One of them is not at all educated. So I don't feel very bad for the waste of tax-payers money. But the other one is very well educated. Too bad, tax payers got cheated in this particular case.
Don't even try to reason the concept of God with the monkey people. They are wholly devoted to the religion of "theories" (unproven facts) they have an amazing faith to the religion of evolution that is baseless. Darwin himself said that "if I am correct you will find hundreds upon thousands of transitional forms in the fossil records." No such transitional forms have been found! Get over it people Darwin is busted! The monkey people do not have the ability to know God, they are lower beings.
@tot792 I wish you would understand who God truly is an not spread a message of arrogance and hate. God is love, and Jesus taught through love. He associated with the lowly people of society(or monkeys as you may have called them were you alive then) and called out the proud and arrogant, the ones who served themselves and used God only as fit their selfish desires.
@Logandown yes i know how to pay my taxes he does,nt. the neanderthal were old men with rickets LOL what about the neanderthal children skeletons. what were they old midgets with rickets. you need to read some books b4 defending this scumbag.
@Logandown the evidence is there go look. sticking your head in the sand and believing any old shite that hovind says wont make it go away. Hovind is a conman telling lies for fun, his stupid hovind theory is not feasible. If you honestly think the universe is only 6000 years old your wrong. watch hovind being destroyed in the many debunk vids.
don,t know whats worse hovind and ross ignoring the mountain of evidence for evolution or most of these bullshit comments agreeing with them. it worries me that there,s so many ignorant bawbags out there.
@JOOGAL1111 Well Hovind is offering $250,000 And debated 87 professors. If You know something that he doesn't. Step-Up and Claim the reward. Simply saying there is evidence doesn't pay the bill. So far, Hovind has shot all of that in the ground.
You say 'THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY GOD' But the Bible itself say's in 2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." God's hand may not've wrote the Word's but His Holy Spirit gave the men the word's to write. Erasmus in 1516 compiled edited and printed the textus receptus where we get the kjv from. The phrase "and he took one of his ribs" was in the original or it wouldn't have been inserted.
It makes me ill to deal with morons like you who know little if any what their talking about! The KJV is for a fact a word for word transalation taken from the received text. In around 1605 or 06, and finished in 1611 and revised not in translation but where where the english speaking people of today could read it in 1689. I hope people check your lies out. The KJV does not use "apple" it say's fruit in Genesis 3:6. All the fundamentalists used the kjv to teach and preach from. DO YOUR RESEARCH
there were times when ligers reproducing. not all of them are reproducing but come on. there are millions of people that cant reproduce, are we different kind or species?
Genesis 2:21 "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his "RIBS", and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"
@guineapiggyman who said apple was? Which word or word's were not in the original? Cause the kjv is a word for word translation. Also what else would he have taken out of his side? One of his kidney's maybe man started out with 3 kidney's. I've done an exhaustive study on where the bible came from and which manuscripts were used for various translations the kjv was translated from the textus receptus. one of the only translations that was.
@Mr308winmag the new american bible and the KJV use the term apple. the original one said just fruit (most likely a fig). the fundamentalists, as well as the vatican both have NEVER endorsed the KJV, because its NOT a word for word match. there were alot of liberties taken. well, why would man have to have 3 kidneys if that was what was used? we dont have a missing rib. each human has same number on each side. so ur argument is moot. hun.....
@guineapiggyman Pt 3. The fruit mentioned in this passage you say was" (most likely a fig)" isn't that as much of a speculation as people saying it was an apple? Just because they sewed fig leaves together doesn't mean that was the fruit. Surely you're not suggesting that? May I suggest that the latin word for apple is (malam) and the word for evil is (malum) could've been the reason? It's irrelevant though. BTW Yes I know that men and women both have 12 pairs of ribs. Next.
@guineapiggyman Pt 4 But I didn't say man had less ribs. Neither does the Bible. It say's God used one of his ribs to create Eve. I know I must've suggested that with the kidney remark. I apologize. I'm sure you already know this but God created man in such a way that when he lost certain parts they would regenerate in time! Awesome, like hair, fingernails, skin, etc. BTW even your RIBS!!! Within 2-3 months of a thoracoplasty surgery ie (taking a set of ribs) they will regenerate. God is Awesome
The receptus was NOT used in the KJV. Only in the gutenberg originals, and the new vatican bible (1812). if youve done such 'exhaustive' research, then id think you would know your stuff a little better. do you know that the oldest original texts the bible is based on only date to AFTER 150AD? (god i really hope your not one of those people who believe man has a missing rib....) YOU DO REALIZE THAT THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY GOD, RIGHT?
I like these videos but it would be nice if the person posted it would keep his biased opinions out of the description and let us viewers determine whether or not Kent is misinformed or uses false analagies and what not.
Ross:"where do you see the evidence for the so called transitional forms"
Whales---Pakicetid->Ambulocetus->Rodhocetus->Basilosaurus->Squalodon->Cetotherium->The Modern Whale..... Did I miss any? Probably did but I fail so see how these are not transitional forms.
I think most people dislike Kent Hovind because what he says is very controversial, complex and goes over their heads (and he's a bit tacky at times). It's easier just to assume that Dr. Ross knows what he's talking about because of his "prestige" in the science community. However there are multiple layers within alot of Hovind's concepts that make sense if you can comprehend them.
@kfcguy1999 no most people don't like Kent Hovind because he displays ignorance of the subject. His interpretation is different, many people agree with his interpretation of Genesis and the bible, but this assumes that this interpretation is right, as Ross keeps saying go back to the Hebrew, yet Kent doesn't. The Talmud written thousands of years ago also differs in it's interpretaion of Genesis than Kent. not that Ross is right either
@stephjh2006 you dislike/disagree for the same reasons baptists/southern baptists/independant baptists...etc...disagree and dislike each other. just differing opinions. As for displaying ignorance, I think you need to watch him debate secular experts. I promise you they point out EVERY flaw and "ignorance of the subject" which i think you'll be surprised to find are very few. I don't understand why an expert would not point out ignorance, but you do? maybe that's because he isn't ignorant...
As improbable as it may seem, evolution did happen. HOW it happened is the theory of evolution. Sure let's debate that- natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, variability by mutations, etc. A mathematical model is irrelevant, it without a doubt happened as evidence tells us. "God loves whales and horses" does not explain anything whatsoever.
He always returns to the flood myth because that is what his book says, so he has to profess such a belief in order to fleece his flock. The question is, does he actually believe it or is he just following the paycheck as he accuses eucators/scientists of doing? i'd suggest with the fame and fortune he earned from arguing this view (pre tax trouble/jail) that he clearly has more reason to lie than a public school teacher.
I don't know what is sadder, the fact that you would reccomment such a book, or the books existence in the first place...
That book is aimed at manipulating the ignorant with very simple tactics, almost verbatim to all of Hovinds arguments all of which have been debunked, and leaves the reader with the reassuring idea that their deluded fairy tales they have based their life on is true... you should be ashamed for even mentioning it, it reflects very poorly on your intellect...
@TILOTV You say theory like its unsatisfying. A scientific Theory is the unifying structure that explains all facts, laws, and evidence relevant to its field and its the BEST explanation available for those facts. Don't listen to what these ignorant creationists stay a Theory is FAR beyond a guess. The only thing greater than a Theory is a mathematical proof so evolution is as proven as anything can ever be in science outside math.
I think the Goat is taking the word of the scriptures in a completely cynical literal way. I don't think he even sincerely believes in God, anymore...
Hovind is deceptive. He is saying a dolphin and a killer whale created a hybrid. True story: a dolphin and a false killer whale created the wholphin. Clearly he's trying to plant an image of an Orca in your mind.
Oops! Hugh Ross stopped making sense when he stopped talking about astronomy. (Ignoring all the 'God made it' stuff.)
Cripes. We're not gonna see speciation in large long lived creatures within a human's lifetime. We'd have to live millenia to witness that.
Hovind. lol. He never made sense. Does he actually believe that evolution deals with tomatoes evolving into houseflies? And that people evolve into tobacco? He doesn't have the slightest clue what evolution is about. What a joke.
@L00NGB00W I'm a Christian but I'm gonna have to agree with you evolution is not determined by chromosomes but by changes that will take place on the species level.
Always nice to meet a Christian who accepts evolution. =)
But I'd say that changes to a species' genome (via mutation or variation) manifest themselves as minute 'species level' changes. And whether or not those changes are a benefit or a hinderance is what determines whether or not the creature will survive.
dont u love the assholes like jackface who post 30 long comments trying to get their opinions across to someone cuz no one else will listen. shut up you fool! these guys in the video may be liars but people like you make me sick!
You can indeed cross breed different horse genums and get a Jackass. We will call this one the "He haw..." as he is being raped by Bubba probobly as we discuss...
Hovind's "chromosome explanation" is so ignorant and flawed I felt a little ill when he equated chromosome # with evolutionary hierachy and thus humans will evolve into tobacco plants or dogs from bananas. He's clearly willingly stupid, misinformed or more likely, has a hell of an agenda.
It's almost impossible to maintain a succinct debate with the man because he changes tack every minute. But wait Kent, you never explained why Tobacco plantes are more advanced than humans!
