How sad that he all the time underestimates people "...teach it at the level students can understand it..." which's like saying "you're not nearly as smart as I am". Thats the tool for domination - keeping people uneducated. And as we are sharing our own thoughts, I think Mr. Ham's biblical beard is off fashion in third millennium.
I like the comments this guy or girl typed in explaining how really complicated everything is. In other words what Mr. Ham was saying was too simplified. Therefore logic would dictate if the critic who wrote the commentary is right, then there has to be someone who created it because it can't happen by chance.......
@wookieiam1 (you are going for the "watchmaker" argument... right? ) .. no.. chance had nothing to do with it.. just like in evolution... it is natural selection.. not chance.. (do you want to delve into the statistics of evolution? we can do that...)
@daNDayati I don't know if I was thinking of the "watch maker argument." However how many years does it take for bricks blown up out in outer space does it take for them to come together to make a watch factory. I guess it would be like a billion years or so, and then of course all the power would be hooked up about a billion years after that. And, about a billion years after that all the tools and machines would be in place to start making watches. It sure makes a whole lot of sense to me.
@wookieiam1 making more sense to you.. chance (in mutation and other evolutionary mechanisms) and then natural selection.. do you understand aeronautics and the Bernoullis theory? (hint; he discovered the theoretical basis for lift produced by a rigid wing). Does it make more sense to believe that god lifts us us in a airplane? If you don't understand it, obviously it would make more sense. If you don't understand something don't hind behind your deity.. use your brain and study.
@daNDayati Actually Burnoullis theory applies to low pressure areas created by fast flowing currents as in a spray of water in the shower creating a low pressure area the draws the curtain in toward the shower stream because the fast moving stream creates a low pressure area. And, one of the things that troubles me about POMPOUS ASSES like you is you think that if someone believes in God, he or she must be ignorant, or stupid. And, I for one won't hide behind my deity because you of you.
@wookieiam1 Good, you found a Burnoullis theory citation.. that is a very good start.. now delve into evolution.. Science has a nice property.. it is self checking.. if theories work they stay, if they don't they won't.. Burnoullis and Darwin's theories work and have practical application. Pompous is denying proven theory..(and yes before you go there evolution has practical proof too)..your answer that your deity designed it has not practical application and is not really an answer.
@daNDayati By the way I didn't find that Burnoullis theory. I knew it. And as for evolution. How do you explain the platypus down in Australia. Which line of animals did that creature evolve from?
@wookieiam1 There is some reading with that answer.. from the Journal Nature, May 7, 2008. According to the article, "the platypus genome, like the animal itself, is an amazing amalgam of reptile-like and mammal-like features..the group of animals called monotremes—which includes the platypus and the closely related echidna (and due to the evidence) is thought to have split from other mammals at least 166 million years ago". the wonders of modern genetics..
@daNDayati I think the platypus evolved over 300 millions of years. And after I calculated the actual statistical numbers and combinations of genes possible between mammals and lizards I actually figured it out that it would have been billion of years to get the combinations correct to have a viable living creature. (This is so critical)> I also figured out that the Moon would have to be in a perfect line with all the planets in our solar system on the day the first platypus baby was born.
@wookieiam1 cool.. now get your work peer reviewed (someone can actually check on your science and math). and then you can publish.. this is how science works.. (not like making things up like some creationist..).. if your work survives scrutiny then you will join the ranks of the learned..
by the way.. not knowing how things work does not mean they don't..
@wookieiam1 and don't forget.. try to publish Journal Nature and cite their May 7, 2008 article (google it..easy to find!).. this is really exciting..
Both Bats and the Platypus debunk the religion of evolutionism rather thoroughly.
Just as Living Fossils and the Cambrian explosion do as well.
Not to mention the FACT that Neanderthals (sharing upto 99.5% DNA with us) were confirmed as NOT being where Homo Sapiens came from (fact accepted by evolutionists as well).
Its not hard to find creatures, fossils, and many examples of refutations of evolution. Debunking evo-religion is as easy as debunking Flat Earth theory.
