full of Magma. Secondly, what do you mean by "Already have to be cool"? Cool for what?
7). I was not aware that Humanity has the technology to visit other star systems.
6) How did that hole in the earth get filled up? The earth had to already be cooled, or else the force of the impact would have not formed another major celestial body. Also, the force of the impact would have pushed the moon material out of the earth's gravitational reach. 7) I'm simply talking about the 7 other planets in our Solar System, and their many moons. No life on them (that "evidence" of life found on Mars in the 90's was later rescinded by NASA.)
The crust of the Earth i solid, the magma underneath isn't so there should have been no worries for the earth to reform. The force of the impact could very well just leave the moon where it is, it all depends on the angle of the impact and its energy.
7) We don't know that there isn't any life on the other planets in the solarsystem. How can you be so sure there isn't any?
6) I'd like to see the mathematical data on how that even could work. I still believe that the earth's gravity is far too weak to be able to "capture" the moon, and this is the problem that scientists cannot explain.
Sorry. Forgot to comment on #7. If evolution were true, then life should start on every other planet as well. The organisms would have to adapt to their enviornment as well, but they would be able to survive and evolve. Why are there none in our System as evolved as we are? Why not even any animals anywhere? If an alien species sent a probe to earth, it would take 0.45821 seconds for it to detect life. We're desperately searching for some, and can't find it (Personally, I wish it was out there).
1) Sorry, let me rephrase: where did the energy/matter ULTIMATELY come from? 2) You can't give me a hypothesis 3) Almost every major scientist scoffs at the thought of abiogenesis... until they realize that evolution is impossible w/o it 4) No, since they are not complete in their evolutionary process yet. 5) Your answer to 4 makes me think you believe in P.E. 6) Have you seen the moon recently? NO evidence of a crater that size anywhere, and the planet had to already be cool 7) Why isn't there?
1). We dont know where it Ultimately comes from. Based on our knowledge of Physics, it doesnt come from anywhere, it was never created.
2). Not enough information to present a hypothesis, no.
3). Actually, Evolution is still possible without Abiogenesis. You see, God couldve created the first single celled organism and Evolution would still be correct.
4). Birds today are also not complete in their evolutionary process. Evolution never stops. Animals keep evolving.
So, you admit: 1) You don't know 2) You don't know 3) I already said to explain it w/o God, so you don't know how it's possible w/o Him 4) You did not answer the question still, and I feel like you're avoiding it. 5) P.E. is Punctuated Equilibrium, the "scientific" belief that evolution occurred in rapid bursts between millions of years. Some scientists use this to explain the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, as there is no evidence of transitional forms between the two.
I have a debate set up on that debate forum ending in org, but someone claimed it already. I've never used this website before, so I don't know if multiple people can argue on a topic. I haven't even looked at his rebuttal yet.
Sure, id love to have the seven questions as a basis for our debate on the site. I see that you are almost finished with your debate, so perhaps after you are done with that debate, we can start our own?
I'm gonna have to say "good-bye" to all my YouTube friends I am debating with. I'm taking summer classes, and I'm already debating this topic on another, more formal debate site. Plus this one is too disorganized for debate. Thanks! Contact me or Tkbuk for info on the other site!
These are soem questions I would like answered. If you are a Theistic Evolutionist, please dont' bother: 1) How did the big bang get its energy, mass? 2) How did nature's laws get established? 3) Do you believe in abiogenesis, and why? 4) What would a dnosaur evolving into a bird look like after 25 mill. years of this process? 5) Do you believe in punctuated equilibrium, if you cannot answer #4? 6) How did we get our moon? 7) Why could life not evolve on any other Solar planet?
3). I believe that the current theory of Abiogenesis is still in its infancy, and not near as supported as Evolution. And yes, i do accept that it is currently the best scientific explanation.
4). Like the birds of today.
5). I answered number 4.
6). The moon either was a fragment from the earth due to a giant impact, is the current prevailing hypothesis.
Theories and facts are different things. No one is saying that the theories are facts. However, Evolution is a fact. The big bang is a fact. The theory of Evolution, the Big bang theory, are theories that explain those occurances.
Sorry, I didn't catch that. You know that RNA is not life, right? RNA makes the proteins, which in turn make the cells. As I am currently reading the article in ScienceNews, I notice that they had to force them together; they did not naturally coem by themselves. So, this is not proof of abiogenesis, especially since they did not even create life. 1)In the oceans, as those "fountains" made them deeper. 2) The Hebrew slaves, I guess. Where does history state they were built right after the Flood?
1) There isn't enough water on the planet to have covered the Himalayas, even if you have no oceans at all. Making the oceans deeper does not solve that, where is the water?
2) The Flood happened 2348 BCE (During the reign of the pharaoh Unas who died 2345 BCE). Tower of Babel was supposed to have been built by Hams grandson (so only 2 generations later). How did all the people suddenly appear to build all this stuff, and also plant crops etc. if you only have 3 surviving women 2349 BCE.
I agree: remember, they don't need to be covered when they are formed during the Flood. As for your daring, I don't know. I'd like to see a reference for that.
Those dates are based on geneology and on science, if you are refuting them kindly supply some evidence that contradict it. When where the pyramids built according to you?
Furthermore it is only 2 generations from the flood to the building of the tower of Bable (according to the Bible) so where did all the people comefrom in just 2 generations starting with 3 females.
Two generations is not a problem for the Tower of Babel for a few reasons: 1) They simply started it after 2 generations 2) The process was not expected to be complete within a generation 3) They never finished the project, but left it incomplete. Also, polygamy was rampant in those days, as can be seen in multiple passages. I also forgot to add 1 more point to the post below: the exact wording in vs. 20 was, "and the mountains were covered". It does not state for how long they were covered.
actually itv is, That was just one of the different things being built. Polygami doesn't matter either as the women would have to be born too. The only ones they have to marry are their sisters and first cousins in the first generation and this inbreading will cause trouble and not give rise to race diversion (as is hinted). By the secons generation they only have sistes and first cousings as well as the grandsons are moving away from oneanother.
If the mountains were covered with water that water have to come from someplace, and this massive amount of water is not seen today, why.