EXACTLY. It's like arguing with a 7 year old that has his own "reality". I don't really think Hovind actually believes what he says. It has been pointed out many times that Hovind has been proven wrong many times and still spews the same crap. For years he argued that the Grand Canyon entrance was lower than the exit. The moron thought the Colorado river flowed West to East. His son Eric is STILL spewing this same argument.
This is a pretty rigged debate. It's a creationist vs a creationist, why not include the entire spectrum for balance? Whoever wins this, humanity loses.
This debate is becoming extremely pathetic now that they're on evolution. Neither of them knows what they're talking about, but Kent's arguments are even more pathetic than the other guy's. "We'll all be tobacco plants if we keep evolving".......what.....??? He has no clue what he's going on about. And the other guy's mathematical model is absolutely unfounded. I can't find it anywhere, and nature proves it wrong.
he argues that dogs and bananas arent related by using microsoft word and microsoft power point as an analogy. what he fails to point out, is word and power point are related! what a moron.
I'm disappointed Kent went off on a tanget at 3:25. I agree with him here but wanted to know what he thought of the large nasal capacity of Neanderthals. I've read about this. They say they think Neanderthals spoke differently.
I personally think there's examples of them today. Some people have those sort of dimensions nasally.
Don't forget, they might have been suffering illness like Kent says, and could have been an amalgamation of races after the Flood (before they split).
The mtDNA of Neanderthals has been sequenced; they were not human. Hovind's claim that "they were deformed humans" is nonsense.
People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor; their bones are weak. Neanderthal bones are fifty percent thicker than the average human's. Rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur. Neanderthal femurs bend backward.
Also, we have many specimens of them. It's *extremely* unlikely that they all suffered from the exact same illness.
@gmn545 We find alot of deformed elderly people who were of a different race-before they branched out into what we have today. When you say *all of them you really mean all those living at that time and not just those you find.
Also, apparently there's an illness you can get if you live to an extreme old age. This is what they probably had.
As for the DNA i've heard you're taking an average sample. We still apparently find some with that sequence today-and they were a different race.
"A different race" indeed; they were not of the human race. To see a refutation on Hovind's claim of them being "deformed humans" with "extreme old age", watch this:
Straus and Cave (1957) showed them to be distinct from *all* groups of modern man. As for the mtDNA, their's is divergent enough to conclusively show they were not human beings. To see how:
Indeed, they did do those things, however that doesn't make them human. By your reasoning, gorillas which travel in troops, use tools, & ostracize dissenters, are humans as well. lol Gorillas, neanderthals, and humans do all belong to the same biological order & family: primates & hominids. Its the divergence in DNA that, while showing common descent w/ modification, also separates us into different species.
I noticed you didn't address any of the points of rebuttal I cited.
@gmn545 ..or we're simply designed similarly to apes.
Yes they do some near-human things because they have the most complex brains of the animal kingdom. They're still animals though because they are not capable of putting meaning into any 'artwork' we set them up to do.
They wouldn't be able of fashioning a hand axe like the Neanderthals :D
Different forms also (it is claimed) come from the same designer, so similar forms are not evidence of a common designer. Evidence for a designer must begin by specifying (before the fact) whats expected from the designer. When do we expect similar forms, & when do we expect different forms? "Intelligent design" theory will not answer that. Evolution theory has made that prediction, and the pattern of similarities & differences that we observe accords with what evolution predicts.
Also, there are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the *same location* in the genome.
watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA
The "similar design, common designer" argument fails.
"they're there for a logical reason in the *created and *designed machinery"
*facepalm*...Incorrect. They are several kinds of ERVs and they are inserted at RANDOM locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the *same type* of ERV at the *same location* in the genome. This screams loudly in favor of common ancestry.
Try **watching** the video I cited. Here it is again: watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA
The fact they're in the same place in chimps means either they are in other animals as well, or that they need to be because we have a similar design. You simply cannot jump ahead and call it ancestry. For that you need to show a progression-something the fossil record does not show.
That they are inserted at random is a fact...period. To think otherwise is to only show how uneducated about endogenous retroviruses one is. You CAN infer ancestry, once you actually **understand** how an endogenous retrovirus works. Again, WATCH the video.
@gmn545 Yes a common designer because all life has the same 20 letters in the alphabet :)
Evolution does not explain diversity; it only gives one shaky theory for it. ID on the other hand simply says each was designed with a particular niche in mind-to function as part of a whole.
What do we need to specify '...before the fact...' about a designer anyway? What do you mean here? Nature testifies to a creator and that's it as far as I'm concerned :/
"Because all life has the same 20 letters in the alphabet"
Huh? lol. I noticed that my example of endogenous retroviruses flew right over your head.
"Shaky" eh? I've got the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (*experts* in their respective fields) and empirical evidence to back up evolution.
As for ID, all I have to say is: Dover Trial. Behe was practically laughed out of the courtroom after Dr. Ken Miller (Catholic; evolutionary biologist) crushed ID.
"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design that are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
--Michael Behe (during cross-examination, Dover Trial, 2005)
Behe admits ID is not science. Judge Jones III ruled: "ID is religious and not a scientific proposition." Claiming "bias" won't help you, as Judge Jones is a devout Lutheran.
As for evolution being able to explain the biodiversity of life, we've observed it do so. Evolution is change in allelic frequencies within a given population; its an observed & well-documented fact.
In case you claim "but that's only microevolution", well sorry but macroevolution (occuring AT or above the species level, e.g. speciation) has also been observed and well-documented. Just google "Observed Instances of Speciation."
Why does the number of chromosomes for Neanderthals matter? Although, chromosomal fusion is actually good evidence for evolution. :-)
I also find it funny that around 3:25, Hovind says horses and zebras are the same "kind" (which he never gives a proper definition for). Yet, the DNA of humans is 98.4% identical to a chimpanzee's, showing a closer genetic relation than even horses and zebras have...but Hovind wouldn't ever say that humans and chimps are the same "kind" lol!
@gmn545 Because they're probably going to be the same number as ours-23!
Obviously horses and zebras are the same kind. Take a look at them lol
So we're similar to chimps. We have the same sort of body don't we-but this doesn't prove one led to the other. Moreover, we're not the same kind because they have bodies different enough in key respects like feet.
Define "kind." According to Hovind, as long as they can interbreed, they're the same kind. Yet, a lion and a house kitten cannot interbreed, eventhough they're both "cats." So there goes that stupid definition.
We're not just similar to chimps, we're 98.4% identical to them. Again, if you only knew what an ERV was and how it speaks loudly in favor of common ancestry, you wouldn't be confused on this issue.
@gmn545 We're simply not chimps. Again, we only share huge chunks of DNA because, obviously, we have a primate designed body. This does not prove ancestry; only *commonality* of traits. You are not thinking critically.
Now a house spider can't interbreed with a tarantula. They are the same 'kind'. I think the Bible means types of the same kind that *can interbreed. Take a look at some pictures of animals and see which you think could make babies :D
I didn't say we are chimps. 98.4% =/= 100% now, does it? However, we do share a common ancestor with chimps. As far as your "commonality" argument, Hovind has used this ridiculous argument and got demolished (on his own show)
watch?v=CGfhAevhy_0
Again, you haven't provided any sound definition for the word "kind." As I stated already (which you simply chose to ignore), a lion and a house kitten can NOT interbreed, yet they are both "cats"! This is why "species" works better.
No scientific theory is "proven"; that's a mathematical term (you'd know if you *watched* the Dr. Ken Miller clip).
A scientific theory is an analytic structure designed to *explain* a set of empirical observations. Darwin's theory of descent with modification has overwhelming evidence and 150 years of research to back it up (ex: endogenous retroviruses, chromosomal fusion, atavistic traits, etc.).
This is why millions of theists can be intellectually honest and accept it.
@gmn545 Yeah I know the difference between a theory and fact. The trouble with evolution theory is it's failed to come up with not only the staggering quantity of transitional fossils needed (they didn't find even one), genetics by it's complexity proves beyond a shadow of a doubt mutations could never have done this.
What's more, the Earth is now known conclusively not to be more than a few thousand years old.
"quantity of transitional fossils needed (they didn't find even one)"
Nonsense. There are a plethora of transitional species. Even ID proponent David Berlinksi conceded (in a debate w/ Dr. Ken Miller) "I agree. The late reptilian-to-mammalian sequence is well documented. No question about it."
watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ
"Mutations could never have done this"
That's why its called Evolution by natural selection (a non-random process), acting on mutation. This has been observed.
"Earth is now known conclusively not to be more than a few thousand years old"
LMAO!! I'm sorry, but please cite one scientific, peer-reviewed work that has discredited the hundreds of others and has shown "conclusively" that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. For your sake, I hope you're not talking about Polonium Halos.
The scientific community agrees that earth is 4.55 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%).
@gmn545 Most of them have to if they want to keep their jobs. It doesn't follow because most of them believe it's millions, it really is. They taught the Sun goes round the Earth for centuries. They were wrong.
If you look at things like salt content of the oceans, moondust and moon distance; not forgetting lack of erosion for millions of years between rock layers, you'll see.
Again, where are you getting this from? Do try *watching* the Dr. Ken Miller video I cited.