@DisprovingEvolution "rather thoroughly." your command of the English language seems good.(almost poetic) . your understanding of science, however, leaves a lot to be desired (as in there will always be corrections in scientific theory) and in any case provide citations.. and get out there and publish yourself.."Bats and the Platypus debunk the religion of evolutionism" would be a great paper.. (I would love to see that research!!)
@DisprovingEvolution (you are citing youtube?) you really have to get out and read more..try "Primitive Early Eocene Bats from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation" Nature: 451, 818-821 (14 February 2008)
You are very funny. I think you must be a smart troll. No one could be as idiotic as that. You're trolling is almost at an expert level. Just don't make yourself sound as stupid as this, though.
@wookieiam1 I Do not deny the evolution of animals, or any creature. I actually believe there is room for a belief that natural selection works in many animals and insects. They evolve and survive based upon their ability to endure the environment. Only this is automatically built in the creature through the gene selection process. Strong genes, develop a stronger insect, or animal in that the creature can survive the environment.(I don't know how to explain in short) But, this is built in.
Did you copy and paste your rebuttals in your video from some wikipedia page that you didn't really understand? haha Because some of your arguments don't even argue against his views. A few of them actually support him. Lol I'm still wondering if you completely understand biology with some of your statements you made. I'm not saying this with bias toward either view, but I have to say, if you really want to be a credible source, you should look at things more subjectively instead of ranting :-P
lastly, it isnt repeatable. you agree with this. doesn't matter WHY it isn't for the sake of this particular argument, the point is that it is not repeatable. these 3 criterion are basis for scientific fact. evolution doesn't fit within these parameters. next, evolution is a theory. google the definition of theory. look at the definition, and look at the example they give. darwinian evolution attempts to explain what we see when we look back at the history of the natural world. theory.
"google the definition of theory. look at the definition, and look at the example they give."
Okay.
"theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."
Don't YOU feel stupid.
Also try looking up the 300,000+ peer-reviewed publications of observations and tests concerning evolution on PubMed. Might get a little less stupid.
There is no need to go past 2:03 : "We gonna start with the Bible and build our thinking on the Bible".
Common, this is a good old "this article is written on the basis on this article" joke, he (as most fundies) will try to prove the Bible right by looking into the Bible without going for for evidence in the real world, right?
"Start with the bible and build our thinking on the bible"! Well that's that then... anything that does not agree with the YEEC fundamentalist interpretation of this variously translated and interpreted collection of bronze age myths and anecdotes must be wrong. Sounds like a sound structure upon which to base one's exploration and understanding of life, the universe, and everything. Ken's Creation Amusement Park down in Kentucky just keeps those dollars for dope rolling in.
Whoever constructed this video to try to defame his charecture, has been bias and unconstructive. They clearly are NOT lovers of science or truth. Bity pointless argumants on minor flaws or misunderstanding. I have watched much of his teaching and then gone away to think or expand on it. He has just as many valid proven points ie genetics and they have as much or more valid foundation than Darwin who admits his THEORY is flawed.
@namistaken Scientists who come up with new explanations for data do so through research and publication. Please tell me, what research did Ken Ham do and where was it published?
"Darwin who admits his THEORY is flawed" No, he didn't. And even if he did, it wouldn't make a shred of difference. Evolution still happens (fact) and evolution theory (mutation and natural selection) still is the best fitting explanation for that fact.
Ken Ham is a scientific genius, whose revolutionary ideas about dinosaur-human cohabitation are so threatening, that the atheist hoodlums of this nation actually fel threatened. So much so that they will stoop to nothing to try and tarnish Mr. Ham's great name. Mr. Ham, continue fighting the good fight. Our lord in heaven watches over you.
@Eye2EyeIIV "Ken Ham is a scientific genius" Really? Where can I read his papers? Where can I review his research and experiments? Where can I read his proposed hypothesis?
Don't bother responding if your answer is "the bible" or "answers in genesis".
I'm only interested in scientific papers and journals. If Ken doesn't publish in those, then he isn't doing science and then we can simply discard your statements about him.