Also, if all animals where on the ark, and then spread throughout the world after the flood. How did the flightless birds of New Zealand get there before the humans, they can't fly there or swim there and no humans could have brought them there either. Finally can you aswer *when*you think the pyraminds were built, before or after the flood.
the dates for the 5th dynasty Pharaoh Unas is generally given as 2373BCE to 2345 BCE. However, this isn't that important. Just tell me if the pyramids where built before or aftr the flood and we can then argue about the validity of when *you* place the flood and the other known historical events.
If the pyramids where built before the flood we should be able to see certain effects. If they where built after the flood other things come into play. so which one do you say it is?
Hmmm... both? I really don't know. Could it be possible that not all were made by the Egyptians? The Great Pyramid is different from the other ones in design; maybe the other were copied from it. I really can't say which, so I guess I would say both.
Actually, sorry to intrude, but the pyramids, based on their design and position, is completely in sync with Egyptian mythology and superstition. And since we even go as far as to know who the architect for most of the pyramids were, the pyramids were all, if not mostly all, built by the egyptians.
Agreed tkubok. We even know some of the worker gangs. (Note to MrButtons22: There are no indication that Jewish slave labours where used in the building of them).
They could all be made by Egyptians, yes. I noticed, in the Biblical geneology, that the names "Cush" and Mizraim" were in it as almost immediate descendents to Noah's children. These are names that are associated with Egypt. I know that no one knows who built the Great Pyramid, and it appears to be the oldest one. I do not know if there is evidence of water erosion to any of the pyramids, as I am not an archeologist. I know no comments on it either way.
If that is your statement then we should see different amount of water erosion on them. The ones built before "the flood" should be severely damaged by that while the ones built after should not. Why don't we see this?
Also, how did the flightless birds of New Zealand get there from the Ark before humans arrived on the islands. They cant walk or swim so how did they arrive?
The Bible does say that in the "Days of Peleg" the "earth was divided (Gen. 10:25). This was done 4 generations after Shem. It is, of course, completely possible that these birds were brought over by people. Also, it is interesting that the supreme god Io in Maori mythology (from N. Zealand) is extremely similar to the one in the Bible. For anymore Flood questions, look up answersingenesis. I will try to answer more, but I am no expert on it.
New Zealand does not belong to Gondwanaland or any other super continent so it has not had any contact with the landmass where the Ark landed. The Maori didn't bring them from Polynesia as there is no evidence of the Moa, Kiwi etc there, they wouldn't survive the trip in a canoe, and they are endemic to NZ despite the fact that the Polynesians settled in other places *before* going to NZ. So how did they get from the Ark? Is there a reasonable explanation?
I really can't answer this, but once again, I take it on faith and have been consistant with that statement throughout this debate. I do not know: are they able to reproduce with other birds? Remember that I believe in changes within species (definition of species according to the biological one on the website dictionary).
But this is the problem. As soon as two groups of a species can no longer interbreed with each other, they are separate species. Therefore, speciation has occured. This is, in essence, "macroevolution". Therefore, i cannot understand how you can deny Macro but claim to accept Micro, as well as speciation.
So... can they interbreed with other species of bird? Also, no new information is being put in the DNA, which is what evolution is about; new information to adapt to the changes in the enviornment.
Wrong order mate. New information gets into the DNA everyday. That information is not there "to adapt to changes in the environment", its is just there whether it is positive or negative (it gives a broad gene pool).
If there is a change in the environment some individuals might have a beneficial trait that can increase the likelihood for survival and pass that change along and successive generations weed out the individuals that hasn't got -at least part- of this new gene.
So, if the genetic info is not brought out by adapting to the enviornment, how is it brought out? Some sort of outside force? The creature's will? And how does this "new info" get into the DNA everyday? Where's your evidence for this?
Natural selection accumulates the traits that allow you to survive and reproduce.
Example: Assume that it is 10^15 chance to spontaneously form a particular new species from an old one. That is like taking 20 dice and rolling all sixes, unlikely.
Natural selection work like this:
Roll 20 dice, keep all 6 you get (they pass to the next generation) roll the remaining again (keep the 6) that is generation 2, and so on until you have all sixes. This is likely to happen.
Concerning gods that are similar to your own mythology or religion, please keep in mind that it goes both ways; that is, they may have been influenced by your beliefs, but theres also the chance that your beliefs were influenced by theirs instead.
The point that I am making is that this particular Deity is well-known. Of course the influence can go both ways, although I happen to believe that the influence came from my own. Logic would state that their beliefs came from the Hebrews, though. The Hebrew religion started with Abraham, who was in the Middle East, over 1,000 before the time of Christ.
I hope you are not implying that something that is well known, makes it true. Remember what was popular 600 years ago with the shape of the earth.
Also, just as an FYI, there are more primitive beliefs that outdate the Hebrew beliefs. And actually, taking a look at the Christian beliefs, you notice there are alot of stolen ideas from other religions.
Of course there are; there has to be. God appointed Abraham to be the father of His chosen people; he was not the first believer in this God. As far as the stolen ideas concerning Christianity, are you talking about Catholicism? That religion did take alot out of other religions. I am not a Catholic, so I will not even try to defend them.
The problem with this is that the original god concept is actually plural, as seen with the original useage of the word Yahweh, which actually means MULTIPLE gods, as well as God himself reffereing to himself as "We". Which begs the question, why did the old testament change into a single god?
Also, no, im not talking about Catholicism, i am talking about the Gospels. The Virgin birth for example, is a stolen idea.
Good point. Take the story of Noah. This was clearly based on "Utnapishtim" from the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh. It was after all written about 1000 years before the Old Testament Bible....
"Written about 1000 before the Old Testament Bible..." You know that the Bible is a collection of books, correct? 10 different authors penned different parts of the book of Genesis alone. They could have plagiarized the Epic of Gilgamesh... but is it really plagiarism if they are talking about an historical event (regardless of whether or not the story is exaggerated on either side)?
Although i do have a problem with that, especially with the fact that we dont know any authors of the four gospels, but that is regardless of the point you are trying to make. It IS really plagarism, if you take a story and EXCHANGE the characters of the story. If they were talking about the epic of gilgamesh, no, it is not plagarism. But if they replaced Gilgamesh with, oh, Abraham, then yes, it is plagarism.
Yes I do know that and the oldest of them was written about 1200 BCE. If they took the story from the Sumerians then how can we expect the record written 1000 later to be more "correct", if both of them are only basted on hearsay of an original event? The longer oral tradition exists the more it changes over time, just like Chinese whispers.
