@1313sku also, abiogenesis has already been proven possible in an experiment, albeit with an artificial atmosphere that had extremely reduced oxygen to facilitate the forming of amino aids without millions and millions of years to wait.
I absolutely love that Ken Ham is letting our youth know that they are created loved people that are created for a purpose by Almighty God, while exposing the ficticiousness of evolution. Evolution teaches our kids that they are cosmic accidents with no value and no purpose, and that they evolved from primordial ooze. The real pagan religion is evolution, and that is what should be banned form our schools. We wonder why our youth is getting worse? It's because they are told they are worthless.
@lovingthetruth7 my god, have you ever stop and wonder, what is your purposes? how come you dont follow mathew 19:21?? can you explain why you are so convince yet not with the poor, it is clearly said in the scripture to sell all you have, your home your car, and go on with the poor, see that is why this is bullshit, more then the fact that the science have absolutly prooven without any doubt evolutio is trUTH ken ham is a high school teacher at best, he doesnt even understand evolution,
@lovingthetruth7 being born a servant for sin other commited 4000 years ago, wich we dont even know, from a god that is okay with child sacrifice, stoning women,
killing children, killing people that work on sunday, and other stupidity in the bible, is really showing the young about purposes,
and incest in noah story, who the fuck he re-populated earth with only his 3 son, and wife,,get real, YOU IGNORE ALL THAT AND CHERRY PIC THE GOOD YOU BELEIVE IN, word of god is like optional isnt it?
@lovingthetruth7 do a favor to your child, explain them what is moral value, not because they want candy, this isnt being good, explain them so they understandand the honnorable thing to do is to be good to other, not because you are scare of going to hell, or because you want to go to heaven, but because you are a intelligent rational behing, that is now no more in his infancy, where superstition and magic rules,
we vote law together, we build it together so it is a better place for the child
@lapmarty Clearly you are a person with many misunderstandings. I pity your ignorance. You have misunderstood everything you have claimed to understand in your comments. As a matter of fact, you haven't even come close to understanding a thing about the Bible. You've obtained your own wrong interpretations, and that is your choice. I suggest you perform some research because you've caused yourself to look like a fool. Any athiest with an IQ higher than 70 knows what I'm talking about.
IT'S TRUE...What he is saying IS TRUE....now what are you going to do with it? just because you don't "like" it doesn't mean you don't have a decision.
There's nothing new here. Typical tired old creationist crazy. He's better groomed than most. If God had meant us to fly, He'd have given us wings. If God had meant us to travel at 60 mph, He'd have given us horses's legs. If God had meant us to live in Minnesota, He'd have given us fur. If God had meant for us to be able to kill at a distance, He'd have given us rifles for arms. Let's talk about improbable. Improbable is what you're not used to.
One Young-Earth Creationist says to another "Which is closer - the Moon or Mexico"? The other points at the Moon and replies "The Moon - Duh! You can't see Mexico from here".
This is truly pathetic. There is overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution and he is teaching these poor children a load of excrement from an ancient text. The problem is that true fundamentalist Christians couldn't care less about facts if it contradicts their holy book.
@CynicalSkeptic1 You are obviously confused about which form of evolution is being discussed here. No one would deny that microevolution occurs every day. This dispute is over the idea that all of life emerged from a single common ancestor, which is what Darwinian evolution ultimately teaches (abiogenesis). This is not science and does not belong in a science textbook.
@1313sku Sir, you appear to be mistaken as to which of us is 'confused'. "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "Platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Therein lies the problem, and thank you for proving my point. Evolutionists always cite examples of minute adaptations in an effort to prove that one kind of organism could have "evolved" into a completely different kind of organism given enough time. This, of course, has never been proven scientifically. It is merely someone's wishful thinking. They give examples of microevolution and ask you to ASSUME cosmic, organic, chemical, and abiogenesis.
@1313sku Titus 1 : 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.
13 Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.
16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
@1313sku Lol, saying you believe in microevolution and not macroevolution is like saying "i think gravity works here on earth, but not anywhere else in the universe". Quit being stupid and go away.
@1313sku The changes for what you would consider "Macro-E" take place over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Yet, there is no mechanism which limits genetic change over time. What the two categories truly signify is the limits of any particular human's *belief*. This would be considered a non-existent division between 'believable' and 'unbelievable' based on religious 'faith' from a 2,000 year old holy book.
True story. Richard Dawkins and Ken ham got into a fight this year and punches were thrown. Guess what happened? Dawkins beat that ass. Poor Ham...LOL
People need to realize that this video is making fun of creationism. Ken Ham's content is so absurd, his ignorance is so plentiful, and the act of childhood indoctrination is so painful that it doesn't even need parody or explanation to show how awful it is. The title shows the up loader's true intent.
The funny thing is, the Bible doesn't say that evolution is a lie, nor does it disprove it. Unless you take every word literal, which I don't believe the Bible is meant to be.
Kids at 0:03 "WTF IS this ape serious?", kid at: 1:22 "this imbecile didn't get the point", girl at 3:25 "is this fucker for real? HAHA I'm smarter than you and and I am 7 LOL"
@Macauley86 Well if they're your kids, or you're the guardian, you can remove them from public school. Through homeschooling and community schooling, you can teach them whatever you want. Or find a private school that shares your beliefs.
Otherwise you're not the guardian, and you can't decide what other people are taught without inhibiting their rights. Public schools have to have standards, they must teach what is most accepted and confirmed by those in the field.
@zhalfirim That does not answer my question and also introduces a second problem. First, my tax dollars are used to teach other kids something I strongly disagree with. Second, if I send my kids to a private school (or homeschool them), I pay for education twice. How are both fair?
@Macauley86 I sympathize, i know what it's like to be frustrated with America's education system. I'm just on the other end of the spectrum.
We can either fix our system, or move to a country with consensus on what to teach. We both know we'd rather be here. Besides, countries that focus on religious teachings usually have shitty science and education. Entire disciplines become superfluous, like genetics. No point in discovering life's origins when you have all the answers in one book.
Ken Ham is the anti-Christ. He is lying to children and trying to destroy Christianity. Also, he is an idiot with no knowledge of the animal kingdom whatsoever.
How can some people be so blind to not see that God created the universe and everything in it? It's all laid out for them all they have to do is open their eyes and look around. The earth was not an accident that happened because of an explosion and humans did not happen by accident evolving from some monkey. God made us in his perfect image. evolution theory says dinos were killed out by a meteor and then it says birds evolved from them how does that work if all the dinos are dead?
@OddDude21 1.To quote Sir David Attenborough: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
2..Non avian Dinos evolved into birds. Then, the meteor killed the non avian dinos.The avian dinosaurs survived the meteor.
@killgriffinnow how did they survive. the meteor theory says that the atmosphere was filled with ash and crap and it was unlivable. that nothing could survive in those conditions. and they could not have fown out of the atmosphere so how could they have survived?
life can bounce back. For example, the black death killed a vast amount of people, yet after a few years, the population was back to normal. After the Permian mass extinction, 99% of life died, yet a few animals managed to cling on.
Please explain why some dinosaurs had feathers. Velociraptor had quill knobs on its arm. Microrator defiantly had feathers. It also was certainatly a dinosaur (It was a Saurischian.Look it up.).And why they had wishbones.
@killgriffinnow how do you know dinos had feathers? were you there? did you see them? just because they had what looks like quill knobs doesnt mean they deffinatley had feathers. no one knows what they actually looked like all we have are many different guesses none of them can be proven for sure. even if they did truly have feathers doesnt mean they evolved to birds same for the wish bone. its only a similarity.
@OddDude21Why dont you ask how do you know instread of the absurd were you there. Feather patterns have been found fossilized and acutal feathers preserved in 70-80myo amber. quills, quill knobs and feathers might only indicate an animal which needed to keep warm or it could indicate an animal able to fly. Wing structures and hollow bones are also a pretty good indication of flying dinosaurs wouldnt you think.
@yournotright101 yes it can indicate they flew an that some probably had feathers but, that does not prove they existed 70-80 mil years ago. it only show what some of their characteristics were. you can not test the past because everything exists in the present therefore all you can test is the present. the fossils exist now they do not exist in the past because the past is over and done with.
@OddDude21 What a ridiculous statement "you cannot test the past". Are you suggesting that murderers cannot be caught if your not there. If you wish to use that kind of arguement you must except that you cannot trust the bible because you werent there. You cant know jesus existed because you werent there or for that matter how do you know your grandparents even existed or if they are still alive do really believe they were babies once how do you prove that you werent there.