"it's millions"
4.55 billion. And its not because they "say so", but because they have a valid method of calculation from which they determine the earth to be that old. I cited the paper that explains how. Try *reading* it.
"Sun goes round the Earth"
Geocentricism was taught by the Church (Eccl.1:5). Scientists, like Galileo, disproved that.
As to your "arguments" for a young-earth, NONE of them are new and ALL have been shown to be nonsensical. Here is an index to the several creationist arguments for a young-earth (including the ones you've mentioned), and they all come with refutations (backed up by scientific, peer-reviewed works):
talkorigins. org / faqs / hovind / howgood. html
"Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat earth." -- Hugh Ross
@gmn545 Billions, I stand corrected. Slip of the fingers :/
Well the Church was an ass. Anyone who really thought hard about it would have known different, though there's always plenty of stuff not known for sure. The ancients knew Earth was a sphere that turned though. Following the path of the Sun through the year like the ancients Egyptians did would reveal the truth.
I agree that the ancient Greco-Roman 'natural philosophers' (proto-scientists) were aware of the earth being spherical (ex: Eratosthenes, Seleucus, Pythagoras, etc.). However, it seems that the biblical authors were not aware.
Isa 40:22 states that the earth is a circle (hebrew: 'chuwg'), which has a flat plane. The same author in ch. 22 v. 18 uses "dure" (ball; round) so we know he had knowledge of a spherical object, yet he specifically used "circle" when describing earth.
I can't believe you think that the distance of the moon proves a young Earth...unbelieveable. Let me do the calculation for you
The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
This goes to show that you have copy and pasted a classic creationist argument without attempting to understand it. This is the definition of willfull ignorance
Beliefs like the Sun rotating around the Earth, and a flat Earth existed due to creationists (or should I say Christians, there wasn't much debate back then)
These ideas were later challenged by scientists, most of which were theists by the way. If you want to make a point, please back it up with a source. Your previous one mentioned "evidence" of a young Earth, yet the very next one you claim it's being withheld due to people fearing for their livelihoods. If you have nothing, say so.
Transitional Fossils, i.e. "missing links:" Homo Sapien, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus
I invite you to also acknowledge evidence presented by Embryology.
Now, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. Unfortunately for creationists, there is an incredible amount of evidence to support it as a Scientific Theory. Creationism is also a theory. It wouldn't last long as a Scientific Theory though, as it becomes falsified by lack of evidence.
Huh? How dare I present evidence in light of none? My apologies for offense, but it is illogical to treat the bible, written 1000 years before the enlightenment, and science, as a literal document. Believe what you will but the evidence is all around you.
Correction: In the previous comment I should retract my meaning, as "to support it as a Scientific Theory" should read as "to support Evolution as a Scientific Theory."
@gmn545 You've only got those who have to toe the party line if they want to keep their jobs. Really critical thinking people won't laugh. They'll listen and gel with what I'm talking about.
Some of you guys might laugh, but they laughed at Darwin (and rightly so). It may not be in our lifetimes but our current dumb theory of evolution will one day be discarded as bunk.
This argument is used by every creationist who has 0 understanding of how the scientific community works. Perhaps Dr. Ken Miller ought to explain this to you briefly:
watch?v=jVaCmASYLDg
I won't even address that staggeringly ignorant last paragraph of yours.
No it isn't true. Again, **watch** the video I cited. The reasoning of the scientific community is as follows: "Here's the evidence. What conclusions can we draw from it?" The creationist who's entire way of thinking is: "Here's the conclusion (Bible is right). Now lets try and find what 'evidence' we can to support it."
99.98% of life/earth scientists (*experts* in their respective fields) are "steadfast in their ignorance"? Such a nonsensical claim isn't worth commentary.
Toe the party line to keep their jobs? The scientific community functions as a body of scientists who do nothing BUT challenge and extend our current knowledge and theories.
If someone wanted to disprove ANY current theory scientifically, that's a valid field of research and will be encouraged.
On the other hand, if one simply tossed out all the existing evidence to prove a creationist theory, of course it's ridiculous. Because there's nothing scientific at all about it.
That crosses can't allegedly reproduce (and Kent was just about to say some could) is immaterial. The fact is two species made a cross. This on its own confirms they are the same kind.
Conversely, some things of the same species can't-like a garden spider and a tarantula :)
Ah, but according to you it isn't nutter to believe that dinosaurs magically transformed into chickens; reptiles magically transformed into apes that Atheists love to call "Lucy" & then claim that 1, 5 or 10 "transitional" fossils could possibly link 2 species that lived 20 million years apart? And you dare talk about crazy people when you & your retarded cult of Atheism teaches other Atheist religious nuts that they are apes no different from those at the local zoo? Stop pushing Atheism on us.
You can stand by your statement all you want as much as I'll stand by mine. Fact is that evolution is a very weak pseudo-theory that fails scientifically and mathematically. I'm in the process of creating a video where I'll prove why it's impossible that we could come from ape-like creatures from a DNA perspective, mutation analysis and the fact that the number of mutations required does not fit the evolutionary timeline generally accepted between the Hominidae family and modern humans.
if the sky-fairy always existed, then why not save a step and just claim humans always existed. I'd think you were less delusional if you were claiming this.
Mechanism of sex-selection is designed to accelerate evolution (monogamy maximizes variety + polygamy allows rarer adaptations to amplify in population) .. I suspect your pseudo disproof will be based on asexual repro assumption
Sky fairy??? Sounds more comical to me the dinosaurs that magically transform into chickens or the reptiles that magically transform into apes called "Lucy".
Be prepared for my video. I expect many Atheist cultists to foam at the mouth after I finish it. Can't wait for the countless ad-hominem atttacks I'll receive as desperation creeps in and Atheists realize how close is their religion from being exposed as the hoax it really is.
The dinosaurs that magically and SLOWLY transform into chickens don't need a sky fairy to do that?
Guess what!!! I agree. They don't need a sky fairy to do that. All they need are a bunch of retards who believe they are apes (Atheists) and a lot of imagination to believe such mythological crap. Go with those crappy fake mythological tales to other Atheists, gorillas, and baboons. They may drink the kool-aid, but not us.
Talking about ignorance... If you intend to spread your religion of the apes, at least learn what the dogma teaches. Are you sure Atheists that follow Evolution don't believe they are apes? Maybe that's true for an Atheist such as Dr. David Berlinski who doesn't believe in Evolution nor Creationism or I.D. But if you're an ardent follower of the Evolution hoax, you believe you're an ape, by proxy.
According to the taxonomy myth, humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are part of the Hominidae family also known as GREAT APES. Even your Messiah Dawkins when asked in a public debate if he believed he was an ape, he answered back: "I'm an ape and proud of it". You can find his answer here on YouTube's videos. Keep consistency in your Atheistic religion and beliefs or otherwise you will fail to magically convert more humans into apes.
If you're a Buddhist, then you're an Atheist because your cult doesn't believe in any God(s). Atheists can be spiritual & some Atheists even believe in ghosts. If you claim to believe in a God or gods, then you've invented the first non-Atheistic Buddhism cult with you being the only follower in the world. Even Satanism is another Atheistic cult. Satanists don't believe in Satan as an entity but they call Satan to the human ego and the cult teaches Atheists to satisfy ALL their lusts & desires.
You're an idiot if you actually believe this. Evolution is among the STRONGEST theories that exist. Now what is a weak psudeo theory would be religion. In your case I would suggest that ignorance is bliss. Are you blissful, you ignorance fuck?
How can you argue this?? It's plain and simple right in front of you.. God created everything in 6 days.. That's it.. There is nothing to argue about. The problem with anti-creationists is that they don't know how God created everything.. They need physical evidence in front of them.
but you gotta have faith in the bible and it says ...faith is the evedence of things not seen... those guys want to see something that there never ever gonna see
Ever notice Hovind can't stop interrupting Ross? Look. It's ok if you like to be a young Earth'er, I've seen you posting in most every video on this series: But please don't elevate a thief and liar (and we know this to be true as he sits in prison). Don't do it for the Swaggart's or the Baker's or the Hovind's of this world. They aren't acting in the ways of Christ. Feel free to use this mans argument if you want, but when a man says he's of Christ and doesn't act like it, save your defense.
Dr. Hugh Ross, what verse in Psalm 104 talks about creating new species when they go extinct? I don't know how you read the Bible. You are taking the Bible out of context. Please humble yourself. You might think that verse 30 refers to a new creation of species, but it is close to 2 Corinthians 5:17 about new creation in Christ. Please don't try to interpret the Bible with Science. Just study Science to research. Please study the Bible carefully.
Well Psalm 104 seems to be talking about God's provision for animals. Certain creatures die out and God supplies the earth with new creatures. Animals don't go to heaven or the new creation and this verse could be evidence for that. Therefore I don't think that Christ is applied here. But hey, if that works for you then that's fine too :).
sorry but theyre both wrong on evolution read a book plz. math models are it..just models Models work on a set of assumptions and can always be modified
This is in response to cstrand31. 1st- "Theory" is just that "theory", if it where a proven fact it wouldnn't be called a theory, and gravity is referrred to a law.
2nd- How do you prove a negitive. If you are referring to darwinian evolutionary theory then you need to check out "unlocking the mysteries of life" and check out all the scientific evidence that proves it could not have happened by small successive changes.