Yes according to the Bible (Genesis 7:19-21) all hills and mountains where covered. If montains formed "during" the flood they would have had to be cobered as well for those passages to be true.
"Daring"? We know how much water is in the oceans, we know the size of the earth, we know the size of the continents, we know the height of the talles mountains. Do the math.
Not particularly, no. The mountains were already covered at one point in the Flood, so the Bible is still accurate on that point. And "Daring" was a typo; I meant "Dating".
I'm gonna have to say "good-bye" to all my YouTube friends I am debating with. I'm taking summer classes, and I'm already debating this topic on another, more formal debate site. Plus this one is too disorganized for debate. Thanks! Contact me or Tkbuk for info on the other site!
Please, biomanwin, don't grovel and worship evolution. Seriously, I wouldn't state that our understanding of GRAVITY is fact. Why? Because we don't know the universe. We have explored such a miniscule amount of it that I think it is nothing less than arrogance to make any such assuming statement like that as if it were undeniable fact. You take evolution by faith, since it cannot explain everything. I take creation by faith, because I cannot prove it.
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do evolutionists insist that there must be a great heat loss in an "open" system for there to be an increase in order in that system? This is actually just the opposite of reality. This is why Creationists cannot take Evolution seriously as it goes against scientific law.
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
Comment removed
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
This video contains the same fallacy of ray comfort's soda can argument. Its no wonder why creationists don't believe in evidence, they don't know what evolution is.
Contrary to what creationists believe, evolution doesn't apply to non-living objects, nor does anyone claim it does.
letsgocaps8 1 month ago
Why is this monkey wearing a suit?
dummychaos 3 months ago
World class idiot. Period.
bevillenz 4 months ago
Kent Hovind: Ass up and face down since 2007.
lolgepwnt 4 months ago
Where is the proof that the Bible is the word of any of the Gods?
ozweblogs 6 months ago
hey kent hovind, unintellectual jokes aren't an argument.
TheNextVinceRusso 6 months ago
it seems that humans have evolved again after 100 billion years, to the higher form of homostupidus or those who by a common tongue are called "evolutionists"...you guys really are as dumb as i thought. if all things came about without a creator then we all shoould be sharing the wealth on every invention and technology, since we all come from the same primortal soup, microsoft where the HELL is my check...lol
hotchizel 6 months ago
Hey, let's question math. We also have no concrete evidence for math
Dumbass
padajajde 6 months ago
@padajajde
what do you mean "not concrete evidence" for math?
hotchizel 6 months ago
@hotchizel It's sarcasm. Creationists say that there are no hard evidence for evolution, but there are many. So following their logic soon we will be questioning math, because we can also ignore everything logical and say there are no evidence to support math.
padajajde 6 months ago
Lol this has to be a prank, has to be.
Why should a fact be taught as a theory rather than a fact?
Dogs produce dogs? How very clever, but youre forgetting that humans produced dogs from wolves!!!
We shouldnt study our origins because its irrelevant??? WTF?
mehico33 8 months ago
hovind/palin 2012!
setmedic 9 months ago
Erm, Apes didn't give birth to Humans. We share a common ancestor. And Dogs have not been around since the birth of time, they all -ALL- descend from wolves. By the hands of man. We bred them... thats how they evolved. Fact.
The creationist debate really is silly and redundant, and only people as ignorant as Hovind can accept it.
raginbullfrog 10 months ago
Kent Hovind is the biggest liar in US.
tajniak4 1 year ago
WTF is this guy an idiot? He can talk over people and say that origin does not matter when it does. Origin is the question that people are TRYING to answer and the god/gods believers are trying to justify there religious views as scientific fact. It is a theory to explain what we did not know AT THAT TIME. To tell you the truth people can think what ever they like there ALL theories. HERES THE TRUTH WE ARE SPACE COWS HERE TO BE EATIN BY SOMETHING ELSE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
KasperNightwolf 1 year ago
I ran out of space :( if you what to believe in your dumb-shit then believe in your dumb-shit & let us know are dumb-shit stop trying to make others believe in your voodoo if they want to believe in voodoo then let them if not then let them isn't that what that god person/thing told you to do anyways. Really real people that live in the really real world know and understand the laws & rules of this world & we are understanding it more & more AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR REALLY SCARED OF IN THE 1ST PLACE
KasperNightwolf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Same KIND? Yes!
Dogs make dogs.
Apes make apes.
That is why humans are still apes.
And all apes are still monkeys.
And all monkeys are still primates.
And all primates are still mammals.
And all mammals are still tetrapods.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Same KIND? Yes!
Dogs make dogs.
Apes make apes.
That is why humans are still apes.
And all apes are still monkeys.
And all monkeys are still primates.
And all primates are still mammals.
And all mammals are still tetrapods.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Hey, you accidently mixed in humans and apes. I think you meant to say
Humans are still Humans.
Apes are still apes.
Can apes do what humans do? (drive, build, create, imagine, etc) No. There I answered it for you. On top of that, have you seen an ape give birth to a human, or a human an ape? I sure haven't, but you must produce MUCH faith to believe that apes become humans. Not going to happen.
25blue24 1 year ago
@25blue24 Ape = Chimps, Gorrillas and Humans.
I did not mix humans with apes, humans are still apes.
You can't out grow your ancestry.
''have you seen an ape give birth to a human'' Yes, humans are apes.
Chimps are our closesest reletive, they are a different species and will never make humans, they have evolved as long as we have.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz So you are saying "yes" to having seen an ape give birth to a human? You said "Chimps are our closest relative, they are a different species and will never make humans, they have evolved as long as we have." That's my point, monkeys are different and will never make humans. (You contradicted yourself in this whole thing, sorry had to point it out.)
25blue24 1 year ago
@25blue24 Humans are apes, IDiot. When my mom had me, a human had an ape. Not a chimp, not a gorilla, a human ape. Like saying a human tetrapod.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Ape = Chimps, Gorillas and Humans." But you said apes are also chimps and gorillas? So by what you said, you're all 3 of them at the same time and not just a human ape. Please tell when the first time an ape turned into a human and what gender it was, unless.. 2 apes at the SAME TIME evolved into a female and male human.
25blue24 1 year ago
@25blue24 I am not sure you are smart enough to understand.
Humans are Homo Sapian/ape/primate/tetrapod/vertebrates/etc.
You have malibu, impala and camaro, they are all chevy cars.