@Eye2EyeIIV do you seriously thnk that dinosaurs didn't exist? HE'S A FUCKING STUPID ASS EVANGALIST! SCIENTIFIC GENIUS? ANY 1ST GRADER WITH HALF A BRAIN KNOWS THAT DINOSAURS ARE REAL!
@Eye2EyeIIV Even a child can see the absurdity of dinosaurs living with humans. It just doesn't compute. Mammals overtook reptiles because of our intelligence. The dinosaurs had an advantage because of their size and strength. There is strong evidence for an asteroid wiping them out as well. By the way, how do you creatards rationalise the long history of bombardment on this planet if you believe in a young earth. I am sure creationists have a response to this, but i bet it's lame as.
@j919or Evolution is just a proven fact on which every unbiased scientist agree (and they're about 99,9% of scientific community).
Some people can use it as an excuse for racism, but they're utterly wrong and misunderstanding Evo:
Indeed evolution doesn't make any claim about superiority of any race. it only states the true fact that some individuals are better FIT to their environment, so they can better survive and reproduce.
Evolution is a FACt which has nothing to do with morals.
@PacoDellaMerendola nothing that is undeniably known uses the word theory, no matter how you dice it. When theory is used it denotes that assumptions are being made regardless of how much research seems to point to a certain end. I am sure you know that.
These 99.9% of these people are unbiased? how many of them are atheists. That statement in and of itself is biased.
@prn72271 "I am sure you know that. " And I am sure that you know that words can mean different things in different contexts...
A scientific theory is not the same as when you use that word in a bar when you lay down your "theory" of how 9/11 was made possible to your mates in a pathetic attempt to look wise and tough.
Here's a nice hint for you: Germ THEORY of Desease. So... do you consider it "just an assumption" that germs cause deseases?
@prn72271 "These 99.9% of these people are unbiased?" Probably not. But you see, that's why we have the Scientific Method. It makes sure that none of your bias taints your conclusions or data.
It requires form factors for your experiments/papers, demonstrable and repeatable results, scientific predictions for further testing, usefullness in explanation, lack of contradiction, etc.
This is why science flies you to the moon while religion flies you into buildings.
@prn72271 "you behave as if science doesnt have many atrocities to its name" How could it? Science doesn't 'do' anything. Science is a method to study the natural world. If anything here is laughable, it's your idea of what science is (and does).
"Science is not biased but interpretations are, that is evolution" Evolution is not an interpretation. It's a theory that explains the data and makes predictions about what other data you should be able to find (or not find).
You and i know both know that science has its atrocities, to think otherwise is self deception.
Anyway, there is many good things that reliogion has done. You can trace many selfless acts to religion, so it is disengenous to try to paint all religion under one brush as I could do with science, that would be quite petty.
@prn72271 "You and i know both know that science has its atrocities" Science is a METHODOLOGY to find out how stuff works. Attrocities are committed by humans. They might employ science to do so, but that is very irrelavent to what science itself is.
"there is many good things that reliogion has done" There isn't a single good act that the religious do that requires religion. But there are MANY evil acts from the religious that could ONLY be done through religious faith.
@prn72271 "You can trace many selfless acts to religion" I'ld postulate that atheists who do the same acts are far more respectable.
"so it is disengenous to try to paint all religion under one brush " No, it's not. ALL religions requires blind faith of their followers. That's never a good thing. And it's the complete opposite in science, which is evidence-based instead of faith-based.
@ScientificBob evolution must be biased as because you are working backwards for what you believe. So everything in your mind must line up with it, even if it doesnt make sense.
No species has changed to another but you are forced to believe it by your bias.
@prn72271 "evolution must be biased as because you are working backwards for what you believe" That makes no sense whatsoever.
"So everything in your mind must line up with it" No. Everything in reality (= the facts, biology, genetics, fossils, ...) must line up with it. And it does. Very well. Without exception.
"even if it doesnt make sense." The day that it stops making sense is the day I (and science) will stop accepting it as an explanation. Don't hold your breath though.