Then I guess you don't to listen to him. Makes me wonder why you always have. Regardless if kent is "crazy" or not, the Bible is correct on 6 literal days and the earth being about 6000 yrs old. Anybody with common sense can figure that out.
What the fuck is going on here!?! Hovind beleives in evolution more than someone?? He's speaking of micro-evolution,whereas Ross is plainly stating every animal always existed since "creation" and has never changed in any way.
micro-evolution is varriation taking place that is already in the genetic code, which is fact and is observable. There are different breeds of dogs that previously didn't exist. Those breeds came forth from what was already there in their genetic code. Macro-evolution is what is saying we came from a fish. Do we have that genetic info already in us? NO! We never came from fish. Micro-evolution is fact, the other 5 definitions are not scientific fact.
no the difference is "macro evolution" is a theory. you can say the timescale is the only difference but who cares when the whole theory can't be proven in the first place which makes timescale irrelevant to your story for people who study science and theology.
Clearly you are a scientific illiterate. Perhaps you should at least read up on the subject,even just a little. But the real red flag is the when you say macro-evolution is a theory,like its a bad thing. Clearly you are unaware of the differrence between a SCIENTIFIC theory,and those in the coloquial sense. Scientific theory being the highest honor given to an idea,whereas the latter being equivalent to having a "theory" that proffessor plum did it in the library with the candlestick.
all the same, darwin married his cousin and had children with birth defects and carl marx's children died of starvation cus he was a lazy bum. Darwin thought he could have better children marrying in his gene pool, guess evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be w. Keep following bums and idiots and so forth and I'll keep following the one who actually made me. You sure did come from a rock because your just as stupid as one cstrand31 lol
"had children with birth defects" - So EVERY child with a birth defect is a product of interbreeding? Regardless,please provide your sources for said defects. Im confused as to your reference to Marx,seems WAY off topic and irrelevant in every way.
"guess evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be " - assuming your first premise is correct, the only thing proven here is that interbreeding causes birth defects,that is not evolution.
As to the one that made you,prove it. Prove creation.
darwin thought he would get better stalk from doing it so why aren't all evolutionists marrying the sisters brothers cousins that smart and attractive? Your going to pick and choose things you like? The evolution your talking about is rediculus. Since when do things get better as time goes on. Nothing gets better, only gets worse. Everything degrades over time. Even humans are having more and more genetic problems than they used to. Don't see any humans evolving.
Even from a scientific perspective, breeding with relatives is detrimental to the gene pool as its increases chance of unfavourable mutation or genetic defects.
Humans are living several times as long as we did centuries ago due to modern medicine (under the assumed truth of evolution).
Also evolution requires natural selection or need to compensate, Human environments have 'evolved' to accommodate us, not the other way, in the past few decades due to urban development.
cstrand31 you prove a evolution other than micro then lets talk. In general there is more pointing towards a young earth than old earth anyways. What are you doing watching talks about christianity if you are against it? This isn't even the place for you to be posting cstrand31.
Shall I also prove the THEORY of gravity as well? How about atomic THOERY? Just because you are incapable of understanding a subject does not mean it's wrong. The theory of evolution has been through run through the gauntlet of scientific peer review, and has withstood scrutiny for 150 years. If you want to disprove evolution you will need to bring some evidence to the table. Because in the scientific arena thats all that matters. You have 2 choices:
1: Disprove evolution scientifically. Provide your EVIDENCE against it. A peer reviewed paper perhaps. Because,you see if you want to go that route, I have 247,439 peer reviewed papers in my corner. How many do you have?
2: Prove creation. Prove it logically and scientifically with empirical evidence to support your claim. Now mind you,even if you DID disprove evolution,that doesnt PROVE creation. At best we are at a neutral position of it being an unknown.
As for my posting here, this isn't a talk about christianity per se. I just like to hear that idiot Kent Hovind spout is abject nonsense with absolutely NOTHING to back it up, and then call him on his BS. Why is it that I shouldn't post here? If your belief structure can't withstand a little critical thinking,perhaps you've taken a wrong turn in life somwhere.
If you want to say a scientific theory is incorrect you better be able to back it up with hard evidence,or you've got nothing.
Ok, I just looked over your 3 whole post reply's to my question prove a evolution other than micro and I can't see any proof whatsoever here. Then you keep wanting to call it scientific theory? Prove the scientific theory of creation wrong cstrand31. Hovind can have a 250,000 offer for anyone who can prove any evidence for evolution. We don't see evolutionists doing the same thing about creationism because so many facts point towards a young earth in general.
WOW, this belongs in an asylum. "He says the sky is green, but i know its bright pink"
TheSlothHead 1 month ago
No matter how hard you try, you cant tie together scientific facts and theist fairy tales.It simply wont work.
Q3ToPBuZz 3 months ago
One of them is not at all educated. So I don't feel very bad for the waste of tax-payers money. But the other one is very well educated. Too bad, tax payers got cheated in this particular case.
spnebula 3 months ago
Don't even try to reason the concept of God with the monkey people. They are wholly devoted to the religion of "theories" (unproven facts) they have an amazing faith to the religion of evolution that is baseless. Darwin himself said that "if I am correct you will find hundreds upon thousands of transitional forms in the fossil records." No such transitional forms have been found! Get over it people Darwin is busted! The monkey people do not have the ability to know God, they are lower beings.
tot792 5 months ago
@tot792 I wish you would understand who God truly is an not spread a message of arrogance and hate. God is love, and Jesus taught through love. He associated with the lowly people of society(or monkeys as you may have called them were you alive then) and called out the proud and arrogant, the ones who served themselves and used God only as fit their selfish desires.
FlikkerDans 1 month ago
Wow......Sick sick sick.
redrum95432 6 months ago
@Logandown yes i know how to pay my taxes he does,nt. the neanderthal were old men with rickets LOL what about the neanderthal children skeletons. what were they old midgets with rickets. you need to read some books b4 defending this scumbag.
JOOGAL1111 7 months ago
@Logandown the evidence is there go look. sticking your head in the sand and believing any old shite that hovind says wont make it go away. Hovind is a conman telling lies for fun, his stupid hovind theory is not feasible. If you honestly think the universe is only 6000 years old your wrong. watch hovind being destroyed in the many debunk vids.
JOOGAL1111 7 months ago
don,t know whats worse hovind and ross ignoring the mountain of evidence for evolution or most of these bullshit comments agreeing with them. it worries me that there,s so many ignorant bawbags out there.
JOOGAL1111 7 months ago
@JOOGAL1111 Well Hovind is offering $250,000 And debated 87 professors. If You know something that he doesn't. Step-Up and Claim the reward. Simply saying there is evidence doesn't pay the bill. So far, Hovind has shot all of that in the ground.
Logandown 7 months ago
You say 'THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY GOD' But the Bible itself say's in 2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." God's hand may not've wrote the Word's but His Holy Spirit gave the men the word's to write. Erasmus in 1516 compiled edited and printed the textus receptus where we get the kjv from. The phrase "and he took one of his ribs" was in the original or it wouldn't have been inserted.
Mr308winmag 7 months ago
It makes me ill to deal with morons like you who know little if any what their talking about! The KJV is for a fact a word for word transalation taken from the received text. In around 1605 or 06, and finished in 1611 and revised not in translation but where where the english speaking people of today could read it in 1689. I hope people check your lies out. The KJV does not use "apple" it say's fruit in Genesis 3:6. All the fundamentalists used the kjv to teach and preach from. DO YOUR RESEARCH
Mr308winmag 7 months ago
there were times when ligers reproducing. not all of them are reproducing but come on. there are millions of people that cant reproduce, are we different kind or species?
donfanto1 8 months ago
Genesis 2:21 "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his "RIBS", and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"
Mr308winmag 9 months ago
@Mr308winmag thats not in the original text. just like apple isnt either
guineapiggyman 8 months ago
@guineapiggyman who said apple was? Which word or word's were not in the original? Cause the kjv is a word for word translation. Also what else would he have taken out of his side? One of his kidney's maybe man started out with 3 kidney's. I've done an exhaustive study on where the bible came from and which manuscripts were used for various translations the kjv was translated from the textus receptus. one of the only translations that was.
Mr308winmag 8 months ago
@Mr308winmag the new american bible and the KJV use the term apple. the original one said just fruit (most likely a fig). the fundamentalists, as well as the vatican both have NEVER endorsed the KJV, because its NOT a word for word match. there were alot of liberties taken. well, why would man have to have 3 kidneys if that was what was used? we dont have a missing rib. each human has same number on each side. so ur argument is moot. hun.....
guineapiggyman 8 months ago
@guineapiggyman Pt 3. The fruit mentioned in this passage you say was" (most likely a fig)" isn't that as much of a speculation as people saying it was an apple? Just because they sewed fig leaves together doesn't mean that was the fruit. Surely you're not suggesting that? May I suggest that the latin word for apple is (malam) and the word for evil is (malum) could've been the reason? It's irrelevant though. BTW Yes I know that men and women both have 12 pairs of ribs. Next.