You have humans, chimps and gorillas, thay are all ape primates.
And one individual did not suddenly change into something else, Populations evolve not male or female.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz All because something is similar doesn't mean they evolved. Could it possibly be that they may have the same designer?
25blue24 1 year ago
@25blue24 Nope, too many errors, like the thumb of a panda.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Kent Hovind is an IDiot, easy to Decide.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Kent hovind has a point here. Why do we even bother with all this evolution and big bang crap? It is clearly very imperfect and has many pieces of the puzzle left to be fitted together.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb Evolution has so much evidence in support of it - so much so that it is universally accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. It is the only theory that can explain all the scientific data available. Kent ovind wants us to think that there is controversy among the scientists about evolution - yes, there is controversy, but it is not about whether evolution happened or not, it is about the detailed mechanisms involved, whether it progressed gradually or not, etc.
rpk58 1 year ago
@rpk58 Lol dude your so sure it happened. Have we truly observed macro evolution or chemical or even cosmological evolution? No we have not. We can't go back in time. We never will observe these things because according to scientists it takes a very long time for them to happen.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb No I am not 100% certain, but there is a high probability that it happened so. No we have not observed these events because it is not possible. But direct observation is not the only way science gathers evidence. When direct observation is impossible, we rely on fossil records, geology, radio dating, genetic evidence, etc. We formulate a theory that can explain all the evidence that we have - so far, we have discovered even a single evidence that can prove evolution to be false.
rpk58 1 year ago
Comment removed
rpk58 1 year ago
@rpk58 Scientists observe the fossil record. Geologists directly observe rocks. They sequence DNA and observe the markers which prove evolution happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I agree, and I am arguing for evolution. You have confused me for someone else.
If it was due to my typo, which I explained in the last post, let me clear that up again - in one of my previous posts there is a sentence
"so far, we have NOT discovered even a single evidence that can prove evolution to be false.".
In the original post, the "NOT" was missing - a simple typo, and I explained that in the last post.
Pls dont jump to conclusions.
rpk58 1 year ago
@7tylerjb The power of a theory is that it can be used to make predictions - no, not predictions about future, but predictions about what kind of evidence we are likely to discover.
For example, There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
rpk58 1 year ago
@rpk58 No, that is not a common ancestor, you don't understand evolution.
There is no ''crocoduck''.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
rpk58 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7tylerjb Typo in my last post - I meant to say "..so far, we have not discovered even a single evidence ..", but the "not" is missing. Sorry.
rpk58 1 year ago
@7tylerjb "Have we truly observed macro evolution or chemical or even cosmological evolution?" These are terms made up by Hovind. When biologists talk about evolution, they're talking about biological evolution (the combination of what Hovind calls "micro-" and "macro-") And yes, both of these have been observed, witnessed first hand in laboratories.
BailiffQuimby 1 year ago
@7tylerjb So your argument is that if there are some pieces of the puzzle science hasn't yet figured out, everything they HAVE figured out must somehow be wrong, and we should instead believe in an ancient fable for our historical information?
BailiffQuimby 1 year ago
This audience is so stupid.
cpuchala7 1 year ago
The bible says that God made us I dont care if you believe in evolution or creation because God made us either way and his message is love each other even when you have different opinions.
cementium 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cementium There is no god you dimwit.
Mushuukyou 1 year ago
Wow, look at this silly creationist.
If he can't understand Natural Selection then he might as well travel back in time several hundred years. I'm sure he'll fit in just fine.
MadeToSleep 1 year ago
look at all the people trying to argue a video on the internet lol
Scarecrowkaiser17 1 year ago
This man is seriously deluded and dangerous. On what authority does he challenge a scientific theory approved by the majority of the scientific community? On the authority of a book written in bronze age? Doesn't he realize that that is not the only such book available, and because of that his position is an opinion, not a fact?
Why am I bothering to write? There is no way to reason with people who cannot see reason.
rpk58 1 year ago
@rpk58 It is called free speech. Lol @ he is deluded and dangerous. Is that why scientists actually debate him? Your criticizing him because he is opposed to your theory.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb Not "my" theory - it is the scientific theory, which has the consensus of the scientific community, which is arrived at by a process of observation, empirical reasoning, testing, verification by thousands of scientists all around the globe. It is a process which has self correction built into it, and has been responsible for our progress. Kent wants to throw all that away and depend on a book without any evidence to support it. I am opposing him because he makes no sense.
rpk58 1 year ago
@7tylerjb "Your criticizing him because he is opposed to your theory. "
Yeah, well that, and the fact that he believes the Flintstones to be an accurate depiction of history.
BailiffQuimby 1 year ago 2
Hovid: "Don't discuss origins because, either way, you'll upset somebody.
Me: I don't care if it upsets you. Evolution happened. Six fields of science have hundreds of thousands of points of evidence for it. The creationist view has ONE point of evidence - an incoherent collection of 4000-year-old desert scribblings by some bronze-age murdering, raping, enslaving and genocidal goat herders. If that upsets you, then hide behind a different book.
BailiffQuimby 1 year ago
@BailiffQuimby The theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence. That scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a creation, followed by a global Flood. Stop acting like there is SO MUCH evidence to back up evolution it gets annoying.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb "That scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a creation, followed by a global Flood."
I'm not going to sit here and list off the books worth of information confirming evolution (they're there, I've read them). Let's just pick one at random. Explain how the phenomenon of chromosome #2 is better explained through creation and a flood than by evolution. (YouTube search for "Ken Miller on Human Evolution")
BailiffQuimby 1 year ago
You're worse than Fox News, contorting the truth to make the opposition seem idiotic and crazy.
TKwarrior17 1 year ago 2
This man has mental problems, serirously...holy crap. I wonder how far off he is from the average creationist...they scare me sometimes.
Territomauvais 1 year ago
Holy fucktard. Yes, surgeons do use their knowledge of evolution and development on a daily basis. It explains variations in anatomy, why parts are where they are, and genetic basis for congenital disease. If you remove evolution from biology, you are left with a sparse, disconnected science.
mrcynic77 1 year ago
why are these people so backward - dogs breed dogs ? do they realise that dogs are a perfect example of how humans have changed a species via artificial selection - 5000 years ago there was the wild dog, now there are 100's of breeds of dogs - that evolution !!! the only difference is that nature naturally "selects" the "breeds" that survive and it's called natural section - over millions of years we can get from a bug to a human - WAKE UP PEOPLE !!