@ScientificBob Clarity, yes we can have different species of plants for example that is because two of the same are compatiable but together can form another kind but your belief is that birds have become something other than birds. The burden of proof lies on you to prove that.
@prn72271 "species of plants " Or animals. Or bacteria.
"but your belief is that birds have become something other than birds" No, it isn't. It's clear that you don't know how evolution works. It's like a tree. Species don't jump branches. They might split into 2 or more branches, but the stay on the same branch (lineage).
"The burden of proof lies on you to prove that." I have no reason to defend a strawman.
@ScientificBob I am sitting here looking at the current theory of the evolution of the bird. Now, I dont know what you are reading but these animals are no birds.
@prn72271 "I am sitting here looking at the current theory of the evolution of the bird. Now, I dont know what you are reading but these animals are no birds."
I have no idea what you are saying. Are you reading a text that claims that birds involved to non-birds? Because I'm gonna have to call "bullshit" on that one. Biological evolution works like a branching tree. Species don't jump branches. Our descendants will forever be subspecies of primates, mammals and homo sapiens.
@ScientificBob I believe evolution to the extent that it is taught is a farce of farces. What you are claiming is that similar DNA structure auntomatically means - descendant's.
If evolution works like a branching tree to form so many species, we must admit that it it very intelligent. Evolution is therefore a god. I cannot believe such order in the human body alone can be the product of a lifestyle process.
@prn72271 "What you are claiming is that similar DNA structure auntomatically means - descendant's." No. Not 'similarity' but HIERARCHY. The phylogenetic tree really isn't something you can just ignore.
"If evolution works like a branching tree to form so many species, we must admit that it it very intelligent" Ow fuck... Seriously, just for once I would like to argue with a creationist who isn't completely oblivious to what evolution theory is all about...
@prn72271 "I cannot believe such order in the human body alone can be the product of a lifestyle process"
This is what Dawkins calls the fallacy of personal incredulity: my evidence for not accepting evolution is that I don't believe it.
Luckily, nobody cares what you believe. All that matters is evidence. And natural selection is perfectly capable of producing complex functional things through a blind selection process. Learn about it before saying stupid things.
@ScientificBob - when you say testable what do you mean? scientist say that the earth started from a big bang, is that testable? scientist claim that animals have morphed from one type to another, is that testable?
You do chose faith. Many have said you dont have faith to believe evolution but it is obvious that you do, firts and foremost you believe what the scientist tells you but we all know that scientist told many lies to support evolution.
@prn72271 "when you say testable what do you mean" I'm not sure how the term can be confusing...
"a big bang, is that testable" Yes. Big Bang theory makes predictions about cosmology and physics. Predictions are testable.
"animals have morphed from one type to another, is that testable" 'Morphing', first of all, is not what is being claimed. Descent with modification is what is claimed. And yes, that is very testable. Evolution makes a ridiculous amount of predictions.
@prn72271 "You do chose faith" Nope, I don't. Faith = gullibility.
"firts and foremost you believe what the scientist tells you " No. I accept the evidence. I should probably also mention that I have written software that uses the principles of evolution theory. So I'm actually engaged in practical application of the model. I actually now for a fact that it works.
"we all know that scientist told many lies to support evolution" But nobody cares what scientsts SAY, only what they can prove
@prn72271 and go forth and be ignorant, is that what you are saying?... how dare you!!!.. you make the claim and say "I have nothing to prove".. you pathetic irresponsible religious slob. You chose ignorance and superstition and you want to drag us all down with you... please shove your "blessings" up where they belong..
@daNDayati drag you down? if you use such launguage you are dragging yourself down. I am not sure why you got so angry but I have no issues with you at all. You can believe what you want and I will follow Jesus. He saved me & transformed me. I will not reject Him in the face of a theory (or anything else), though man swears by it.
science has no aswer for eternity (cause and effect) but in order for there to be something now, something had to have always been. What is it? matter?