Mr308winmag 7 months ago
@guineapiggyman Pt 4 But I didn't say man had less ribs. Neither does the Bible. It say's God used one of his ribs to create Eve. I know I must've suggested that with the kidney remark. I apologize. I'm sure you already know this but God created man in such a way that when he lost certain parts they would regenerate in time! Awesome, like hair, fingernails, skin, etc. BTW even your RIBS!!! Within 2-3 months of a thoracoplasty surgery ie (taking a set of ribs) they will regenerate. God is Awesome
Mr308winmag 7 months ago
The receptus was NOT used in the KJV. Only in the gutenberg originals, and the new vatican bible (1812). if youve done such 'exhaustive' research, then id think you would know your stuff a little better. do you know that the oldest original texts the bible is based on only date to AFTER 150AD? (god i really hope your not one of those people who believe man has a missing rib....) YOU DO REALIZE THAT THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY GOD, RIGHT?
guineapiggyman 8 months ago
I like these videos but it would be nice if the person posted it would keep his biased opinions out of the description and let us viewers determine whether or not Kent is misinformed or uses false analagies and what not.
RasheemH 10 months ago
Ross:"where do you see the evidence for the so called transitional forms"
Whales---Pakicetid->Ambulocetus->Rodhocetus->Basilosaurus->Squalodon->Cetotherium->The Modern Whale..... Did I miss any? Probably did but I fail so see how these are not transitional forms.
Feralus69 1 year ago
Ross owned Darwin!
AgApE010 1 year ago
I think most people dislike Kent Hovind because what he says is very controversial, complex and goes over their heads (and he's a bit tacky at times). It's easier just to assume that Dr. Ross knows what he's talking about because of his "prestige" in the science community. However there are multiple layers within alot of Hovind's concepts that make sense if you can comprehend them.
kfcguy1999 1 year ago
@kfcguy1999 no most people don't like Kent Hovind because he displays ignorance of the subject. His interpretation is different, many people agree with his interpretation of Genesis and the bible, but this assumes that this interpretation is right, as Ross keeps saying go back to the Hebrew, yet Kent doesn't. The Talmud written thousands of years ago also differs in it's interpretaion of Genesis than Kent. not that Ross is right either
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006 you dislike/disagree for the same reasons baptists/southern baptists/independant baptists...etc...disagree and dislike each other. just differing opinions. As for displaying ignorance, I think you need to watch him debate secular experts. I promise you they point out EVERY flaw and "ignorance of the subject" which i think you'll be surprised to find are very few. I don't understand why an expert would not point out ignorance, but you do? maybe that's because he isn't ignorant...
kfcguy1999 1 year ago
Kent Hovind is dangerous. Having said that, please keep posting these videos. I think they are hysterical.
CyberWeez 1 year ago
...If we keep evolving we¨re all going to be a tabacco plant!! Gee, that was very hilarious
Rigelcentauri58 1 year ago
@VioletFlame137 Claire is not a prophet
KungFatty 1 year ago
I love how the host refers to science as the "folks out there".
Superphilipp 1 year ago
As improbable as it may seem, evolution did happen. HOW it happened is the theory of evolution. Sure let's debate that- natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, variability by mutations, etc. A mathematical model is irrelevant, it without a doubt happened as evidence tells us. "God loves whales and horses" does not explain anything whatsoever.
nohomo1234567890 1 year ago
@VioletFlame137 I cant believe they spammed this commment.
JustPlainBored00 1 year ago
im very confused here now, chromosome is just the capsule where DNA is stored, why does he talk like the number of it is the sign of common ancestry?
quezcatol 1 year ago
This is filmed in 2000 but it's weird, the hair, quality of video, the audience too even. It just looks like VHS recording of an 80's debate.
yourmomswallowsmycum 1 year ago
OMG why does this freak Kent Hovind keep justifying everything with the worldwide flood myth.
RefutingPolytheist 1 year ago
@RefutingPolytheist
He always returns to the flood myth because that is what his book says, so he has to profess such a belief in order to fleece his flock. The question is, does he actually believe it or is he just following the paycheck as he accuses eucators/scientists of doing? i'd suggest with the fame and fortune he earned from arguing this view (pre tax trouble/jail) that he clearly has more reason to lie than a public school teacher.
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
@spinycrayfish Read "Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell...
thelamb777 1 year ago
@thelamb777
I don't know what is sadder, the fact that you would reccomment such a book, or the books existence in the first place...
That book is aimed at manipulating the ignorant with very simple tactics, almost verbatim to all of Hovinds arguments all of which have been debunked, and leaves the reader with the reassuring idea that their deluded fairy tales they have based their life on is true... you should be ashamed for even mentioning it, it reflects very poorly on your intellect...
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
John Ankerberg is a good presenter. I like this. (Clicks like)
samtorrance5590 1 year ago
They're both morons... Evolution might be theory but it's a theory based on many different scientific research and facts...
TILOTV 1 year ago
@TILOTV You say theory like its unsatisfying. A scientific Theory is the unifying structure that explains all facts, laws, and evidence relevant to its field and its the BEST explanation available for those facts. Don't listen to what these ignorant creationists stay a Theory is FAR beyond a guess. The only thing greater than a Theory is a mathematical proof so evolution is as proven as anything can ever be in science outside math.
shldflght 1 year ago
Hovind has a thing about dogs and bananas...Doesn't make any sense.
FreeTunes498 1 year ago
If anyone watching this takes either of these guys seriously, I feel pity..
As a gag, it's great, but these guys are about as far off the mark as you can go..
It's amazing how much effort they put into things they must know are doomed, or have been doomed for a long time as ideas...
Fucking religion, it can make you believe anything.....
badtrunk456 1 year ago
I think the Goat is taking the word of the scriptures in a completely cynical literal way. I don't think he even sincerely believes in God, anymore...
Fetrovsky 1 year ago
the only thing made up is evolution
pungadoo 1 year ago
what a wonderful debate. thank you,
"if you don't believe in God you won't believe in nothing, you'll believe in anything."
crabsyman 1 year ago
Kent Hovind talks BS here.
Cromosome is just the structure thats DNA is in. more or less cromosone isnt a sign of advancement.
Its like saying a thicker book is more well written, thats not the case everytime.
quezcatol 1 year ago 2
@quezcatol
just here? what about the rest of the talk? Hell, even the rest of his whole career?
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
Hovind is deceptive. He is saying a dolphin and a killer whale created a hybrid. True story: a dolphin and a false killer whale created the wholphin. Clearly he's trying to plant an image of an Orca in your mind.
glocksout 1 year ago
the 2 of them are bat shit crazy
deepwinter77 1 year ago
Hey Kent! I'm a transitional species. Gimme 250,000$
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
Oops! Hugh Ross stopped making sense when he stopped talking about astronomy. (Ignoring all the 'God made it' stuff.)
Cripes. We're not gonna see speciation in large long lived creatures within a human's lifetime. We'd have to live millenia to witness that.
Hovind. lol. He never made sense. Does he actually believe that evolution deals with tomatoes evolving into houseflies? And that people evolve into tobacco? He doesn't have the slightest clue what evolution is about. What a joke.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W I'm a Christian but I'm gonna have to agree with you evolution is not determined by chromosomes but by changes that will take place on the species level.
FreeTunes498 1 year ago
@FreeTunes498
Always nice to meet a Christian who accepts evolution. =)
But I'd say that changes to a species' genome (via mutation or variation) manifest themselves as minute 'species level' changes. And whether or not those changes are a benefit or a hinderance is what determines whether or not the creature will survive.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
dog and a banana?
quezcatol 1 year ago
@quezcatol sounds naughty lol
adrasvaiyen 1 year ago
These videoes are all messed-up. I have already heard this clip three times. they're not in order.
Apologist117 1 year ago
@Apologist117 yeah i got confused too. ther are 2 discs. watch all the disc one of twos first, then the disc two of twos.
adrasvaiyen 1 year ago
dont u love the assholes like jackface who post 30 long comments trying to get their opinions across to someone cuz no one else will listen. shut up you fool! these guys in the video may be liars but people like you make me sick!
TheMethadoneParty 1 year ago
You can indeed cross breed different horse genums and get a Jackass. We will call this one the "He haw..." as he is being raped by Bubba probobly as we discuss...
Allen78x 1 year ago
Hovind's "chromosome explanation" is so ignorant and flawed I felt a little ill when he equated chromosome # with evolutionary hierachy and thus humans will evolve into tobacco plants or dogs from bananas. He's clearly willingly stupid, misinformed or more likely, has a hell of an agenda.
It's almost impossible to maintain a succinct debate with the man because he changes tack every minute. But wait Kent, you never explained why Tobacco plantes are more advanced than humans!
jackface0410 2 years ago
@jackface0410
EXACTLY. It's like arguing with a 7 year old that has his own "reality". I don't really think Hovind actually believes what he says. It has been pointed out many times that Hovind has been proven wrong many times and still spews the same crap. For years he argued that the Grand Canyon entrance was lower than the exit. The moron thought the Colorado river flowed West to East. His son Eric is STILL spewing this same argument.