Boingts 2 years ago
@ Boingts
Hey there, just to let you know, artificial is the human intervention. Natural is not artificial. They are polar opposites.
Darwinian Evolution Theory (Matter + Time+ Energy + Natural Selection = Abiogenesis & Evolutionary Speciation) states that through NATURAL processes, life can happen. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics refutes this completely, but there's more too.
Creationists state that Matter + Time + Energy + Information = Life
Information comes from intelligence.
Kylehintz87 1 year ago
LOL, I love Kent! He is so funny and confident in the Lord!
EnduringForTheKing 2 years ago
Shut up Kent. Shut up Kent! JUST SHUT UP YOU FUCKING THICK TWISTED FUCK!
sfurner 2 years ago
@sfurner
LOL...and this is the sound of someones world falling apart.
planterzs 2 years ago 2
Kent Hovind is evil.
sfurner 2 years ago
Moronic idiot no wonder he is jail. At least natural selection will knock out these bosos as women will not want to reproduce with them. In fear of their children being taught this crap.
slicingwater 2 years ago
3:27 "there is not a doctor on this planet that does surgery on people that his study on origins has anything to do with his surgery on these people"
the subject of evolution is not necessary and not needed!!!!! Hovind kicks arse big time every time!
outbackcafe 2 years ago
My vote goes to Hovind!
ladyEulaelie 2 years ago
Rainbow is obviously submitting to Dr.Hovind...Dr. Hovind is a great scientist!!
dnlcast2 2 years ago
@dnlcast2 Ok, you're talking about a guy that believe that the dinosaurs and humans lived together 6,000 years ago... ¬¬
Oh, i forgot that he is in jail right now xD
DarklighterK25 2 years ago
Ehhh shut up.. just shut up. I'm an atheist i don't care what you believe in, I would still love you because you HUMAN, but i do care on the action you take. don't be an idiot you know what i mean
Neromanser 2 years ago
IF men evolve from monkeys...So do you fuck a monkey and make it pregnant?
emsing2001 2 years ago
No..
sfurner 2 years ago
True...We can't get monkeys pregnant.
EnduringForTheKing 2 years ago
The cutlery analogy is just reductio ad absurdum. Also remember that cutlery can't self-reproduce, the very requirement of evolution.
Understanding how evolution works is not pointless because people use its principles in today's life. Farmers plant their crops in such a way that only the characteristics they want (bigger fruits, no seeds, etc.) survive the population pool. Besides, if you don't agree with the theory taught using taxpayer's money, just take your kids off public schools.
Yeesha8679 2 years ago
Comments removed because my dumbass brother was chatting under my account.
DionMarinos 2 years ago 2
Why do people listen to kent hovind look at his educational background please anyone before listening to the absurd comments coming from his mouth. His comment at 4.20 is unbelievable in any other country in the western world he get laughed off stage for that, but no in the christian run states he is applauded for his ignorance.
scottype689 2 years ago
Comment removed
DionMarinos 2 years ago
Why don't you go and do some research first before saying something like that. Here I can help you out go and read up on the lenski experiment or the lizards of pod mrcaru. One more thing if I was you and I thought evolution was science fiction and wouldnt ever have a vaccine again. Do you know that vaccines are developed on the basis that evolution is correct.
scottype689 2 years ago
Comment removed
DionMarinos 2 years ago
Comment removed
DionMarinos 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Facts why Kent Hovind CANNOT be lying:
1) I have studied each topic and evidence he has presented, and I have found absolutely NO FLAW. All the facts he presents are all as accurate as the fact, Michael Jackson says Hee-Hee' in many of his songs.'
2) He's a true God-fearing Christian. The average Christian doesnt WANT to lie, and Hovind has stated MANY times that he wants to be RIGHT all the time.
3) When you say he's a liar, you're either confused, proud, or lying yourself.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Jesus study of origins is majorly important to science. this religous nut jobs need to stop dumbing down the country.
hank1972 2 years ago
Comment removed
DionMarinos 2 years ago
evolution cant teach you. You are confusing Evolution which is a physical science, to philosophy. You are just believe what fundies want you to believe. Evolution is the study of the origin of Species, it has no input on how 1 behaves as much as religion has on some 1 smells. if you rape and kill you are just a criminal. true fact most criminals in jail are christian.
hank1972 2 years ago
Comment removed
DionMarinos 2 years ago
ok lets say that you are right but that still doesn't explain the fact that about 1% off all prison convict are are atheists. why is that I have been in jail btw (punched a cop)and know FOR A FACT that their is a CHRISTIAN bias in jail. And have seen the guilt trip may preachers do to many there. now for your john lennon told me 2 do it then John lennon is evil then or the person is insane. .Either way evoltuon has nothing to do with it.
hank1972 2 years ago
This came to me last night. Mormons killed native americas saying they were not human. Pope called for the deaths of countless muslims saying it was the way to heaven, in europe and US many were burned at stakes for at the most practicing a diff religion that was locally practiced. Forgiveness is only forgivenss if they become their religion iof not THEY KILL YOU. NO THAT IS BULLSHIT. your anger over this proves it.
hank1972 2 years ago
No but you can rape, murder, lie, cheat and steal and then find your invisible friend for redemption. Without ever consulting the person who have done the horrid deed to.
scottype689 2 years ago
Science can NEVER explain origins,..That's an oxymoron,...Science is testable, demonstrable,...
USNavyman09 2 years ago
Comment removed
DionMarinos 2 years ago
regardless hes right evolution is a waste of time. A frivolous pursuit and the invention of fallible logic and ever changing theory.
Acuraintegraman1 2 years ago
evolution is well supported by the best and most current data. This is why you'll find it taught in biology books all across the world, america, european countries, china, japan, etc., etc.
rddaos 2 years ago 2
The origins of things are not in the realm of science? How dare he make these false claims. First of all, he does not publish peer reviewed papers, he is not a trained biologist, or for that matter any type of scientist. And if that wasn't enough he graduated from a unaccredited college. So what about his credibility? Forget any apologetic excuse, he is in jail for a fucking reason. He LIED repeatedly so how can anyone possibly assure me that he did not lie in any of his debates?