@prn72271 OK, you must see that the battle lines have been drawn..between the people with imaginary supernatural "overseers" who want to poison or even destroy scientific discourse and those who want to better our lives and the lives of future generations through free inquiry and research. Yes I am angry with you.... your "blessings" are insult.
@prn72271 Then what do you think you are doing here, (christian soldier?) I personally understand the need to defend ourselves from religion and I am fairly sure that you are not crossing the line to join our forces...of the NAS scientists only 2% profess to a "personal god(s)" .. Science and civility can make us better participants in society, humans have innate moral codes and social norms that work well without god(s) . You "blessing" remains a presumptious insult. My anger is well founded.
@prn72271 "There are many Christian scientist's" And not a single one of them mentions anything "christian" in their work. There is no "god variable" in any equation. Anywhere.
"Dont make it seem as if Christians oppose science." I beg the differ. Stem cell research anyone? Dark ages anyone? If it wasn't for christians, we'ld allready have a colony on Mars. Christianity set us back a thousand years by blocking free thought in medieval times.
@prn72271 "Science will never be able to make you a better person, it has no moral value" Science is a methodology to seperate truth from fiction. Nobody claims it gives moral values.
"I can say with surety that following Christ does though." Ow please, give me a break. You get your moral values from being a part of a social context, just like everybody else. Not from some dumbass bronze-age book.
@ScientificBob evolution is not observable, testable or repeatable. this means that the scientific method cannot prove that evolution is a FACT. its a theory. maybe, if your right, its a really good theory that is probably true, but it is still just a theory. saying it is a fact is actually showing bias and a huge mistake from a strict scientific perspective.
@3001w "evolution is not observable, testable or repeatable" Except off course, that it is. Google 'observed speciation'. It's also very testable as evolution makes LOADS of predictions about the world, obviously. And evolution not being repeatable is actually a prediction made by the theory. Repeatable, off course, in the sense that we will not see the same species evolve twice.
@3001w "this means that the scientific method cannot prove that evolution is a FACT. its a theory" Epic facepalm as a result of the epic science fail on your part. Theories don't become facts. They explain facts. Common ancestry = fact that needs explaining. Natural Selection = theory explaining the fact.
"but it is still just a theory" Yeah.... 'just' a theory. Like gravity, germ theory, relativity, atomic theory, plate tectonics, heliocentrism, ... The stupid... it's too much.
@3001w "saying it is a fact is actually showing bias " No, it's showing knowledge of the difference between fact and theory. There are FACTS of evolution that need to be EXPLAINED. These FACTS are explained through the THEORY of NATURAL SELECTION. Common ancestry is a FACT. Natural Selection is the theory (and it will stay a theory as theories don't become facts and facts were never theories).
"huge mistake from a strict scientific perspective" Epic facepalm again.
@ScientificBob first of all lol at how mad ur getting right now. chill dude. secondly, lets look at the observable, testable, repeatable thing again. its not observable because evolution is considered to be a slow process, right? we can observe the supposed effects of evolution but not evolution itself, at least not macro-evolution. it isnt testable because we can't physically experiment with it, which is what is meant in the 3 criterion. lastly, not repeatable. (next post)
@3001w "first of all lol at how mad ur getting right now" Not mad. Just incredibly frustrated at people who think they are in a position to argue about science while they can't even grasp the basics of what science is.
At no point has anyone ever claimed evolutin is fact, even Darwin admintted to millions of holes in his THEORY. To make such a claim is uninformed ignorance, the kind that keeps people blind to any other possibilities. The very claim people make of religion, men, not religion stifle men inquisitive nature with definite speach like Fact when it is not. To use the term fact leads people to believe that it is in need of no further investigation, which all would agree it is!
@namistaken "At no point has anyone ever claimed evolutin is fact, even Darwin admintted " When Darwin published his work, evolution was a hypothesis (which was accepted and became a theory not long after). The coming of genetics is what turned evolution into a fact and genetics didn't exist back in Darwin's time. It is to say, common decent is a fact. Evolution Theory is actually mutation + selection. If that is proven wrong, you still have the facts of genetics to deal with.