@yournotright101 you totally misunderstood what i was saying about testing the past. fossils exist in the present not the past. therefore you can only test what exists in the present. you cannot repeat something that ocurred in the past to see if it reeally happened.
2nd no i was not there but the bible was written by people who were there and did see what happened.
@OddDude21 was calling the tactic stupid not you. Rock is in strata fossils are found in a strata test the rock you have the age. Yes there is error in dating however its very small and different methods match up. Its childish and naive to deny that continental shift cannot be used because we werent there as is it to deny dating methods for the same reason. You dont know the bible was written by people who were there because you werent there, same ridiculous tactic applied to your own view.
@yournotright101 well i guess we cant know for sure because no one was there. but, the bible is the closest thing we have to actually having been there for it WAS written by people who were there. the bible is not a new thing and was written quite a while ago. and some one had to have written it. so yes we do know it was written by people who were there
@OddDude21 Are you actually serious. By this kind of circular reasoning just about any book could be the history of the earth. How do you know the lord of the rings isnt the true history of the earth, it was written by a person who was there (frodo baggins writes a book called there and back) it had to of been him who wrote it cause his names on it, so yes it was written by a hobbit who was there. Come on are you really saying that youd believe in a god cause a book claims to be written by it
@OddDude21 You could go on with that kind of stupidity forever. Dating methods work. Geography, molecular biology, astonomy etc all fit. You can work out the co2 content of the atmosphere for 100K+ years by taking ice core samples from antarctica and the north pole. DNA can be extracted from ancient samples in amber. Its possible to track continental shift by working out the speed of movement and you can even fit them together like a jigsaw shall i go on.
@yournotright101 first of all thanks for calling me stupid. I really appreciate it. second dating methods do not work 100%. testing rocks doesnt really prove anything and most of them have been around since the beginning. and alculating continentall shift doesnt prove anything either. just because they move now doesnt mean they always have been. and you cant go back and test it to find out. all you have i whats in the present.
Do you understand carbon dating?. But wait, I have a better idea than understanding. Why don't you just go LA LA LA LA and ignore the evidence and what other people have to say until they decide it's not worth arguing with you and they stop? Then it'll look like you won. P.S That wasn't my idea. Creationists have been doing it for quite some time now.
@killgriffinnow no it is not a coincidence. It is how God wanted it. He designed everything perfectly and how he wanted it to be made. He created everything to do what it needed to do. there are no coincidences. the earth was not created by chance God made it
I started up a car dealership out in Nevada.. hand picked and trained all the employees myself and paid them great salaries with loads of benefits and all I asked in return was that they love and respect me unconditionally... Well damn if they didn't start coming in late, coming back from lunch late, Talking on their cell phones and surfing the net, in disregard for their duties. So I burned the building down with all of them in it... except one good accountant, and started over in Utah! Amen!
Ken Ham is doing a great job with these kids. Too bad our tax dollars go to pay for evolutionary religious ideas to be taught, but creation ideas aren't allowed in public classrooms. If the big bang and abiogenesis can be called science, so can creation. But, if we can't agree on what the science actually proves, neither idea should taught or both of them should be.
Creationism is not science. There is no way it can be tested or falsified. Evolution could be falsified if it could be proved that mutations did not occur. Professor Lenski has tested it, giving evidence in the process.If we teach that as a scientific theory, we should also teach the stork theory.
Tell me how the animal would survive after the flood if their ecosystems, habitat and food supply would be demolished by the flood. All the bodies of drowned animals would have rotted away.
@killgriffinnow Why waste time teaching children all the ideas that have been proven false? The idea that life could have "evolved" from non-living materials has never been proven. If people want to spend money trying to prove it could happen, fine. Just don't teach it as scientific theory to our children. Also, the idea that we all "evolved" from simpler life forms has never been proven. No one would argue that mutations occur over time, not even creationists.
@1313sku yes lets not teach kids unproven scientific theory. i'm sick of educators shoving gravitational theory down are kids throats teaching it like it's proven (rolls eyes). u are pretty fucking stupid
@ThEnglishMuffin I have no idea what you're talking about. Your anger has made you completely irrational. My only argument is that if it is okay to teach kids one unprovable theory, we should be teaching all of them. If creation can't be taught, neither should the big bang and abiogenesis.
Evolution has been proven. Lenski is one scientist who did so; he tested it. Tell me how creationism can be tested.Evolution is a scientific theory, like relativity.
No one would argue mutations happen over time? What? Of course mutations happen. I hope you made typo. Gravity says things are pulled towards objects with larger mass.It hasn't been proven they are not being pushed towards the objects by God. Therefore, don't teach gravity.
@killgriffinnow As for the flood, a careful study of the Biblical account would show that the animals remained on the ark for 371 days. Plant life and insects would have begun to emerge in that time in addition to the food sources they had been using while on the ark (rodents, rabbits etc. that multiply quickly). Fish, of course, and other aquatic life would be in abundant supply.
@1313sku As I said, the flood would have destroyed the ecosystems. Almost everything would have died. Animals can die even if their environment would change a tiny bit, simply because of stress. Can you really say that the lions wouldn't be tempted by some nice pig instead of bony fish? Oh, and there's the freshwater fish. Although some fish from freshwater can survive in saltwater, only very few can. And how did the koalas survive if they can only eat eucalyptus which grows in Australia.
@killgriffinnow You make far too many assumptions, based on what you can observe today--much like you accuse the creationists of doing. Interesting, really! If you believed your own evolutionary theories, you would recognize that the world we see today is very different from what existed even 4000 years ago. The oceans, for example, get saltier every year. Animals are constantly "evolving" to adapt to changes in their environments, etc.
@killgriffinnow Do your own research! There have been many studies that prove the oceans are indeed getting saltier. If you believe minute changes in the environment could kill off an entire species of animals, then you can't also believe in Darwinian evolution. His entire theory hinges on living things adapting to their environments. He is actually correct on this point. No one would deny that these changes happen all the time.
Not minute: Only big. like global floods, for instance.
You haven't answered the koala argument. Also, if there was a migration of every baramin (or whatever) why didn't the predators mercilessly prey upon the herbivores walking beside them? Also, how did kangaroos get to the ark? They cannot swim across huge oceans, you know.
@killgriffinnow Your earlier comment stated that species can die just due to stress. While this may be true sometimes, the vast majority will adapt and survive.
None of the animals had to swim to the ark! The flood didn't begin until they were all safely locked inside.
As for all of the animals getting along while on the ark, this is part of the miracle described in the Bible. You should try reading it sometime. The fact that the Universe exists at all can only be explained as a miracle.
Isn't calling it a "miracle" sort of a cop out? You don't really have to explain it, or give proof, just that "It happened because I have faith that it happened"
@Kalamari92 Every time atheists try to "explain" how the Universe created itself, they are presenting a "miracle." They have no proof. They just want you to have faith that it happened the way they say it did. Actually, the Earth is covered with many proofs that there was indeed a worldwide flood , exactly like the Bible describes, making the miraculous parts of the account much more believable in my mind.
You'll be hard-pressed to find a scientist that will call the big bang theory anything more than a theory. You're right, we don't have enough evidence to call it fact, which is why we don't. That is the chief difference between us; you call what you believe fact, and I call what I believe theory. I have no idea what happened trillions of years ago, and I don't claim to know.
So how do you know, for SURE, what happened, and I don't?
@Kalamari92 The interesting thing about the big bang theory is that evolutionists are finally saying what the Bible has said all along--that the Universe came into existence from nothing. They are saying that 'nothing' exploded (actually they are calling it an "infinitesimal region"). Of course, they can't explain where the energy came from or the laws that control the energy or the incredible design we observe and many other things. Much of their theory is wishful thinking.
@Kalamari92 My only point is this: If the evolutionists can't provide any more proof to support their theories than what I have read, their "theories" don't belong in the textbooks any more than the creationists theories. There is actually much more believable evidence to support Intelligent Design than many of the ridiculous conclusions the evolutionists arrive at. If Creation can't be taught, neither should the big bang.
@1313sku DNA sequence comparison allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the phylogenetic trees which result are generally in congruence with taxonomy. They are also used to enhance or correct taxonomic classifications.
DNA confirmed the paleontological tree of life which scientists had envisioned long before it was CONFIRMED by DNA sequence analysis. Evolution is one of the most validated and confirmed theories in all of science.
@1313sku Since evolutional theory is not only confirmed by numerous independent facets of science (including the fossil record and DNA sequence analysis)...not to mention that it is currently being utilized for various avenues of scientific advancement including medicine and physiology....it cannot be legitimately disputed.