MrJmm999 2 years ago
This is a pretty rigged debate. It's a creationist vs a creationist, why not include the entire spectrum for balance? Whoever wins this, humanity loses.
jackface0410 2 years ago
This debate is becoming extremely pathetic now that they're on evolution. Neither of them knows what they're talking about, but Kent's arguments are even more pathetic than the other guy's. "We'll all be tobacco plants if we keep evolving".......what.....??? He has no clue what he's going on about. And the other guy's mathematical model is absolutely unfounded. I can't find it anywhere, and nature proves it wrong.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Go Hugh Ross! A lot of people are blessed with your ministry! :)
tm2cruz 2 years ago
Go Hugh Ross! A lot of people are blessed with your ministry! :)
tm2cruz 2 years ago
he argues that dogs and bananas arent related by using microsoft word and microsoft power point as an analogy. what he fails to point out, is word and power point are related! what a moron.
watty024 2 years ago
But it's a crap analogy because Microsoft software doesn't have the potential to reproduce.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
I'm disappointed Kent went off on a tanget at 3:25. I agree with him here but wanted to know what he thought of the large nasal capacity of Neanderthals. I've read about this. They say they think Neanderthals spoke differently.
I personally think there's examples of them today. Some people have those sort of dimensions nasally.
Don't forget, they might have been suffering illness like Kent says, and could have been an amalgamation of races after the Flood (before they split).
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
The mtDNA of Neanderthals has been sequenced; they were not human. Hovind's claim that "they were deformed humans" is nonsense.
People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor; their bones are weak. Neanderthal bones are fifty percent thicker than the average human's. Rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur. Neanderthal femurs bend backward.
Also, we have many specimens of them. It's *extremely* unlikely that they all suffered from the exact same illness.
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 We find alot of deformed elderly people who were of a different race-before they branched out into what we have today. When you say *all of them you really mean all those living at that time and not just those you find.
Also, apparently there's an illness you can get if you live to an extreme old age. This is what they probably had.
As for the DNA i've heard you're taking an average sample. We still apparently find some with that sequence today-and they were a different race.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
"A different race" indeed; they were not of the human race. To see a refutation on Hovind's claim of them being "deformed humans" with "extreme old age", watch this:
watch?v=foWdiT9iH44 (@ 23:27 til 27:26)
Straus and Cave (1957) showed them to be distinct from *all* groups of modern man. As for the mtDNA, their's is divergent enough to conclusively show they were not human beings. To see how:
talkorigins. org / faqs / homs / mtDNA. html
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 You forget-they built things, painted and buried their dead. They showed these human characteristics because they were human. Simple.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
Indeed, they did do those things, however that doesn't make them human. By your reasoning, gorillas which travel in troops, use tools, & ostracize dissenters, are humans as well. lol Gorillas, neanderthals, and humans do all belong to the same biological order & family: primates & hominids. Its the divergence in DNA that, while showing common descent w/ modification, also separates us into different species.
I noticed you didn't address any of the points of rebuttal I cited.
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 ..or we're simply designed similarly to apes.
Yes they do some near-human things because they have the most complex brains of the animal kingdom. They're still animals though because they are not capable of putting meaning into any 'artwork' we set them up to do.
They wouldn't be able of fashioning a hand axe like the Neanderthals :D
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
Different forms also (it is claimed) come from the same designer, so similar forms are not evidence of a common designer. Evidence for a designer must begin by specifying (before the fact) whats expected from the designer. When do we expect similar forms, & when do we expect different forms? "Intelligent design" theory will not answer that. Evolution theory has made that prediction, and the pattern of similarities & differences that we observe accords with what evolution predicts.
gmn545 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
Also, there are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the *same location* in the genome.
watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA
The "similar design, common designer" argument fails.
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 No it doesn't fail. If they're at the same locations they're there for a logical reason in the *created and *designed machinery.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
"they're there for a logical reason in the *created and *designed machinery"
*facepalm*...Incorrect. They are several kinds of ERVs and they are inserted at RANDOM locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the *same type* of ERV at the *same location* in the genome. This screams loudly in favor of common ancestry.
Try **watching** the video I cited. Here it is again: watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 Apparently inserted at random.
The fact they're in the same place in chimps means either they are in other animals as well, or that they need to be because we have a similar design. You simply cannot jump ahead and call it ancestry. For that you need to show a progression-something the fossil record does not show.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
That they are inserted at random is a fact...period. To think otherwise is to only show how uneducated about endogenous retroviruses one is. You CAN infer ancestry, once you actually **understand** how an endogenous retrovirus works. Again, WATCH the video.
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 Yes a common designer because all life has the same 20 letters in the alphabet :)
Evolution does not explain diversity; it only gives one shaky theory for it. ID on the other hand simply says each was designed with a particular niche in mind-to function as part of a whole.
What do we need to specify '...before the fact...' about a designer anyway? What do you mean here? Nature testifies to a creator and that's it as far as I'm concerned :/
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
"Because all life has the same 20 letters in the alphabet"
Huh? lol. I noticed that my example of endogenous retroviruses flew right over your head.
"Shaky" eh? I've got the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (*experts* in their respective fields) and empirical evidence to back up evolution.
As for ID, all I have to say is: Dover Trial. Behe was practically laughed out of the courtroom after Dr. Ken Miller (Catholic; evolutionary biologist) crushed ID.
gmn545 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design that are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
--Michael Behe (during cross-examination, Dover Trial, 2005)
Behe admits ID is not science. Judge Jones III ruled: "ID is religious and not a scientific proposition." Claiming "bias" won't help you, as Judge Jones is a devout Lutheran.
gmn545 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
As for evolution being able to explain the biodiversity of life, we've observed it do so. Evolution is change in allelic frequencies within a given population; its an observed & well-documented fact.
In case you claim "but that's only microevolution", well sorry but macroevolution (occuring AT or above the species level, e.g. speciation) has also been observed and well-documented. Just google "Observed Instances of Speciation."
Evolution explains atavistic traits, ERV's, etc.
gmn545 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
Why does the number of chromosomes for Neanderthals matter? Although, chromosomal fusion is actually good evidence for evolution. :-)
I also find it funny that around 3:25, Hovind says horses and zebras are the same "kind" (which he never gives a proper definition for). Yet, the DNA of humans is 98.4% identical to a chimpanzee's, showing a closer genetic relation than even horses and zebras have...but Hovind wouldn't ever say that humans and chimps are the same "kind" lol!
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 Because they're probably going to be the same number as ours-23!
Obviously horses and zebras are the same kind. Take a look at them lol
So we're similar to chimps. We have the same sort of body don't we-but this doesn't prove one led to the other. Moreover, we're not the same kind because they have bodies different enough in key respects like feet.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
"Obviously horses and zebras are the same kind"
Define "kind." According to Hovind, as long as they can interbreed, they're the same kind. Yet, a lion and a house kitten cannot interbreed, eventhough they're both "cats." So there goes that stupid definition.
We're not just similar to chimps, we're 98.4% identical to them. Again, if you only knew what an ERV was and how it speaks loudly in favor of common ancestry, you wouldn't be confused on this issue.
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 We're simply not chimps. Again, we only share huge chunks of DNA because, obviously, we have a primate designed body. This does not prove ancestry; only *commonality* of traits. You are not thinking critically.
Now a house spider can't interbreed with a tarantula. They are the same 'kind'. I think the Bible means types of the same kind that *can interbreed. Take a look at some pictures of animals and see which you think could make babies :D
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
I didn't say we are chimps. 98.4% =/= 100% now, does it? However, we do share a common ancestor with chimps. As far as your "commonality" argument, Hovind has used this ridiculous argument and got demolished (on his own show)
watch?v=CGfhAevhy_0
Again, you haven't provided any sound definition for the word "kind." As I stated already (which you simply chose to ignore), a lion and a house kitten can NOT interbreed, yet they are both "cats"! This is why "species" works better.
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 We don't share a common ancestor. We didn't evolve from them. You can't prove we did; you can only theorize.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
No scientific theory is "proven"; that's a mathematical term (you'd know if you *watched* the Dr. Ken Miller clip).
A scientific theory is an analytic structure designed to *explain* a set of empirical observations. Darwin's theory of descent with modification has overwhelming evidence and 150 years of research to back it up (ex: endogenous retroviruses, chromosomal fusion, atavistic traits, etc.).
This is why millions of theists can be intellectually honest and accept it.
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 Yeah I know the difference between a theory and fact. The trouble with evolution theory is it's failed to come up with not only the staggering quantity of transitional fossils needed (they didn't find even one), genetics by it's complexity proves beyond a shadow of a doubt mutations could never have done this.
What's more, the Earth is now known conclusively not to be more than a few thousand years old.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
"quantity of transitional fossils needed (they didn't find even one)"
Nonsense. There are a plethora of transitional species. Even ID proponent David Berlinksi conceded (in a debate w/ Dr. Ken Miller) "I agree. The late reptilian-to-mammalian sequence is well documented. No question about it."
watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ
"Mutations could never have done this"
That's why its called Evolution by natural selection (a non-random process), acting on mutation. This has been observed.
gmn545 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
"Earth is now known conclusively not to be more than a few thousand years old"
LMAO!! I'm sorry, but please cite one scientific, peer-reviewed work that has discredited the hundreds of others and has shown "conclusively" that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. For your sake, I hope you're not talking about Polonium Halos.