VincitOmniaVerit 2 years ago
Why waste time trying to understand how the sun works? Without knowing how the sun works, we still get warmth in the winter, we still get light to see with, we still get plants growing. Why bother learning about nuclear fusion? lol
rddaos 2 years ago
Funny how the Darwinian zealots could not win debates with their ideas, so they decided to play dirty and have Hovind "investigated." They dug up dirt on him and exploited it to silence him. This does not absolve Hovind of wrongdoing, but it sure is dirty pool.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
the "debate" has long since been won as evolution is established science in every biology textbook and library.
rddaos 2 years ago 2
Yes, you're right. And we all know that majority ensures veracity, right?
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
No... we should ignore the majority of the best scientists who have expertise in a particular field, and instead rely on a silly religious book. Your logic is flawless!
rddaos 2 years ago
i would suggest relying on what is readily observable and obvious. EG, the Bible says God created animals according to their "kind." and that is exactly what we observe in the fossil record and the animal kingdom. Or, the Bible says there was a flood and, lo and behold, there are stratified layers containing intact animal skeletons that would be consistent with same.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
Yeah, but evolution is based observable data and evidence. This is why it's a scientific theory and religion is not. The flood story is very silly. The idea that the koala bears swam across the indian ocean to get to Noah's ark, where Noah had some eucalyptus trees on his ark to keep them fed is silly. Also we don't find animals from different time periods mixed in one 6000 year old layer. we find them separated by time period, over hundreds of millions of years.
rddaos 2 years ago 2
Tell me, what is the best "observable data and evidence" for evolution? Don't reply with interpretations of data, conjecture, theories, or speculation based on preconcieved prejudices, etc. I want "observable data and evidence." as you call it. What kinds or groups of animals did Noah have on the Ark?
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
Creationists are fucking mentally ill.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Wow, you're right! There's no arguing against THAT sound logic. You're a regular Einstein, aren't you? Do me a favor and go back to watching your favorite Lady Gaga music videos. Let the grown-ups handle this one, k?
MrButtons22 2 years ago
Sorry guys, I just hate it when people like VarialProductions make pathetic, cruel remarks that make them feel like they actually did something meaningful with their life. I like to call them out on it. I probably shouldn't, as my rection doesn't further the debate.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
Creationists are mentally ill..
sfurner 2 years ago
WOW! I really hate to admit this, but the dumb guy made a pretty good point. AHHHH! Help!!!
peppersdog 2 years ago
I can only assume that I am the "dumb guy". Which point are you referring to?
MrButtons22 2 years ago
Anyone interested in moving this debate to a site called "debate" with the ending of "org"? I feel like it would be more practical. Just wondering.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
6). First off, the impact happened a couple billion years ago. The Impact crater has already been filled up when the Moon was, thats right, covered with Active volcanoes. Infact, the moons core is actually full of Magma. Secondly, what do you mean by "Already have to be cool"? Cool for what?
7). I was not aware that Humanity has the technology to visit other star systems.
tkubok 2 years ago
6) How did that hole in the earth get filled up? The earth had to already be cooled, or else the force of the impact would have not formed another major celestial body. Also, the force of the impact would have pushed the moon material out of the earth's gravitational reach. 7) I'm simply talking about the 7 other planets in our Solar System, and their many moons. No life on them (that "evidence" of life found on Mars in the 90's was later rescinded by NASA.)
MrButtons22 2 years ago
The crust of the Earth i solid, the magma underneath isn't so there should have been no worries for the earth to reform. The force of the impact could very well just leave the moon where it is, it all depends on the angle of the impact and its energy.
7) We don't know that there isn't any life on the other planets in the solarsystem. How can you be so sure there isn't any?
Draugh39 2 years ago
6) I'd like to see the mathematical data on how that even could work. I still believe that the earth's gravity is far too weak to be able to "capture" the moon, and this is the problem that scientists cannot explain.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
Sorry. Forgot to comment on #7. If evolution were true, then life should start on every other planet as well. The organisms would have to adapt to their enviornment as well, but they would be able to survive and evolve. Why are there none in our System as evolved as we are? Why not even any animals anywhere? If an alien species sent a probe to earth, it would take 0.45821 seconds for it to detect life. We're desperately searching for some, and can't find it (Personally, I wish it was out there).
MrButtons22 2 years ago
1) Sorry, let me rephrase: where did the energy/matter ULTIMATELY come from? 2) You can't give me a hypothesis 3) Almost every major scientist scoffs at the thought of abiogenesis... until they realize that evolution is impossible w/o it 4) No, since they are not complete in their evolutionary process yet. 5) Your answer to 4 makes me think you believe in P.E. 6) Have you seen the moon recently? NO evidence of a crater that size anywhere, and the planet had to already be cool 7) Why isn't there?
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
1). We dont know where it Ultimately comes from. Based on our knowledge of Physics, it doesnt come from anywhere, it was never created.
2). Not enough information to present a hypothesis, no.
3). Actually, Evolution is still possible without Abiogenesis. You see, God couldve created the first single celled organism and Evolution would still be correct.
4). Birds today are also not complete in their evolutionary process. Evolution never stops. Animals keep evolving.
5). What is PE.
tkubok 2 years ago
So, you admit: 1) You don't know 2) You don't know 3) I already said to explain it w/o God, so you don't know how it's possible w/o Him 4) You did not answer the question still, and I feel like you're avoiding it. 5) P.E. is Punctuated Equilibrium, the "scientific" belief that evolution occurred in rapid bursts between millions of years. Some scientists use this to explain the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, as there is no evidence of transitional forms between the two.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
These answers are getting harder and harder to type in 500 words. Can we please move these to personal messages, or even the debate forums.
tkubok 2 years ago
I have a debate set up on that debate forum ending in org, but someone claimed it already. I've never used this website before, so I don't know if multiple people can argue on a topic. I haven't even looked at his rebuttal yet.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
My seven questions could be the basis for a debate on that other site... what do you think?
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
Sure, id love to have the seven questions as a basis for our debate on the site. I see that you are almost finished with your debate, so perhaps after you are done with that debate, we can start our own?
tkubok 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm gonna have to say "good-bye" to all my YouTube friends I am debating with. I'm taking summer classes, and I'm already debating this topic on another, more formal debate site. Plus this one is too disorganized for debate. Thanks! Contact me or Tkbuk for info on the other site!