Also, the Big Bang theory is confirmed by the cosmological redshift and cosmic microwave background radiation.
@1313sku "My only point is this: If the evolutionists can't provide any more proof to support their theories than what I have read..."
What you have read is obviously only creationist propaganda. No sane person would cite drdino as a credible source of information about science. I only have two comments: 1. The evidence is enough to convince basically the entire community of biologists and paleontologists on the planet, and has been for 150 years.
@1313sku "If Creation can't be taught, neither should the big bang."
Creationism can't be taught primarily because the US government is bound to be secular by the constitution. In addition, it can't be taught in science classes because it is not science. The big bang happens to be science. Regardless of whether or not you find the idea plausible, variations on it it happens to be the best model we have for explaining facts in cosmology. That's what makes it science. Not your opinion.
@Gnomefro One thing I do find interesting about the current big bang theory: It is getting closer to saying what the Bible has said all along--the Universe did come into existence from nothing.
@1313sku You could, in theory, have a class on "odd insanities of the modern world" that could deal with the psychology behind belief in astrology, creationism, UFO abductions and dowsing though. Then you'd be free to teach what creationism is, much like it's entirely legal to have bible classes that teach the bible as literature.
There is NO proof of a worldwide flood. There certainatly was a flood at that time, but it was a local flood. And as for you saying atheists have no poof, they do have proof. Though I'm not an atheist, I will try and explain their thinking,.
Astronomers have seen galaxies moving away from each other. Through this info, they have worked out that the universe is expanding. Therefore, it is logical to think the universe must have been tiny once and gotten bigger. I think God did this.
@killgriffinnow "No proof of a worldwide flood??!!!" I really wish you would do a little research before making such ridiculous statements. Try drdino.com. Go to the "Seminars" tab. Watch seminar 2 for answers to many of these questions.
@1313sku You said ""No proof of a worldwide flood??!!!" I really wish you would do a little research before making such ridiculous statements. Try drdino.com."
Kent hovind's cranial void is similar in comparison to Mr. Ham's. I would suggest additional reading material:
"The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore.
This clearly describes why the fable should be added to the works of Aesop.
No, you misunderstand. I mean, there must have been an ocean between Australia and the Middle East where the Ark was made, right? How could the kangaroos have gotten from Australia to the Middle East, as they cannot swim (there was no super continent-the continents only move about 2-4 cm per year.):. The Koalas are animals that can only survive on Eucalyptus leaves that grow only in Australia. They would need to be sustained on their long trip to the Ark.
@killgriffinnow I noticed your comments to 1313sku and you have my condolences. Attempting to debate someone who relies solely on an ancient text for their scientific information can be tremendously frustrating.
Obviously you know the Noah's Ark story was fictional...but you might want to peruse "The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore. It is interesting reading and details numerous impossibilities which many people don't consider.
@1313sku And there are the bees. Bees are unclean(all insects other than locusts,grasshoppers and crickets are unclean), but 2 bees cannot make a viable hive.
I am not an atheist; I believe God created the Universe using science. Also, I believe he engineered the Universe for life, a bit like a computer program that is made from basic stuff but is allowed to continue on its own. This seems like a logical way of running things, as it makes the process smoother and easier to handle.
Oh, and evolution isn't a "religion". You don't see people worshiping it, do you? I think that this is a retarded creationist argument. I'm not calling you retarded, but the argument.
Religion: A man standing in a lush field with his eyes closed, screaming at the top of his lungs, "THE GRASS IS BLUE, THE GRASS IS BLUE, THE GRASS IS BLUE!" And people all around come to see him, telling him "Dude, just open your eyes and look down, it's green," as the man screams louder "I DON'T NEED TO OPEN MY EYES, I DON'T NEED TO, I'VE SEEN IT WITH MY HEART, THE GRASS IS BLUE! IT'S BLUE! IT'S BLUE!"
all this time i have given you facts like NOTHING IS NOT EXPLOSIVE and you chose to ignore all i said so like i said stick with believing the nothing exploded and i will stick with the scientifically proved truth. so good bye and see you on the other side.
@ProMajtas "all this time i have given you facts like NOTHING IS NOT EXPLOSIVE and you chose to ignore all" ok I'm going to hang in here, because now I want to hear you admit you are full of shit and will systematically make sure that you do so.
Did I ever say 'nothing explodes' is or isn't true? No, because its not the question at hand. Nobody has ever said nothing explodes. Now its my turn to offer a fact: the universe is expanding, agreed?
@seblasian I could have told you that the universe is expanding few thousand years ago because it says so in the bible. Isaiah 40:22 so yes the universe is expanding doesn't mean that happened for millions of years.
@ProMajtas Well you are saying that the fact that the universe is expanding doesn't mean it has for millions of years (although we have proof for that, but we'll get to that later), so I'm guessing you have peer-reviewed scientific articles that give good reasons for you to say this?
@seblasian I have evidence for universe expanding and that it's not millions of years old. i could write them all here but it would be easier if you would just watch first of hovind's seminars.
@ProMajtas I'm sorry but thats not acceptable. Not just because his seminars are complete jokes to anyone who finished highschool, but because if you are going to bring up evidence, it has to come from peer-reviewed articles. Thats how it works in science.
@ProMajtas Its microwave radiation that you can observe from any direction. The impressive part is that someone already predicted this phenomenon before we actually observed it (during the 40's). Lets start here; maybe you know what blackbody radiation is? Its the thermal radiation that comes from any object, and each wavelenght and intensity has its own corresponding temperature. Now, before the 40's all we really knew is that the galaxies were moving away from each other at certain speeds..
@ProMajtas ..and from this we could estimate how long it would take to go back in time before they were together in a hot dense state. What this guy predicted, is that since the blackbody radiation from this hot dense state would expand along with the rest of the universe, the radiation would undergo a certain amount of redshift. Redshift is what happens to light when its source moves away from you, or the space inbetween gets stretched out- the wavelenght gets longer.
@ProMajtas So in short, he calculated the temperature of the hot dense state, calculated what blackbody radiation would come from this, and then the amount of 'stretching' this radiation would go through before it reaches us at this point in time. If I'm not mistaken it was about twenty years later that a new radiometer picked up 'static'.. upon further inspection this static was in fact the background radiation that was predicted, within a few hundreths of a Kelvin.
@ProMajtas Now, in science, this is almost unheard of. For someone to make such a ridiculously accurate prediction about something wich has so much margin for error.. that pretty much seals the deal. From this point on there was really no question about wether the big bang happened or not.. but there was still lots of stuff to find out. And in the way of trying to find this stuff out, we found more evidence.. wich I'll be glad to present.
Furthermore dont ask for evidence if youre going to ignore everything I say, asshole. The fact that we have an expanding universe leads directly to the conclusion that we came from a smaller, denser universe.. you cant just ignore all of this and say "well that doesnt make sense because matter cant come from nothing" especially since nobody said it did. Are you following me here? Otherwise I'm done with this.
@seblasian there is nothing higher than a theory? how about a fact. I agree the universe is expanding it said so in the bible a long time before scientists discovered that. also if nobody said the big bang created matter out of nothing than where did it came from? If you can't answer that than just give up and call it what it really is a theory. why is it so hard for you to understand as for all evolutionists, if you never observed something nor did you recreate it it can't be proven as a fact.
@ProMajtas "Fact" is what you start from, "theory" is what you end up with. You look at the facts and construct a model that fits the observations and test it by making predictions. For example, fact: masses attract each other. The best model we have to describe this is Newton's THEORY of gravity. Also fact: the universe is expanding, and the best THEORY we have to describe this is the big bang. Please stop acting like you know how science works.
@seblasian if you want to believe nothing exploded, created everything and here we are than go ahead but don't call it a fact and don't call it science. can't observe it can't make an experiment to prove it so you can't say it's a fact.
@seblasian no just you take into consideration what i said and realize that maybe just maybe nothing isn't explosive. "the universe is expanding" well of course i could have said that 2000 years ago as it says so in the bible so, it looks like you will still believe nothing is explosive and I will stick with the truth. so good bye and see you on the other side.
@ProMajtas No, I explained why that doesn't make any sense, and instead of responding to that you just repeat the same retarded statement. How does your god feel about you being such a hypocritical dickhead?
@ProMajtas Also for the last time, the fact that we dont know where the matter came from does NOT change ANYTHING about our observations. Please get this through you head. Its like saying there should be no murder trial if there is no suspect, you are not making any sense.