The scientific community agrees that earth is 4.55 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%).
talkorigins. org / faqs / faq-age-of-earth. html
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 Most of them have to if they want to keep their jobs. It doesn't follow because most of them believe it's millions, it really is. They taught the Sun goes round the Earth for centuries. They were wrong.
If you look at things like salt content of the oceans, moondust and moon distance; not forgetting lack of erosion for millions of years between rock layers, you'll see.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
"If they want to keep their jobs"
Again, where are you getting this from? Do try *watching* the Dr. Ken Miller video I cited.
"it's millions"
4.55 billion. And its not because they "say so", but because they have a valid method of calculation from which they determine the earth to be that old. I cited the paper that explains how. Try *reading* it.
"Sun goes round the Earth"
Geocentricism was taught by the Church (Eccl.1:5). Scientists, like Galileo, disproved that.
gmn545 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
As to your "arguments" for a young-earth, NONE of them are new and ALL have been shown to be nonsensical. Here is an index to the several creationist arguments for a young-earth (including the ones you've mentioned), and they all come with refutations (backed up by scientific, peer-reviewed works):
talkorigins. org / faqs / hovind / howgood. html
"Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat earth." -- Hugh Ross
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 Billions, I stand corrected. Slip of the fingers :/
Well the Church was an ass. Anyone who really thought hard about it would have known different, though there's always plenty of stuff not known for sure. The ancients knew Earth was a sphere that turned though. Following the path of the Sun through the year like the ancients Egyptians did would reveal the truth.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
I agree that the ancient Greco-Roman 'natural philosophers' (proto-scientists) were aware of the earth being spherical (ex: Eratosthenes, Seleucus, Pythagoras, etc.). However, it seems that the biblical authors were not aware.
Isa 40:22 states that the earth is a circle (hebrew: 'chuwg'), which has a flat plane. The same author in ch. 22 v. 18 uses "dure" (ball; round) so we know he had knowledge of a spherical object, yet he specifically used "circle" when describing earth.
gmn545 2 years ago
I can't believe you think that the distance of the moon proves a young Earth...unbelieveable. Let me do the calculation for you
The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
This goes to show that you have copy and pasted a classic creationist argument without attempting to understand it. This is the definition of willfull ignorance
JolleyEFC 2 years ago
Beliefs like the Sun rotating around the Earth, and a flat Earth existed due to creationists (or should I say Christians, there wasn't much debate back then)
These ideas were later challenged by scientists, most of which were theists by the way. If you want to make a point, please back it up with a source. Your previous one mentioned "evidence" of a young Earth, yet the very next one you claim it's being withheld due to people fearing for their livelihoods. If you have nothing, say so.
jackface0410 2 years ago
Transitional Fossils, i.e. "missing links:" Homo Sapien, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus
I invite you to also acknowledge evidence presented by Embryology.
Now, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. Unfortunately for creationists, there is an incredible amount of evidence to support it as a Scientific Theory. Creationism is also a theory. It wouldn't last long as a Scientific Theory though, as it becomes falsified by lack of evidence.
Suggestion for you: Do your Homework!
piccoloturtle 2 years ago
@piccoloturtle awe man listen to yourself...
Logan52890 2 years ago
Huh? How dare I present evidence in light of none? My apologies for offense, but it is illogical to treat the bible, written 1000 years before the enlightenment, and science, as a literal document. Believe what you will but the evidence is all around you.
Correction: In the previous comment I should retract my meaning, as "to support it as a Scientific Theory" should read as "to support Evolution as a Scientific Theory."
Thanks for the reply.
piccoloturtle 2 years ago
@gmn545 You've only got those who have to toe the party line if they want to keep their jobs. Really critical thinking people won't laugh. They'll listen and gel with what I'm talking about.
Some of you guys might laugh, but they laughed at Darwin (and rightly so). It may not be in our lifetimes but our current dumb theory of evolution will one day be discarded as bunk.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
"If they want to keep their jobs"
This argument is used by every creationist who has 0 understanding of how the scientific community works. Perhaps Dr. Ken Miller ought to explain this to you briefly:
watch?v=jVaCmASYLDg
I won't even address that staggeringly ignorant last paragraph of yours.
gmn545 2 years ago
@gmn545 It's true though isn't it, otherwise they wouldn't be so steadfast in their ignorance and lack of critical thinking.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
@Pulsar205
No it isn't true. Again, **watch** the video I cited. The reasoning of the scientific community is as follows: "Here's the evidence. What conclusions can we draw from it?" The creationist who's entire way of thinking is: "Here's the conclusion (Bible is right). Now lets try and find what 'evidence' we can to support it."
99.98% of life/earth scientists (*experts* in their respective fields) are "steadfast in their ignorance"? Such a nonsensical claim isn't worth commentary.
gmn545 2 years ago
Toe the party line to keep their jobs? The scientific community functions as a body of scientists who do nothing BUT challenge and extend our current knowledge and theories.
If someone wanted to disprove ANY current theory scientifically, that's a valid field of research and will be encouraged.
On the other hand, if one simply tossed out all the existing evidence to prove a creationist theory, of course it's ridiculous. Because there's nothing scientific at all about it.
jackface0410 2 years ago
@gmn545 How many chromosomes did Neanderthals have anyway?
Pulsar205 2 years ago
That crosses can't allegedly reproduce (and Kent was just about to say some could) is immaterial. The fact is two species made a cross. This on its own confirms they are the same kind.
Conversely, some things of the same species can't-like a garden spider and a tarantula :)
Pulsar205 2 years ago
nutter vs nutter
walter0bz 2 years ago
Ah, but according to you it isn't nutter to believe that dinosaurs magically transformed into chickens; reptiles magically transformed into apes that Atheists love to call "Lucy" & then claim that 1, 5 or 10 "transitional" fossils could possibly link 2 species that lived 20 million years apart? And you dare talk about crazy people when you & your retarded cult of Atheism teaches other Atheist religious nuts that they are apes no different from those at the local zoo? Stop pushing Atheism on us.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
they didn't magically transform, the information was added one small step at a time.
Very easy to understand for a scientist & mathematician.
you can only mentally perceive with numbers you can *see* ..10's, 100's, maybe 1000's.. beyond that you work in abstractions.
but these larger numbers like millions/billions exist, and they "work".
yes, a humans' DNA is only marginally different from an apes.. imagine 2 books with a few individual words different here & there.
I stand by by statement
walter0bz 2 years ago
You can stand by your statement all you want as much as I'll stand by mine. Fact is that evolution is a very weak pseudo-theory that fails scientifically and mathematically. I'm in the process of creating a video where I'll prove why it's impossible that we could come from ape-like creatures from a DNA perspective, mutation analysis and the fact that the number of mutations required does not fit the evolutionary timeline generally accepted between the Hominidae family and modern humans.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
So sky fairy designed it?
but where did the sky fairy come from.
if the sky-fairy always existed, then why not save a step and just claim humans always existed. I'd think you were less delusional if you were claiming this.
Mechanism of sex-selection is designed to accelerate evolution (monogamy maximizes variety + polygamy allows rarer adaptations to amplify in population) .. I suspect your pseudo disproof will be based on asexual repro assumption
walter0bz 2 years ago
Sky fairy??? Sounds more comical to me the dinosaurs that magically transform into chickens or the reptiles that magically transform into apes called "Lucy".
Be prepared for my video. I expect many Atheist cultists to foam at the mouth after I finish it. Can't wait for the countless ad-hominem atttacks I'll receive as desperation creeps in and Atheists realize how close is their religion from being exposed as the hoax it really is.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
they dont magically transform, they add information very slowly.
it's like animation viewed as single pictures.
and like i say. even if you dont beleive in evolution, it's far more rational to just think humans always existed (no sky fairy needed) hahaha
walter0bz 2 years ago
The dinosaurs that magically and SLOWLY transform into chickens don't need a sky fairy to do that?
Guess what!!! I agree. They don't need a sky fairy to do that. All they need are a bunch of retards who believe they are apes (Atheists) and a lot of imagination to believe such mythological crap. Go with those crappy fake mythological tales to other Atheists, gorillas, and baboons. They may drink the kool-aid, but not us.
Ah, and better stay away from our kids...
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
atheists dont beleive they are apes, they beleive they evolved from apes and even bacteria. thats a very big difference.
so there you go, if you want to insult us atheists you can call us bacteria!
your religion on the other hand is a virus of the mind.
walter0bz 2 years ago
Talking about ignorance... If you intend to spread your religion of the apes, at least learn what the dogma teaches. Are you sure Atheists that follow Evolution don't believe they are apes? Maybe that's true for an Atheist such as Dr. David Berlinski who doesn't believe in Evolution nor Creationism or I.D. But if you're an ardent follower of the Evolution hoax, you believe you're an ape, by proxy.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
According to the taxonomy myth, humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are part of the Hominidae family also known as GREAT APES. Even your Messiah Dawkins when asked in a public debate if he believed he was an ape, he answered back: "I'm an ape and proud of it". You can find his answer here on YouTube's videos. Keep consistency in your Atheistic religion and beliefs or otherwise you will fail to magically convert more humans into apes.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
ok so a certain large % the same genes as apes, enough differences to cause functional changes like language.