MrButtons22 2 years ago
These are soem questions I would like answered. If you are a Theistic Evolutionist, please dont' bother: 1) How did the big bang get its energy, mass? 2) How did nature's laws get established? 3) Do you believe in abiogenesis, and why? 4) What would a dnosaur evolving into a bird look like after 25 mill. years of this process? 5) Do you believe in punctuated equilibrium, if you cannot answer #4? 6) How did we get our moon? 7) Why could life not evolve on any other Solar planet?
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
1). From the singularity.
2). We are not sure yet.
3). I believe that the current theory of Abiogenesis is still in its infancy, and not near as supported as Evolution. And yes, i do accept that it is currently the best scientific explanation.
4). Like the birds of today.
5). I answered number 4.
6). The moon either was a fragment from the earth due to a giant impact, is the current prevailing hypothesis.
7) It could.
tkubok 2 years ago
You know that few major biologists would ever claim to believe in abiogenesis, right? And speaking of that, where did matter come from?
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
matter came from the big bang.
Theories and facts are different things. No one is saying that the theories are facts. However, Evolution is a fact. The big bang is a fact. The theory of Evolution, the Big bang theory, are theories that explain those occurances.
tkubok 2 years ago
Sorry, I didn't catch that. You know that RNA is not life, right? RNA makes the proteins, which in turn make the cells. As I am currently reading the article in ScienceNews, I notice that they had to force them together; they did not naturally coem by themselves. So, this is not proof of abiogenesis, especially since they did not even create life. 1)In the oceans, as those "fountains" made them deeper. 2) The Hebrew slaves, I guess. Where does history state they were built right after the Flood?
MrButtons22 2 years ago
1) There isn't enough water on the planet to have covered the Himalayas, even if you have no oceans at all. Making the oceans deeper does not solve that, where is the water?
2) The Flood happened 2348 BCE (During the reign of the pharaoh Unas who died 2345 BCE). Tower of Babel was supposed to have been built by Hams grandson (so only 2 generations later). How did all the people suddenly appear to build all this stuff, and also plant crops etc. if you only have 3 surviving women 2349 BCE.
Draugh39 2 years ago
I agree: remember, they don't need to be covered when they are formed during the Flood. As for your daring, I don't know. I'd like to see a reference for that.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
*dating; as in the dates you have for the Egyptian Pharoah Unas.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
Those dates are based on geneology and on science, if you are refuting them kindly supply some evidence that contradict it. When where the pyramids built according to you?
Furthermore it is only 2 generations from the flood to the building of the tower of Bable (according to the Bible) so where did all the people comefrom in just 2 generations starting with 3 females.
Draugh39 2 years ago
Two generations is not a problem for the Tower of Babel for a few reasons: 1) They simply started it after 2 generations 2) The process was not expected to be complete within a generation 3) They never finished the project, but left it incomplete. Also, polygamy was rampant in those days, as can be seen in multiple passages. I also forgot to add 1 more point to the post below: the exact wording in vs. 20 was, "and the mountains were covered". It does not state for how long they were covered.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
actually itv is, That was just one of the different things being built. Polygami doesn't matter either as the women would have to be born too. The only ones they have to marry are their sisters and first cousins in the first generation and this inbreading will cause trouble and not give rise to race diversion (as is hinted). By the secons generation they only have sistes and first cousings as well as the grandsons are moving away from oneanother.
Draugh39 2 years ago
If the mountains were covered with water that water have to come from someplace, and this massive amount of water is not seen today, why.
Also, if all animals where on the ark, and then spread throughout the world after the flood. How did the flightless birds of New Zealand get there before the humans, they can't fly there or swim there and no humans could have brought them there either. Finally can you aswer *when*you think the pyraminds were built, before or after the flood.
Draugh39 2 years ago
the dates for the 5th dynasty Pharaoh Unas is generally given as 2373BCE to 2345 BCE. However, this isn't that important. Just tell me if the pyramids where built before or aftr the flood and we can then argue about the validity of when *you* place the flood and the other known historical events.
If the pyramids where built before the flood we should be able to see certain effects. If they where built after the flood other things come into play. so which one do you say it is?
Draugh39 2 years ago
Hmmm... both? I really don't know. Could it be possible that not all were made by the Egyptians? The Great Pyramid is different from the other ones in design; maybe the other were copied from it. I really can't say which, so I guess I would say both.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
Actually, sorry to intrude, but the pyramids, based on their design and position, is completely in sync with Egyptian mythology and superstition. And since we even go as far as to know who the architect for most of the pyramids were, the pyramids were all, if not mostly all, built by the egyptians.
tkubok 2 years ago
Agreed tkubok. We even know some of the worker gangs. (Note to MrButtons22: There are no indication that Jewish slave labours where used in the building of them).
Draugh39 2 years ago
They could all be made by Egyptians, yes. I noticed, in the Biblical geneology, that the names "Cush" and Mizraim" were in it as almost immediate descendents to Noah's children. These are names that are associated with Egypt. I know that no one knows who built the Great Pyramid, and it appears to be the oldest one. I do not know if there is evidence of water erosion to any of the pyramids, as I am not an archeologist. I know no comments on it either way.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
If that is your statement then we should see different amount of water erosion on them. The ones built before "the flood" should be severely damaged by that while the ones built after should not. Why don't we see this?
Also, how did the flightless birds of New Zealand get there from the Ark before humans arrived on the islands. They cant walk or swim so how did they arrive?
Did they ... evolve?
Draugh39 2 years ago
The Bible does say that in the "Days of Peleg" the "earth was divided (Gen. 10:25). This was done 4 generations after Shem. It is, of course, completely possible that these birds were brought over by people. Also, it is interesting that the supreme god Io in Maori mythology (from N. Zealand) is extremely similar to the one in the Bible. For anymore Flood questions, look up answersingenesis. I will try to answer more, but I am no expert on it.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
New Zealand does not belong to Gondwanaland or any other super continent so it has not had any contact with the landmass where the Ark landed. The Maori didn't bring them from Polynesia as there is no evidence of the Moa, Kiwi etc there, they wouldn't survive the trip in a canoe, and they are endemic to NZ despite the fact that the Polynesians settled in other places *before* going to NZ. So how did they get from the Ark? Is there a reasonable explanation?
Draugh39 2 years ago
I really can't answer this, but once again, I take it on faith and have been consistant with that statement throughout this debate. I do not know: are they able to reproduce with other birds? Remember that I believe in changes within species (definition of species according to the biological one on the website dictionary).