He doesn't beleive in evolution, yet somehow the biblical kinds of animals get off the ark, and in 4000 years, all the species of plants and animals in the world evolve super fast into the millions of species we have now, all located in parts of the world they have adapted to.
@ProMajtas I love how ignorant these young earth creationists (well all creationists) are. This idiot also has the mentality to preach the nonsense to children. He should be in jail just like Kent Hovind is.
@Uhhhaha ooh so it doesn't matter what evidence he provides once he teaches that god exists then he is mentally retarded ? interesting how open minded evolutionists are.
@ProMajtas Most people are capable of recognising this mindless garbage for what it is. For the special few such as yourself however, there is a wide selection of youtube channels who take the time to actually refute these 'arguments', I suggest you make use of them.
@seblasian well yeah I like to watch some of them and sometimes e-mail debate them and it is quite amusing that the best evidance for beneficial mutations being the key for one kind on animal to turn into another is cicle cell ameba, so yeah I reseach borh sides of this argument and I am amazed you can belive evolution is true if you watched all dr.hovind's seminars.
@ProMajtas Watching video's from Hovind doesn't count as 'research'. Also, watching video's from Hovind without realising that the guy couldnt pass a highschool science class also indicates you are incapable of doing such research.
@ProMajtas It's not about opinions or what 'makes sense', its about verifyable facts. Kent Hovinds video's are a joke and anyone with a half decent education can tell you why.
There's also dozens of video's on youtube that debunk his lectures, when you say you 'researched both sides' the least you could do is watch those. But we both know youre just going to believe what you want.
@seblasian oh yeah i have watched the videos that "debunk" what he says and they fail, when hovind said that the moon is moving away from earth and that puts a time limit on how long life on earth could exist, someone trying to debunk it said that it would take 10 not 4 billion years for it to touch the earth witch is relevant because only few thousand years ago it would be so close that the tides would cover the whole earth. if you ask me that person failed at "debunking" his claim,
@ProMajtas I dont understand the claim you are talking about, but in his videos he says something ridiculous almost every five seconds. He suggested that the grand canyons were created in a few minutes, that the earth was covered by a hovering crust of ice, that a single drop of water could cover the earth, etc.. he has no understanding of even the most basic physics or chemistry and 'debunks' the phenomena like the big bang by making silly analogies while ignoring the actual evidence.
@ProMajtas Lets see, I'd say it starts with Hubble's Law (the observation that all galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance), wich combined with the cosmological principle proves an expanding universe and hence the big bang. Then there's cosmic background radiation, wich matches the prediction of blackbody radiation for a hot dense universe. Then there's nucleosynthesis, wich explains the chemical composition of our universe from the big bang.
@ProMajtas There's also a lot of evidence in the structural formation of the universe, and many other things. Kent Hovind ignores all of this stuff, all he does is make silly strawman arguments to a dumb audience. These pieces of evidence I mentioned are not something you can ignore, especially considering how rare and amazing it is in science to make such accurate predictions in such a theoretical construct. The big bang is a scientific fact, the 'how' is the question not the 'if'.
@seblasian the "how" is the question, ok so HOW did a big explosion create all the matter we have today? HOW did a big explosion create time and space? HOW did it create all the laws of physics we see today, by this I mean why do matter attract each other (gravity) why does matter can't be destroyed or created (thermodynamics) ? if it's a scientific fact then can we recreate it as a experiment, observe it and prove it 100% true ????????????????????
@ProMajtas Well most of those are good questions, I suggest you get some reading material instead of asking them on youtube. Although some are really just "why" questions, "how" is really just mathematics and I wouldnt expect a satisfying answer on 'why' we have the laws of nature. But its kind of silly to ask if we can 'recreate' the big bang, obviously we can't.. we also cant recreate the sun but that doesnt mean we dont have solid theories on how it works.
@seblasian If Big Bang can't be even recreated on even a small scale and cannot be observed, it is not science. It is only an assumption and a theory.That is my whole point. Sun is a bad example we can observe sun. Face the facts you believe bunch of fairy tales. Matter cannot be created out of nothing. If it would be able to happen than it would be normal part of universe and everything that surrounds us, but lets get to our major argument. What is your best evidence for evolution?
@ProMajtas This is as far as I can go without pointing out that you dont have the slightest clue how science works. First of all, 'theory' is a good as it gets in science, there's nothing 'higher' than theory. And OBVIOUSLY something doesnt have to be reproducible to be considered to scientific otherwise there would be no cosmology, geology, etc.. what you are saying is just moronic.
just sad to see the systematic brain washing ...... the fact that this APE is ruining young minds and cannot have this conversation with intelligent adults ..... is shameful and disgusting
Ken Ham, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may your god have mercy on your soul.
The sectarian nature of christianity highlights the subjectivity of religious doctrine. The difference is interpretation with no reproducible tests or conclusions.
I wasn’t trying to “disprove” your messiah or the truth value of the bible.
The him/her/it refers to the fact that you know nothing about the capabilities or mechanisms of your god. You don’t know how it creates or created things, you can’t disprove it at all, so you can’t make predictions. It is you who has nothing BUT bias.
I believe in evolution ...all you atheist are a bunch of monkys uncles .
PaganDestroyer 3 days ago
Propaganda alert!
Lius525 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1313sku also, abiogenesis has already been proven possible in an experiment, albeit with an artificial atmosphere that had extremely reduced oxygen to facilitate the forming of amino aids without millions and millions of years to wait.
gaeaandproud 6 days ago
Did you notice that both the picture of grandpa and grandma looked a lot like Ken?
hostyle0 1 week ago
I wonder what Richard Dawkins thought when he saw this video?
Edukate95 2 weeks ago
Amazing job Ken Ham, just amazing! GO KEN HAM!
lovingthetruth7 2 weeks ago
I absolutely love that Ken Ham is letting our youth know that they are created loved people that are created for a purpose by Almighty God, while exposing the ficticiousness of evolution. Evolution teaches our kids that they are cosmic accidents with no value and no purpose, and that they evolved from primordial ooze. The real pagan religion is evolution, and that is what should be banned form our schools. We wonder why our youth is getting worse? It's because they are told they are worthless.
lovingthetruth7 2 weeks ago
@lovingthetruth7 my god, have you ever stop and wonder, what is your purposes? how come you dont follow mathew 19:21?? can you explain why you are so convince yet not with the poor, it is clearly said in the scripture to sell all you have, your home your car, and go on with the poor, see that is why this is bullshit, more then the fact that the science have absolutly prooven without any doubt evolutio is trUTH ken ham is a high school teacher at best, he doesnt even understand evolution,
lapmarty 2 days ago
@lovingthetruth7 being born a servant for sin other commited 4000 years ago, wich we dont even know, from a god that is okay with child sacrifice, stoning women,
killing children, killing people that work on sunday, and other stupidity in the bible, is really showing the young about purposes,
and incest in noah story, who the fuck he re-populated earth with only his 3 son, and wife,,get real, YOU IGNORE ALL THAT AND CHERRY PIC THE GOOD YOU BELEIVE IN, word of god is like optional isnt it?
lapmarty 2 days ago
@lovingthetruth7 do a favor to your child, explain them what is moral value, not because they want candy, this isnt being good, explain them so they understandand the honnorable thing to do is to be good to other, not because you are scare of going to hell, or because you want to go to heaven, but because you are a intelligent rational behing, that is now no more in his infancy, where superstition and magic rules,
we vote law together, we build it together so it is a better place for the child
lapmarty 2 days ago
@lapmarty Clearly you are a person with many misunderstandings. I pity your ignorance. You have misunderstood everything you have claimed to understand in your comments. As a matter of fact, you haven't even come close to understanding a thing about the Bible. You've obtained your own wrong interpretations, and that is your choice. I suggest you perform some research because you've caused yourself to look like a fool. Any athiest with an IQ higher than 70 knows what I'm talking about.
lovingthetruth7 23 minutes ago
IT'S TRUE...What he is saying IS TRUE....now what are you going to do with it? just because you don't "like" it doesn't mean you don't have a decision.
emelomusic 2 weeks ago
There's nothing new here. Typical tired old creationist crazy. He's better groomed than most. If God had meant us to fly, He'd have given us wings. If God had meant us to travel at 60 mph, He'd have given us horses's legs. If God had meant us to live in Minnesota, He'd have given us fur. If God had meant for us to be able to kill at a distance, He'd have given us rifles for arms. Let's talk about improbable. Improbable is what you're not used to.