@namistaken "THEORY" The extra emphasis on the word "theory" only exposes your scientific illiteracy. A really good theory doesn't become a fact or law. It explains facts and laws. Theory is the end stage of any proposed explanation in science. In a very real sense, a scientific theory is a proven hypothesis. And a hypothesis, by NO MEANS should be considered a "guess" either. It's much better then just a guess.
@namistaken Just to make it extra clear: evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory. Evolution as in "common decent" is a fact from genetics (as demonstrated by the phylogenetic tree and the workings of hereditary DNA). The THEORY of evolution is 'mutation followed by natural selection' = the mechanism by which evolution occurs.
@j919or "evolution is not the cause of racism but a stimulous of it and an excuse for it"
Really? So... what was the stimulous for racism against jews for the 1850 years that preceeded evolution?
And for general bigotry and cruelty against anything non-christian?
Btw: gravitational theory is evil. It acts as a stimulous to jump of buildings. Therefor, we should teach our kids "intelligent falling", caused by a divine being.
He is surprised that they found that the mutation allowing resistance to pesticides was already in the population when they were exposed? Well, duh. If it wasn't present, they all would have died and we wouldn't be talking about them. This point proves nothing, and definitely does not show that the resistance was not a mutation.
The whole "where did the genetic information come from for ____" argument is totally off basis. They were mutations that worked. You don't need to create new information. The basis for all genetic code is already in there (a,c,u,t). All you need to do is mix them in the right order, found by trial and error. If you had a dictionary on your computer and copied it enough times, the errors in copying the binary code could eventually give you Shakespeare.
I really like your references. It is funny that he claims to be against evolution but then explains his theories by explaining evolution and saying that's how it happened. Why is he arguing with evolution?
Extanddodo, great video, but you should re-upload it with you reading the text (like thunderfoot) instead of forcing me to read. Its a video, not a pdf book. I think allot more people would appreciate that. Again, I love the video.
@eagleeye2102 hi there. I used to read ken ham and Lee strobel, and thought what they said was true, but they are lying. I studied the claims they make, and they are just not true. I also took a course on evolution - and most Christians don't actually know what evolution is. Evolution is a fact, and I am a Christian. Lying for god is still lying. God bless
I wish someone would set up a televised global debate between creationists and pretty much the entire scientific community. I don't care how long it would take to get through because I'd love every second of creationists constantly getting their fucking lying asses kicked. It might also help end the 'creation' debate by showing them all to be a bunch of tards.
@galenwolf And it needs to be on EVERY channel. However, I could see some ID supporters calling it discrimination and using it as an attack against evolution.
Hi extant dodo, I love your video, take 'em down!! You are so well informed but your list of resources are overwhelming...Can you suggest some good reading? I understand technical language just fine despite my abysmal upbringing...Yes, there;s a back story here but I won't get into it!
Ken Ham has some whacky crackpot conspiracy theory, but I guess if you don't know what his points are, you will have an even tougher time trying to defend them....
Something interesting that you state at 6:00 is that evolution is "descent with modification" now isn't evolution supposed to be an assent from inferior species to superior ones? Which by the way is a complete violation of Newton's law of thermodynamics. You know everything breaking down over time, that kind of thing.
@odinata This is an evolutionists interpritation of the Creationists Worldmodell plus the right observation that Ken Ham actually is not talking about the original subject.
I don't get it. The guys of Dodo always list their references at the end of all of their analyses, yet creationists STILL pretend they don't exist or dismiss all of them out of hand as "propaganda" without even looking.
And Secondly, this isn't true. I, as a Creationist, always check what atheists and evolutionists have to say about Creation and Evolution in order to educate myself. It makes me kind of angry when evolutionists always have to repeat that Creationist don't educate themselves - it isn't even true. Maybe they do it in order to get people to not even look at Creation? Who knows.
"I, as a Creationist, always check what atheists and evolutionists have to say about Creation and Evolution in order to educate myself."
And yet continue to ignore the vast majority of the evidence and distort the rest anyway. It's literally impossible to defend "Creation" honestly unless you concede that it's entirely a matter of faith.