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
But this is the problem. As soon as two groups of a species can no longer interbreed with each other, they are separate species. Therefore, speciation has occured. This is, in essence, "macroevolution". Therefore, i cannot understand how you can deny Macro but claim to accept Micro, as well as speciation.
tkubok 2 years ago
So... can they interbreed with other species of bird? Also, no new information is being put in the DNA, which is what evolution is about; new information to adapt to the changes in the enviornment.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
Can what interbreed with other species of bird? Which bird are you talking about?
New information is being placed in DNA all the time. Its called Mutation, and the specific action is called Insertion. I suggest you look it up.
tkubok 2 years ago
Wrong order mate. New information gets into the DNA everyday. That information is not there "to adapt to changes in the environment", its is just there whether it is positive or negative (it gives a broad gene pool).
If there is a change in the environment some individuals might have a beneficial trait that can increase the likelihood for survival and pass that change along and successive generations weed out the individuals that hasn't got -at least part- of this new gene.
Draugh39 2 years ago
So, if the genetic info is not brought out by adapting to the enviornment, how is it brought out? Some sort of outside force? The creature's will? And how does this "new info" get into the DNA everyday? Where's your evidence for this?
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
Genetic information is constantly being brought out. I dont understand what you are talking about, possibly because you are talking to Draugh39.
Also, The new info gets into the DNA everyday through mutations. Mutations occur constantly in the human body.
tkubok 2 years ago
Natural selection accumulates the traits that allow you to survive and reproduce.
Example: Assume that it is 10^15 chance to spontaneously form a particular new species from an old one. That is like taking 20 dice and rolling all sixes, unlikely.
Natural selection work like this:
Roll 20 dice, keep all 6 you get (they pass to the next generation) roll the remaining again (keep the 6) that is generation 2, and so on until you have all sixes. This is likely to happen.
It only takes time.
Draugh39 2 years ago 2
The DNA changes in you as you are aging, cells don't copy perfectly all the time, mutations happen. Some effects are:
Greying hair, hair loss, the formation of cancer cells etc etc.
These are all confirmed observations, can we accept this as "facts" now?
Draugh39 2 years ago
Mrbuttons22,
Concerning gods that are similar to your own mythology or religion, please keep in mind that it goes both ways; that is, they may have been influenced by your beliefs, but theres also the chance that your beliefs were influenced by theirs instead.
tkubok 2 years ago
The point that I am making is that this particular Deity is well-known. Of course the influence can go both ways, although I happen to believe that the influence came from my own. Logic would state that their beliefs came from the Hebrews, though. The Hebrew religion started with Abraham, who was in the Middle East, over 1,000 before the time of Christ.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
I hope you are not implying that something that is well known, makes it true. Remember what was popular 600 years ago with the shape of the earth.
Also, just as an FYI, there are more primitive beliefs that outdate the Hebrew beliefs. And actually, taking a look at the Christian beliefs, you notice there are alot of stolen ideas from other religions.
tkubok 2 years ago
Of course there are; there has to be. God appointed Abraham to be the father of His chosen people; he was not the first believer in this God. As far as the stolen ideas concerning Christianity, are you talking about Catholicism? That religion did take alot out of other religions. I am not a Catholic, so I will not even try to defend them.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
The problem with this is that the original god concept is actually plural, as seen with the original useage of the word Yahweh, which actually means MULTIPLE gods, as well as God himself reffereing to himself as "We". Which begs the question, why did the old testament change into a single god?
Also, no, im not talking about Catholicism, i am talking about the Gospels. The Virgin birth for example, is a stolen idea.
tkubok 2 years ago
And by the same token the Hebrew religion should be influenced by the Sumerian which was about 1000 years earlier than that.
Draugh39 2 years ago
Good point. Take the story of Noah. This was clearly based on "Utnapishtim" from the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh. It was after all written about 1000 years before the Old Testament Bible....
Draugh39 2 years ago
"Written about 1000 before the Old Testament Bible..." You know that the Bible is a collection of books, correct? 10 different authors penned different parts of the book of Genesis alone. They could have plagiarized the Epic of Gilgamesh... but is it really plagiarism if they are talking about an historical event (regardless of whether or not the story is exaggerated on either side)?
MrButtons22 2 years ago
MrButtons22,
Although i do have a problem with that, especially with the fact that we dont know any authors of the four gospels, but that is regardless of the point you are trying to make. It IS really plagarism, if you take a story and EXCHANGE the characters of the story. If they were talking about the epic of gilgamesh, no, it is not plagarism. But if they replaced Gilgamesh with, oh, Abraham, then yes, it is plagarism.
tkubok 2 years ago
Yes I do know that and the oldest of them was written about 1200 BCE. If they took the story from the Sumerians then how can we expect the record written 1000 later to be more "correct", if both of them are only basted on hearsay of an original event? The longer oral tradition exists the more it changes over time, just like Chinese whispers.
Draugh39 2 years ago
Yes according to the Bible (Genesis 7:19-21) all hills and mountains where covered. If montains formed "during" the flood they would have had to be cobered as well for those passages to be true.
"Daring"? We know how much water is in the oceans, we know the size of the earth, we know the size of the continents, we know the height of the talles mountains. Do the math.
Draugh39 2 years ago
Not particularly, no. The mountains were already covered at one point in the Flood, so the Bible is still accurate on that point. And "Daring" was a typo; I meant "Dating".
MrButtons22 2 years ago
I'm gonna have to say "good-bye" to all my YouTube friends I am debating with. I'm taking summer classes, and I'm already debating this topic on another, more formal debate site. Plus this one is too disorganized for debate. Thanks! Contact me or Tkbuk for info on the other site!
MrButtons22 2 years ago
No worries. Good luck with the classes!
Draugh39 2 years ago
Please, biomanwin, don't grovel and worship evolution. Seriously, I wouldn't state that our understanding of GRAVITY is fact. Why? Because we don't know the universe. We have explored such a miniscule amount of it that I think it is nothing less than arrogance to make any such assuming statement like that as if it were undeniable fact. You take evolution by faith, since it cannot explain everything. I take creation by faith, because I cannot prove it.
MrButtons22 2 years ago
Learn what the word "fact" means
Draugh39 2 years ago
I know what the meaning of fact is, and it's not "theory".
MrButtons22 2 years ago