JMDinOKC 3 weeks ago
@JMDinOKC if god had wanted you to think, he`d given you a brain,
i agree with you afterall, !
lapmarty 2 days ago
Wel done Ken, evolutionists believe we all came from rocks and gas lol, sounds like a cartoon lol.
Thegreenandwhitearmy 3 weeks ago
shame on you ken ham
lordrazr 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One Young-Earth Creationist says to another "Which is closer - the Moon or Mexico"? The other points at the Moon and replies "The Moon - Duh! You can't see Mexico from here".
csmcmillion 4 weeks ago
This is truly pathetic. There is overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution and he is teaching these poor children a load of excrement from an ancient text. The problem is that true fundamentalist Christians couldn't care less about facts if it contradicts their holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 You are obviously confused about which form of evolution is being discussed here. No one would deny that microevolution occurs every day. This dispute is over the idea that all of life emerged from a single common ancestor, which is what Darwinian evolution ultimately teaches (abiogenesis). This is not science and does not belong in a science textbook.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku Sir, you appear to be mistaken as to which of us is 'confused'. "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "Platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Therein lies the problem, and thank you for proving my point. Evolutionists always cite examples of minute adaptations in an effort to prove that one kind of organism could have "evolved" into a completely different kind of organism given enough time. This, of course, has never been proven scientifically. It is merely someone's wishful thinking. They give examples of microevolution and ask you to ASSUME cosmic, organic, chemical, and abiogenesis.
1313sku 2 weeks ago
@1313sku Please read a book other than the bible. The scientific proof is overwhelming.
darcyhouston 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1313sku Titus 1 : 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.
13 Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.
16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
redddbaron 1 week ago
@1313sku Lol, saying you believe in microevolution and not macroevolution is like saying "i think gravity works here on earth, but not anywhere else in the universe". Quit being stupid and go away.
gaeaandproud 6 days ago
@1313sku The changes for what you would consider "Macro-E" take place over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Yet, there is no mechanism which limits genetic change over time. What the two categories truly signify is the limits of any particular human's *belief*. This would be considered a non-existent division between 'believable' and 'unbelievable' based on religious 'faith' from a 2,000 year old holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@1313sku You rock dude!
lovingthetruth7 2 weeks ago
True story. Richard Dawkins and Ken ham got into a fight this year and punches were thrown. Guess what happened? Dawkins beat that ass. Poor Ham...LOL
tonyrosam 1 month ago
Good thing this cunt went over to the states where he belongs!
fudgebucket55 1 month ago
People need to realize that this video is making fun of creationism. Ken Ham's content is so absurd, his ignorance is so plentiful, and the act of childhood indoctrination is so painful that it doesn't even need parody or explanation to show how awful it is. The title shows the up loader's true intent.
9009Hayden 1 month ago
The funny thing is, the Bible doesn't say that evolution is a lie, nor does it disprove it. Unless you take every word literal, which I don't believe the Bible is meant to be.
DeathEaterChic16 1 month ago
I used to believe that guy, now, its sad to even see him preaching to kids. (I'm theistic evolution now, I think)
MrGreenman447 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kids at 0:03 "WTF IS this ape serious?", kid at: 1:22 "this imbecile didn't get the point", girl at 3:25 "is this fucker for real? HAHA I'm smarter than you and and I am 7 LOL"
Angelotube5000 1 month ago
Comment removed
Angelotube5000 1 month ago
All I can say: Child Abuse!
Angelotube5000 1 month ago
Anyone else disgusted that he's spreading this to very young kids?
zhalfirim 1 month ago 20
@zhalfirim Totally i see it as blatant child abuse.
moggy041279 1 month ago
@zhalfirim I'm disgusted that the government is using my tax money to teach the insanity of evolution.
Macauley86 1 week ago
@Macauley86 Insanity!
zhalfirim 1 week ago
@zhalfirim Possibly, but they are still my tax dollars. What gives them the authority to take them and teach something against my beliefs?
Macauley86 1 week ago
@Macauley86 Well if they're your kids, or you're the guardian, you can remove them from public school. Through homeschooling and community schooling, you can teach them whatever you want. Or find a private school that shares your beliefs.
Otherwise you're not the guardian, and you can't decide what other people are taught without inhibiting their rights. Public schools have to have standards, they must teach what is most accepted and confirmed by those in the field.
zhalfirim 1 week ago
@zhalfirim That does not answer my question and also introduces a second problem. First, my tax dollars are used to teach other kids something I strongly disagree with. Second, if I send my kids to a private school (or homeschool them), I pay for education twice. How are both fair?
Macauley86 1 week ago
@Macauley86 I sympathize, i know what it's like to be frustrated with America's education system. I'm just on the other end of the spectrum.
We can either fix our system, or move to a country with consensus on what to teach. We both know we'd rather be here. Besides, countries that focus on religious teachings usually have shitty science and education. Entire disciplines become superfluous, like genetics. No point in discovering life's origins when you have all the answers in one book.
zhalfirim 1 week ago
to Ham: I would rather have an ape for a grandfather than you!
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
This man should be arrested
90JFB 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We are willing to pray for anyone..simply inbox us your prayer request...God Bless
*Thumbs up, if you know prayer changes things*
RepentRecords00 1 month ago
Flagged for child abuse +1
KindermanS150 1 month ago
Lol... creationists are absolute idiots.
SXPandaPwnage 1 month ago
How dare you children listen to logical thinking!!!
Aytchie1 1 month ago
@Aytchie1
Logical? I'm quite sure it doesn't cost too much for a head examination...
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
and how dare you , original poster, say he indoctrinates when PUBLIC SCHOOLS ALREADY do it to our kids by teaching evolution.
Silentdarqfire 1 month ago
Im not from an ape. God created Man and formed me personally in my mothers womb. Ken speaks the truth
Silentdarqfire 1 month ago
@Silentdarqfire
No-one ever said people evolved from an ape.
Ever.
If you don't know the definition of evolution, don't bother criticising it.
Seethus 1 month ago
Ken Ham is the anti-Christ. He is lying to children and trying to destroy Christianity. Also, he is an idiot with no knowledge of the animal kingdom whatsoever.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow in my opinion stephen hawkings may be the anti-christ
OddDude21 1 month ago
How can some people be so blind to not see that God created the universe and everything in it? It's all laid out for them all they have to do is open their eyes and look around. The earth was not an accident that happened because of an explosion and humans did not happen by accident evolving from some monkey. God made us in his perfect image. evolution theory says dinos were killed out by a meteor and then it says birds evolved from them how does that work if all the dinos are dead?
OddDude21 1 month ago
@OddDude21 1.To quote Sir David Attenborough: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
2..Non avian Dinos evolved into birds. Then, the meteor killed the non avian dinos.The avian dinosaurs survived the meteor.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow how did they survive. the meteor theory says that the atmosphere was filled with ash and crap and it was unlivable. that nothing could survive in those conditions. and they could not have fown out of the atmosphere so how could they have survived?
OddDude21 1 month ago
@OddDude21
life can bounce back. For example, the black death killed a vast amount of people, yet after a few years, the population was back to normal. After the Permian mass extinction, 99% of life died, yet a few animals managed to cling on.
Please explain why some dinosaurs had feathers. Velociraptor had quill knobs on its arm. Microrator defiantly had feathers. It also was certainatly a dinosaur (It was a Saurischian.Look it up.).And why they had wishbones.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow how do you know dinos had feathers? were you there? did you see them? just because they had what looks like quill knobs doesnt mean they deffinatley had feathers. no one knows what they actually looked like all we have are many different guesses none of them can be proven for sure. even if they did truly have feathers doesnt mean they evolved to birds same for the wish bone. its only a similarity.
OddDude21 1 month ago
@OddDude21Why dont you ask how do you know instread of the absurd were you there. Feather patterns have been found fossilized and acutal feathers preserved in 70-80myo amber. quills, quill knobs and feathers might only indicate an animal which needed to keep warm or it could indicate an animal able to fly. Wing structures and hollow bones are also a pretty good indication of flying dinosaurs wouldnt you think.
yournotright101 1 month ago
@yournotright101 yes it can indicate they flew an that some probably had feathers but, that does not prove they existed 70-80 mil years ago. it only show what some of their characteristics were. you can not test the past because everything exists in the present therefore all you can test is the present. the fossils exist now they do not exist in the past because the past is over and done with.