& I guess your religion is also a religion of apes then, as is every other
walter0bz 2 years ago
hehe some googling, we were "archaea" (-> protozoa-> etc...) not bacteria. but you get the idea.
walter0bz 2 years ago
It must be pleasant being an idiot. What is not pleasant is passing on your idiocy to your children.
obdami 2 years ago
i am not athiest, i am buddhist and i believe in Evolution
justinjiang 2 years ago
If you're a Buddhist, then you're an Atheist because your cult doesn't believe in any God(s). Atheists can be spiritual & some Atheists even believe in ghosts. If you claim to believe in a God or gods, then you've invented the first non-Atheistic Buddhism cult with you being the only follower in the world. Even Satanism is another Atheistic cult. Satanists don't believe in Satan as an entity but they call Satan to the human ego and the cult teaches Atheists to satisfy ALL their lusts & desires.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
buddhist say christian is the atheist!!!!because they dont believe in Buddha
justinjiang 2 years ago
BTW atheist in Buddhist definition
justinjiang 2 years ago
"evolution is a very weak pseudo-theory "
You're an idiot if you actually believe this. Evolution is among the STRONGEST theories that exist. Now what is a weak psudeo theory would be religion. In your case I would suggest that ignorance is bliss. Are you blissful, you ignorance fuck?
obdami 2 years ago
How can you argue this?? It's plain and simple right in front of you.. God created everything in 6 days.. That's it.. There is nothing to argue about. The problem with anti-creationists is that they don't know how God created everything.. They need physical evidence in front of them.
jeonnie33 2 years ago
Thats exactly right its says THE 1ST DAY
but you gotta have faith in the bible and it says ...faith is the evedence of things not seen... those guys want to see something that there never ever gonna see
jcpeterman 2 years ago 5
Anyone notice that the host interrupts Hovind like 10 times as much as he does Ross?
Hosea5000 2 years ago
Because, like everyone else, he probably thinks Hovind is a prick.
thepoet82 2 years ago 6
yep
gbvegeta 2 years ago
oh yeah, he's obviously biased.
JustinOhio 2 years ago
Ever notice Hovind can't stop interrupting Ross? Look. It's ok if you like to be a young Earth'er, I've seen you posting in most every video on this series: But please don't elevate a thief and liar (and we know this to be true as he sits in prison). Don't do it for the Swaggart's or the Baker's or the Hovind's of this world. They aren't acting in the ways of Christ. Feel free to use this mans argument if you want, but when a man says he's of Christ and doesn't act like it, save your defense.
MirroringTruth 2 years ago 3
Dr. Hugh Ross, what verse in Psalm 104 talks about creating new species when they go extinct? I don't know how you read the Bible. You are taking the Bible out of context. Please humble yourself. You might think that verse 30 refers to a new creation of species, but it is close to 2 Corinthians 5:17 about new creation in Christ. Please don't try to interpret the Bible with Science. Just study Science to research. Please study the Bible carefully.
nyzech 2 years ago
Well Psalm 104 seems to be talking about God's provision for animals. Certain creatures die out and God supplies the earth with new creatures. Animals don't go to heaven or the new creation and this verse could be evidence for that. Therefore I don't think that Christ is applied here. But hey, if that works for you then that's fine too :).
Youlube32 2 years ago
sorry but theyre both wrong on evolution read a book plz. math models are it..just models Models work on a set of assumptions and can always be modified
wookieproductions 2 years ago
This is in response to cstrand31. 1st- "Theory" is just that "theory", if it where a proven fact it wouldnn't be called a theory, and gravity is referrred to a law.
2nd- How do you prove a negitive. If you are referring to darwinian evolutionary theory then you need to check out "unlocking the mysteries of life" and check out all the scientific evidence that proves it could not have happened by small successive changes.
AverageAmerican1776 2 years ago
this is like watching a pig debating a monkey on who's shit stinks more.
NegativeNick 2 years ago
hovind's
ph1in 2 years ago 2
What was that last bit about chromosome number?
What in the heck is talking about?
Retrieverman1 2 years ago
Then I guess you don't to listen to him. Makes me wonder why you always have. Regardless if kent is "crazy" or not, the Bible is correct on 6 literal days and the earth being about 6000 yrs old. Anybody with common sense can figure that out.
JC31095 2 years ago
Im glad hes in jail now so I don't have to hear his bullshit.
ridthedelusional 2 years ago
Hovind is sooooooooooo lost
mmmdeeg 2 years ago
kent... shut your mouth....
jesseakers 2 years ago
What the fuck is going on here!?! Hovind beleives in evolution more than someone?? He's speaking of micro-evolution,whereas Ross is plainly stating every animal always existed since "creation" and has never changed in any way.
cstrand31 2 years ago
micro-evolution is varriation taking place that is already in the genetic code, which is fact and is observable. There are different breeds of dogs that previously didn't exist. Those breeds came forth from what was already there in their genetic code. Macro-evolution is what is saying we came from a fish. Do we have that genetic info already in us? NO! We never came from fish. Micro-evolution is fact, the other 5 definitions are not scientific fact.
blueiceplayer 2 years ago
No,you are wrong. The ONLY difference between MICRO and MACRO evolution is TIMESCALE. Deal with it.
cstrand31 2 years ago 2
no the difference is "macro evolution" is a theory. you can say the timescale is the only difference but who cares when the whole theory can't be proven in the first place which makes timescale irrelevant to your story for people who study science and theology.
blueiceplayer 2 years ago
Clearly you are a scientific illiterate. Perhaps you should at least read up on the subject,even just a little. But the real red flag is the when you say macro-evolution is a theory,like its a bad thing. Clearly you are unaware of the differrence between a SCIENTIFIC theory,and those in the coloquial sense. Scientific theory being the highest honor given to an idea,whereas the latter being equivalent to having a "theory" that proffessor plum did it in the library with the candlestick.
You fail.
cstrand31 2 years ago 2
all the same, darwin married his cousin and had children with birth defects and carl marx's children died of starvation cus he was a lazy bum. Darwin thought he could have better children marrying in his gene pool, guess evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be w. Keep following bums and idiots and so forth and I'll keep following the one who actually made me. You sure did come from a rock because your just as stupid as one cstrand31 lol
blueiceplayer 2 years ago
"had children with birth defects" - So EVERY child with a birth defect is a product of interbreeding? Regardless,please provide your sources for said defects. Im confused as to your reference to Marx,seems WAY off topic and irrelevant in every way.
"guess evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be " - assuming your first premise is correct, the only thing proven here is that interbreeding causes birth defects,that is not evolution.
As to the one that made you,prove it. Prove creation.
cstrand31 2 years ago
darwin thought he would get better stalk from doing it so why aren't all evolutionists marrying the sisters brothers cousins that smart and attractive? Your going to pick and choose things you like? The evolution your talking about is rediculus. Since when do things get better as time goes on. Nothing gets better, only gets worse. Everything degrades over time. Even humans are having more and more genetic problems than they used to. Don't see any humans evolving.
blueiceplayer 2 years ago
Even from a scientific perspective, breeding with relatives is detrimental to the gene pool as its increases chance of unfavourable mutation or genetic defects.
Humans are living several times as long as we did centuries ago due to modern medicine (under the assumed truth of evolution).
Also evolution requires natural selection or need to compensate, Human environments have 'evolved' to accommodate us, not the other way, in the past few decades due to urban development.
jackface0410 2 years ago
cstrand31 you prove a evolution other than micro then lets talk. In general there is more pointing towards a young earth than old earth anyways. What are you doing watching talks about christianity if you are against it? This isn't even the place for you to be posting cstrand31.
blueiceplayer 2 years ago
Shall I also prove the THEORY of gravity as well? How about atomic THOERY? Just because you are incapable of understanding a subject does not mean it's wrong. The theory of evolution has been through run through the gauntlet of scientific peer review, and has withstood scrutiny for 150 years. If you want to disprove evolution you will need to bring some evidence to the table. Because in the scientific arena thats all that matters. You have 2 choices:
cont.
cstrand31 2 years ago
cont. 2/3
1: Disprove evolution scientifically. Provide your EVIDENCE against it. A peer reviewed paper perhaps. Because,you see if you want to go that route, I have 247,439 peer reviewed papers in my corner. How many do you have?
2: Prove creation. Prove it logically and scientifically with empirical evidence to support your claim. Now mind you,even if you DID disprove evolution,that doesnt PROVE creation. At best we are at a neutral position of it being an unknown.
cont..
cstrand31 2 years ago
As for my posting here, this isn't a talk about christianity per se. I just like to hear that idiot Kent Hovind spout is abject nonsense with absolutely NOTHING to back it up, and then call him on his BS. Why is it that I shouldn't post here? If your belief structure can't withstand a little critical thinking,perhaps you've taken a wrong turn in life somwhere.
If you want to say a scientific theory is incorrect you better be able to back it up with hard evidence,or you've got nothing.
cstrand31 2 years ago
Ok, I just looked over your 3 whole post reply's to my question prove a evolution other than micro and I can't see any proof whatsoever here. Then you keep wanting to call it scientific theory? Prove the scientific theory of creation wrong cstrand31. Hovind can have a 250,000 offer for anyone who can prove any evidence for evolution. We don't see evolutionists doing the same thing about creationism because so many facts point towards a young earth in general.
blueiceplayer 2 years ago