OddDude21 1 month ago
@OddDude21 What a ridiculous statement "you cannot test the past". Are you suggesting that murderers cannot be caught if your not there. If you wish to use that kind of arguement you must except that you cannot trust the bible because you werent there. You cant know jesus existed because you werent there or for that matter how do you know your grandparents even existed or if they are still alive do really believe they were babies once how do you prove that you werent there.
yournotright101 1 month ago
@yournotright101 you totally misunderstood what i was saying about testing the past. fossils exist in the present not the past. therefore you can only test what exists in the present. you cannot repeat something that ocurred in the past to see if it reeally happened.
2nd no i was not there but the bible was written by people who were there and did see what happened.
OddDude21 1 month ago
@OddDude21 was calling the tactic stupid not you. Rock is in strata fossils are found in a strata test the rock you have the age. Yes there is error in dating however its very small and different methods match up. Its childish and naive to deny that continental shift cannot be used because we werent there as is it to deny dating methods for the same reason. You dont know the bible was written by people who were there because you werent there, same ridiculous tactic applied to your own view.
yournotright101 1 month ago
@yournotright101 well i guess we cant know for sure because no one was there. but, the bible is the closest thing we have to actually having been there for it WAS written by people who were there. the bible is not a new thing and was written quite a while ago. and some one had to have written it. so yes we do know it was written by people who were there
OddDude21 1 month ago
@OddDude21 Are you actually serious. By this kind of circular reasoning just about any book could be the history of the earth. How do you know the lord of the rings isnt the true history of the earth, it was written by a person who was there (frodo baggins writes a book called there and back) it had to of been him who wrote it cause his names on it, so yes it was written by a hobbit who was there. Come on are you really saying that youd believe in a god cause a book claims to be written by it
yournotright101 1 month ago
@OddDude21 How do you know the people were actually there you werent there to make sure.
yournotright101 1 month ago
@OddDude21 You could go on with that kind of stupidity forever. Dating methods work. Geography, molecular biology, astonomy etc all fit. You can work out the co2 content of the atmosphere for 100K+ years by taking ice core samples from antarctica and the north pole. DNA can be extracted from ancient samples in amber. Its possible to track continental shift by working out the speed of movement and you can even fit them together like a jigsaw shall i go on.
yournotright101 1 month ago
@yournotright101 first of all thanks for calling me stupid. I really appreciate it. second dating methods do not work 100%. testing rocks doesnt really prove anything and most of them have been around since the beginning. and alculating continentall shift doesnt prove anything either. just because they move now doesnt mean they always have been. and you cant go back and test it to find out. all you have i whats in the present.
OddDude21 1 month ago
@OddDude21
Do you understand carbon dating?. But wait, I have a better idea than understanding. Why don't you just go LA LA LA LA and ignore the evidence and what other people have to say until they decide it's not worth arguing with you and they stop? Then it'll look like you won. P.S That wasn't my idea. Creationists have been doing it for quite some time now.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow
HELLO
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@OddDude21
Err... yes, it defiantly had feathers.
Also, you need a spell checker.
So you say it is a coincidence. So only dinosaurs and birds have feathers. This is WAY TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow no it is not a coincidence. It is how God wanted it. He designed everything perfectly and how he wanted it to be made. He created everything to do what it needed to do. there are no coincidences. the earth was not created by chance God made it
OddDude21 1 month ago
@OddDude21
This is why evolutionists don't argue with creationists: "God did it, I don't care about evidence"
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
how can ken ham argue against evolution he looks like the step before man but more simple
bourbonated 1 month ago
I started up a car dealership out in Nevada.. hand picked and trained all the employees myself and paid them great salaries with loads of benefits and all I asked in return was that they love and respect me unconditionally... Well damn if they didn't start coming in late, coming back from lunch late, Talking on their cell phones and surfing the net, in disregard for their duties. So I burned the building down with all of them in it... except one good accountant, and started over in Utah! Amen!
wondergundy 2 months ago
Ken Ham is doing a great job with these kids. Too bad our tax dollars go to pay for evolutionary religious ideas to be taught, but creation ideas aren't allowed in public classrooms. If the big bang and abiogenesis can be called science, so can creation. But, if we can't agree on what the science actually proves, neither idea should taught or both of them should be.
1313sku 2 months ago
@1313sku
Creationism is not science. There is no way it can be tested or falsified. Evolution could be falsified if it could be proved that mutations did not occur. Professor Lenski has tested it, giving evidence in the process.If we teach that as a scientific theory, we should also teach the stork theory.
Tell me how the animal would survive after the flood if their ecosystems, habitat and food supply would be demolished by the flood. All the bodies of drowned animals would have rotted away.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow Why waste time teaching children all the ideas that have been proven false? The idea that life could have "evolved" from non-living materials has never been proven. If people want to spend money trying to prove it could happen, fine. Just don't teach it as scientific theory to our children. Also, the idea that we all "evolved" from simpler life forms has never been proven. No one would argue that mutations occur over time, not even creationists.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku yes lets not teach kids unproven scientific theory. i'm sick of educators shoving gravitational theory down are kids throats teaching it like it's proven (rolls eyes). u are pretty fucking stupid
ThEnglishMuffin 1 month ago
@ThEnglishMuffin I have no idea what you're talking about. Your anger has made you completely irrational. My only argument is that if it is okay to teach kids one unprovable theory, we should be teaching all of them. If creation can't be taught, neither should the big bang and abiogenesis.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku
Evolution has been proven. Lenski is one scientist who did so; he tested it. Tell me how creationism can be tested.Evolution is a scientific theory, like relativity.
No one would argue mutations happen over time? What? Of course mutations happen. I hope you made typo. Gravity says things are pulled towards objects with larger mass.It hasn't been proven they are not being pushed towards the objects by God. Therefore, don't teach gravity.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow As for the flood, a careful study of the Biblical account would show that the animals remained on the ark for 371 days. Plant life and insects would have begun to emerge in that time in addition to the food sources they had been using while on the ark (rodents, rabbits etc. that multiply quickly). Fish, of course, and other aquatic life would be in abundant supply.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku As I said, the flood would have destroyed the ecosystems. Almost everything would have died. Animals can die even if their environment would change a tiny bit, simply because of stress. Can you really say that the lions wouldn't be tempted by some nice pig instead of bony fish? Oh, and there's the freshwater fish. Although some fish from freshwater can survive in saltwater, only very few can. And how did the koalas survive if they can only eat eucalyptus which grows in Australia.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow You make far too many assumptions, based on what you can observe today--much like you accuse the creationists of doing. Interesting, really! If you believed your own evolutionary theories, you would recognize that the world we see today is very different from what existed even 4000 years ago. The oceans, for example, get saltier every year. Animals are constantly "evolving" to adapt to changes in their environments, etc.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku
Not the salt argument again. Even creationists admit this is tripe. Look it up on answers in creation.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow Do your own research! There have been many studies that prove the oceans are indeed getting saltier. If you believe minute changes in the environment could kill off an entire species of animals, then you can't also believe in Darwinian evolution. His entire theory hinges on living things adapting to their environments. He is actually correct on this point. No one would deny that these changes happen all the time.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku
Not minute: Only big. like global floods, for instance.
You haven't answered the koala argument. Also, if there was a migration of every baramin (or whatever) why didn't the predators mercilessly prey upon the herbivores walking beside them? Also, how did kangaroos get to the ark? They cannot swim across huge oceans, you know.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow Your earlier comment stated that species can die just due to stress. While this may be true sometimes, the vast majority will adapt and survive.
None of the animals had to swim to the ark! The flood didn't begin until they were all safely locked inside.
As for all of the animals getting along while on the ark, this is part of the miracle described in the Bible. You should try reading it sometime. The fact that the Universe exists at all can only be explained as a miracle.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku LOL Are u Ken Ham? LMFAO!
Angelotube5000 1 month ago
@1313sku
Isn't calling it a "miracle" sort of a cop out? You don't really have to explain it, or give proof, just that "It happened because I have faith that it happened"
Kalamari92 1 month ago
@Kalamari92 Every time atheists try to "explain" how the Universe created itself, they are presenting a "miracle." They have no proof. They just want you to have faith that it happened the way they say it did. Actually, the Earth is covered with many proofs that there was indeed a worldwide flood , exactly like the Bible describes, making the miraculous parts of the account much more believable in my mind.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku
You'll be hard-pressed to find a scientist that will call the big bang theory anything more than a theory. You're right, we don't have enough evidence to call it fact, which is why we don't. That is the chief difference between us; you call what you believe fact, and I call what I believe theory. I have no idea what happened trillions of years ago, and I don't claim to know.
So how do you know, for SURE, what happened, and I don't?
Kalamari92 1 month ago
@Kalamari92 The interesting thing about the big bang theory is that evolutionists are finally saying what the Bible has said all along--that the Universe came into existence from nothing. They are saying that 'nothing' exploded (actually they are calling it an "infinitesimal region"). Of course, they can't explain where the energy came from or the laws that control the energy or the incredible design we observe and many other things. Much of their theory is wishful thinking.
1313sku 1 month ago
@Kalamari92 My only point is this: If the evolutionists can't provide any more proof to support their theories than what I have read, their "theories" don't belong in the textbooks any more than the creationists theories. There is actually much more believable evidence to support Intelligent Design than many of the ridiculous conclusions the evolutionists arrive at. If Creation can't be taught, neither should the big bang.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku DNA sequence comparison allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the phylogenetic trees which result are generally in congruence with taxonomy. They are also used to enhance or correct taxonomic classifications.
DNA confirmed the paleontological tree of life which scientists had envisioned long before it was CONFIRMED by DNA sequence analysis. Evolution is one of the most validated and confirmed theories in all of science.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@1313sku Since evolutional theory is not only confirmed by numerous independent facets of science (including the fossil record and DNA sequence analysis)...not to mention that it is currently being utilized for various avenues of scientific advancement including medicine and physiology....it cannot be legitimately disputed.
Also, the Big Bang theory is confirmed by the cosmological redshift and cosmic microwave background radiation.
Ancient holy book < Valid scientific theories
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@1313sku You said "If the evolutionists can't provide any more proof to support their theories than what I have read..."
Read more:
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/section1
anthro(dot)palomar(dot)edu/evolve/evolve_3
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
evolution(dot)berkeley(dot)edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2
txtwriter(dot)com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@1313sku "My only point is this: If the evolutionists can't provide any more proof to support their theories than what I have read..."
What you have read is obviously only creationist propaganda. No sane person would cite drdino as a credible source of information about science. I only have two comments: 1. The evidence is enough to convince basically the entire community of biologists and paleontologists on the planet, and has been for 150 years.
2. It is the cornerstone of biology.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@1313sku "If Creation can't be taught, neither should the big bang."
Creationism can't be taught primarily because the US government is bound to be secular by the constitution. In addition, it can't be taught in science classes because it is not science. The big bang happens to be science. Regardless of whether or not you find the idea plausible, variations on it it happens to be the best model we have for explaining facts in cosmology. That's what makes it science. Not your opinion.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro One thing I do find interesting about the current big bang theory: It is getting closer to saying what the Bible has said all along--the Universe did come into existence from nothing.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku You could, in theory, have a class on "odd insanities of the modern world" that could deal with the psychology behind belief in astrology, creationism, UFO abductions and dowsing though. Then you'd be free to teach what creationism is, much like it's entirely legal to have bible classes that teach the bible as literature.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@1313sku
There is NO proof of a worldwide flood. There certainatly was a flood at that time, but it was a local flood. And as for you saying atheists have no poof, they do have proof. Though I'm not an atheist, I will try and explain their thinking,.
Astronomers have seen galaxies moving away from each other. Through this info, they have worked out that the universe is expanding. Therefore, it is logical to think the universe must have been tiny once and gotten bigger. I think God did this.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow "No proof of a worldwide flood??!!!" I really wish you would do a little research before making such ridiculous statements. Try drdino.com. Go to the "Seminars" tab. Watch seminar 2 for answers to many of these questions.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku You said ""No proof of a worldwide flood??!!!" I really wish you would do a little research before making such ridiculous statements. Try drdino.com."
Kent hovind's cranial void is similar in comparison to Mr. Ham's. I would suggest additional reading material:
"The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore.
This clearly describes why the fable should be added to the works of Aesop.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@1313sku
No, you misunderstand. I mean, there must have been an ocean between Australia and the Middle East where the Ark was made, right? How could the kangaroos have gotten from Australia to the Middle East, as they cannot swim (there was no super continent-the continents only move about 2-4 cm per year.):. The Koalas are animals that can only survive on Eucalyptus leaves that grow only in Australia. They would need to be sustained on their long trip to the Ark.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow I noticed your comments to 1313sku and you have my condolences. Attempting to debate someone who relies solely on an ancient text for their scientific information can be tremendously frustrating.
Obviously you know the Noah's Ark story was fictional...but you might want to peruse "The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore. It is interesting reading and details numerous impossibilities which many people don't consider.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@killgriffinnow I can't find your koala argument. Please restate.
1313sku 1 month ago
@1313sku And there are the bees. Bees are unclean(all insects other than locusts,grasshoppers and crickets are unclean), but 2 bees cannot make a viable hive.
I am not an atheist; I believe God created the Universe using science. Also, I believe he engineered the Universe for life, a bit like a computer program that is made from basic stuff but is allowed to continue on its own. This seems like a logical way of running things, as it makes the process smoother and easier to handle.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@1313sku And there is no way creationism can be tested, so it absolutely not a science.
type creationism cage into google images to see an amusing test for creationism.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@1313sku
Oh, and evolution isn't a "religion". You don't see people worshiping it, do you? I think that this is a retarded creationist argument. I'm not calling you retarded, but the argument.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religion: A man standing in a lush field with his eyes closed, screaming at the top of his lungs, "THE GRASS IS BLUE, THE GRASS IS BLUE, THE GRASS IS BLUE!" And people all around come to see him, telling him "Dude, just open your eyes and look down, it's green," as the man screams louder "I DON'T NEED TO OPEN MY EYES, I DON'T NEED TO, I'VE SEEN IT WITH MY HEART, THE GRASS IS BLUE! IT'S BLUE! IT'S BLUE!"
BDET89 2 months ago
all this time i have given you facts like NOTHING IS NOT EXPLOSIVE and you chose to ignore all i said so like i said stick with believing the nothing exploded and i will stick with the scientifically proved truth. so good bye and see you on the other side.
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas "all this time i have given you facts like NOTHING IS NOT EXPLOSIVE and you chose to ignore all" ok I'm going to hang in here, because now I want to hear you admit you are full of shit and will systematically make sure that you do so.
Did I ever say 'nothing explodes' is or isn't true? No, because its not the question at hand. Nobody has ever said nothing explodes. Now its my turn to offer a fact: the universe is expanding, agreed?
seblasian 1 month ago
@seblasian I could have told you that the universe is expanding few thousand years ago because it says so in the bible. Isaiah 40:22 so yes the universe is expanding doesn't mean that happened for millions of years.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Sounds interesting. So what theory do you have that the galaxies somehow changed speed along the way?
seblasian 1 month ago
@seblasian what do you mean?
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Well you are saying that the fact that the universe is expanding doesn't mean it has for millions of years (although we have proof for that, but we'll get to that later), so I'm guessing you have peer-reviewed scientific articles that give good reasons for you to say this?
seblasian 1 month ago
@seblasian I have evidence for universe expanding and that it's not millions of years old. i could write them all here but it would be easier if you would just watch first of hovind's seminars.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas I'm sorry but thats not acceptable. Not just because his seminars are complete jokes to anyone who finished highschool, but because if you are going to bring up evidence, it has to come from peer-reviewed articles. Thats how it works in science.
seblasian 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Now in the meantime, lets talk about some solid evidence. Do you know what cosmic background radiation is?
seblasian 1 month ago
@seblasian yes but tell me what you know about this
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Its microwave radiation that you can observe from any direction. The impressive part is that someone already predicted this phenomenon before we actually observed it (during the 40's). Lets start here; maybe you know what blackbody radiation is? Its the thermal radiation that comes from any object, and each wavelenght and intensity has its own corresponding temperature. Now, before the 40's all we really knew is that the galaxies were moving away from each other at certain speeds..
seblasian 1 month ago
@ProMajtas ..and from this we could estimate how long it would take to go back in time before they were together in a hot dense state. What this guy predicted, is that since the blackbody radiation from this hot dense state would expand along with the rest of the universe, the radiation would undergo a certain amount of redshift. Redshift is what happens to light when its source moves away from you, or the space inbetween gets stretched out- the wavelenght gets longer.
seblasian 1 month ago
@ProMajtas So in short, he calculated the temperature of the hot dense state, calculated what blackbody radiation would come from this, and then the amount of 'stretching' this radiation would go through before it reaches us at this point in time. If I'm not mistaken it was about twenty years later that a new radiometer picked up 'static'.. upon further inspection this static was in fact the background radiation that was predicted, within a few hundreths of a Kelvin.
seblasian 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Now, in science, this is almost unheard of. For someone to make such a ridiculously accurate prediction about something wich has so much margin for error.. that pretty much seals the deal. From this point on there was really no question about wether the big bang happened or not.. but there was still lots of stuff to find out. And in the way of trying to find this stuff out, we found more evidence.. wich I'll be glad to present.
seblasian 1 month ago
Furthermore dont ask for evidence if youre going to ignore everything I say, asshole. The fact that we have an expanding universe leads directly to the conclusion that we came from a smaller, denser universe.. you cant just ignore all of this and say "well that doesnt make sense because matter cant come from nothing" especially since nobody said it did. Are you following me here? Otherwise I'm done with this.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian there is nothing higher than a theory? how about a fact. I agree the universe is expanding it said so in the bible a long time before scientists discovered that. also if nobody said the big bang created matter out of nothing than where did it came from? If you can't answer that than just give up and call it what it really is a theory. why is it so hard for you to understand as for all evolutionists, if you never observed something nor did you recreate it it can't be proven as a fact.
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas "Fact" is what you start from, "theory" is what you end up with. You look at the facts and construct a model that fits the observations and test it by making predictions. For example, fact: masses attract each other. The best model we have to describe this is Newton's THEORY of gravity. Also fact: the universe is expanding, and the best THEORY we have to describe this is the big bang. Please stop acting like you know how science works.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian if you want to believe nothing exploded, created everything and here we are than go ahead but don't call it a fact and don't call it science. can't observe it can't make an experiment to prove it so you can't say it's a fact.
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas So basically you havent read anything I said. K bye now.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian no just you take into consideration what i said and realize that maybe just maybe nothing isn't explosive. "the universe is expanding" well of course i could have said that 2000 years ago as it says so in the bible so, it looks like you will still believe nothing is explosive and I will stick with the truth. so good bye and see you on the other side.
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas No, I explained why that doesn't make any sense, and instead of responding to that you just repeat the same retarded statement. How does your god feel about you being such a hypocritical dickhead?
seblasian 2 months ago
@ProMajtas Also for the last time, the fact that we dont know where the matter came from does NOT change ANYTHING about our observations. Please get this through you head. Its like saying there should be no murder trial if there is no suspect, you are not making any sense.
seblasian 2 months ago
this is disgusting
lamb4067 2 months ago
This is Child Abuse, plain and simple.
Demon666Evil 2 months ago
where does the title come from...the young earth creationists are insane..
he believes in the young earth....
phil4508 2 months ago
a lot of anger here...what is that all about...
phil4508 2 months ago
He doesn't beleive in evolution, yet somehow the biblical kinds of animals get off the ark, and in 4000 years, all the species of plants and animals in the world evolve super fast into the millions of species we have now, all located in parts of the world they have adapted to.
jwoolaway 2 months ago
This man is a criminal. I think the kids are smarter than his ass - until this scumbag gets a hold of them.
worktosser 2 months ago
this is sad..... this really makes me sick.
DrSpecialBrown 2 months ago
I love all the evidance you provide to disprove what he says.
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas I love how ignorant these young earth creationists (well all creationists) are. This idiot also has the mentality to preach the nonsense to children. He should be in jail just like Kent Hovind is.
Uhhhaha 2 months ago
@Uhhhaha ooh so it doesn't matter what evidence he provides once he teaches that god exists then he is mentally retarded ? interesting how open minded evolutionists are.
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas Most people are capable of recognising this mindless garbage for what it is. For the special few such as yourself however, there is a wide selection of youtube channels who take the time to actually refute these 'arguments', I suggest you make use of them.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian well yeah I like to watch some of them and sometimes e-mail debate them and it is quite amusing that the best evidance for beneficial mutations being the key for one kind on animal to turn into another is cicle cell ameba, so yeah I reseach borh sides of this argument and I am amazed you can belive evolution is true if you watched all dr.hovind's seminars.
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas Watching video's from Hovind doesn't count as 'research'. Also, watching video's from Hovind without realising that the guy couldnt pass a highschool science class also indicates you are incapable of doing such research.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian according to you. I don't give a shit about your opinion. I don't care about his classes. He makes perfect sense now
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas It's not about opinions or what 'makes sense', its about verifyable facts. Kent Hovinds video's are a joke and anyone with a half decent education can tell you why.
There's also dozens of video's on youtube that debunk his lectures, when you say you 'researched both sides' the least you could do is watch those. But we both know youre just going to believe what you want.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian oh yeah i have watched the videos that "debunk" what he says and they fail, when hovind said that the moon is moving away from earth and that puts a time limit on how long life on earth could exist, someone trying to debunk it said that it would take 10 not 4 billion years for it to touch the earth witch is relevant because only few thousand years ago it would be so close that the tides would cover the whole earth. if you ask me that person failed at "debunking" his claim,
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas I dont understand the claim you are talking about, but in his videos he says something ridiculous almost every five seconds. He suggested that the grand canyons were created in a few minutes, that the earth was covered by a hovering crust of ice, that a single drop of water could cover the earth, etc.. he has no understanding of even the most basic physics or chemistry and 'debunks' the phenomena like the big bang by making silly analogies while ignoring the actual evidence.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian Actual evidence? Really? Give me some
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas Lets see, I'd say it starts with Hubble's Law (the observation that all galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance), wich combined with the cosmological principle proves an expanding universe and hence the big bang. Then there's cosmic background radiation, wich matches the prediction of blackbody radiation for a hot dense universe. Then there's nucleosynthesis, wich explains the chemical composition of our universe from the big bang.
seblasian 2 months ago
@ProMajtas There's also a lot of evidence in the structural formation of the universe, and many other things. Kent Hovind ignores all of this stuff, all he does is make silly strawman arguments to a dumb audience. These pieces of evidence I mentioned are not something you can ignore, especially considering how rare and amazing it is in science to make such accurate predictions in such a theoretical construct. The big bang is a scientific fact, the 'how' is the question not the 'if'.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian the "how" is the question, ok so HOW did a big explosion create all the matter we have today? HOW did a big explosion create time and space? HOW did it create all the laws of physics we see today, by this I mean why do matter attract each other (gravity) why does matter can't be destroyed or created (thermodynamics) ? if it's a scientific fact then can we recreate it as a experiment, observe it and prove it 100% true ????????????????????
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas Well most of those are good questions, I suggest you get some reading material instead of asking them on youtube. Although some are really just "why" questions, "how" is really just mathematics and I wouldnt expect a satisfying answer on 'why' we have the laws of nature. But its kind of silly to ask if we can 'recreate' the big bang, obviously we can't.. we also cant recreate the sun but that doesnt mean we dont have solid theories on how it works.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian If Big Bang can't be even recreated on even a small scale and cannot be observed, it is not science. It is only an assumption and a theory.That is my whole point. Sun is a bad example we can observe sun. Face the facts you believe bunch of fairy tales. Matter cannot be created out of nothing. If it would be able to happen than it would be normal part of universe and everything that surrounds us, but lets get to our major argument. What is your best evidence for evolution?
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas This is as far as I can go without pointing out that you dont have the slightest clue how science works. First of all, 'theory' is a good as it gets in science, there's nothing 'higher' than theory. And OBVIOUSLY something doesnt have to be reproducible to be considered to scientific otherwise there would be no cosmology, geology, etc.. what you are saying is just moronic.
seblasian 2 months ago
brain washer!
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
just sad to see the systematic brain washing ...... the fact that this APE is ruining young minds and cannot have this conversation with intelligent adults ..... is shameful and disgusting
mahmoudsobhyx 2 months ago
Seeing those kids being indoctrinated like this makes me think of a golf ball washer.
"Here, let me clean that brain of logic and critical thinking."
dondude69 2 months ago
hahahahahaha
lamb4067 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he should be in prison
lamb4067 2 months ago
Ken Ham is speaking the truth.
I am a scientist and I fully agree with him.
reuelt01 2 months ago
@reuelt01 ....and your area of specialization is what exactly?
CarajilloDulce 2 months ago
@reuelt01 Then you're not a good scientist.
GreyRaven75 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ken Ham, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may your god have mercy on your soul.
menriquex 3 months ago
If all chimps think about are bananas, what does that make ray comfort?
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago 2
The sectarian nature of christianity highlights the subjectivity of religious doctrine. The difference is interpretation with no reproducible tests or conclusions.
I wasn’t trying to “disprove” your messiah or the truth value of the bible.
The him/her/it refers to the fact that you know nothing about the capabilities or mechanisms of your god. You don’t know how it creates or created things, you can’t disprove it at all, so you can’t make predictions. It is you who has nothing BUT bias.
Ebrainiac1 3 months ago