@TheZooCrew You don't know me, so why do you say that? I might not be able to defend Creation with my 17 years, but I at least want to research and look at the evidence before I get dogmatic on rather Evolution or Creation is true.
"but I at least want to research and look at the evidence before I get dogmatic"
That's the point...you don't dogma to accept evolution. You think the vast, vast majority of scientists accept theories like evolution because they WANT to? It's out of obligation to their profession! They are dedicated to furthering the progress of human understanding and they'd be dense to not accept the essentials of evolution. It's also a false dichotomy to suggest that there are only two options
@eagleeye2102 The bible isn't an alternative scientific theory anymore than scientology is an alternative theory, or the many other religious explanations for reality. And saying 'god did it !' isn't really an explanation because you have merely shifted the question, and created a more complicated question of 'where did god come from ?'. And which god ? Humans have created thousands of gods on top of the well-known ones. Perhaps the zulus were right about their god in the volcano.
Of course the Bible is no alternative theory, a theory is a way to explain natural phenomenon, the Bible is a historical document. We can, however, create theories which are based on the Bible. The god did it argument is only a false argument when it is used to fill a gap. Biblebased theories, however, don't fill any gap, the gap never existed, the theory would already predict that god did it. God is thereofre one of the theories key assumption, no god of the gap.
@eagleeye2102 The bible is an historical document ? So you believe that those crazy stories actually happened ? And why would you make a bible based theory anyway, since we know that civilization goes back alot further than 4000 BC. And religion evolved into christianity, just take a look at the gods before Jesus that were so similar e.g. Osiris, Krishna, Perseus, Mercury, Mithra, Adonis, Dionysus. And the Noah's ark tale was copied from the epic of gilgamesh. Look it up.
@eagleeye2102 "the Bible is a historical document" No, it's not. The bible is a collection of ancient myths which in turn are borrowed from a whole range of ancient polytheistic religions.
"The god did it argument is only a false argument when it is used to fill a gap." No. The god-did-it argument is a false argument UNLESS you can actually prove that a god exists. You see, you can't attribute X to Y (and thus use Y as explanation of X) if you can't even prove that Y actually exists.
If the Bible is a collection of ancient myths and religions can be debated. However, People can use "God" as a key assumption. "For our theory to be true, God must exists". This is what the Creation models are based on, but this isn't circular reasoning because nobody has yet claimed that therefore, God exists. The claim could rather be: "because the theory fits the evidence, God exists" Which is not circular reasoning either.
@eagleeye2102 "However, People can use "God" as a key assumption" No, they can't. Just like I can't assume that robots rule the world to lay out a Matrix Theory.
"This is what the Creation models are based on" Indeed. They are just religious concept and nothing more.
""because the theory fits the evidence, God exists" Which is not circular reasoning either" yes it is, because 'god exists' was assumed in the premise. The conclusion of your argument can't be that the premise is correct :-/
We don't know if the Universe was created by nature or the supernatural, so by creating theories which give an explanation for the Universe, we are allowed to use the Supernatural as a key assumption. If the theory later fits all the available evidence, the belief in the supernatural is verified. That doesn't proof that the supernatural exists, but it does suggest so.
@eagleeye2102 "by creating theories which give an explanation for the Universe" The thing is that you need data to suggest your hypothesis. Otherwise it's just a brainfart. And you don't have data so... yeah.
"are allowed to use the Supernatural as a key assumption" No, you're not . Just like I'm not allowed to assume the world being ruled by robots to lay out a Matrix Theory. Same thing.
"If the theory later fits all the available evidence" It doesn't.
@eagleeye2102 "There is no evidence that we are in a Matrix. " There is no evidence that the world was created. There is no evidence that your religion of choice is the correct one. There is no evidence of anything supernatural existing. There is no evidence that your deity of choice exists.
And, last but not least, there isn't a single piece of data suggesting anything of the above.
The Big Bang theory is about the origin of the universe/nature from literary nothing. Once there was nothing, and then there was the expanding universe. Now, we know that everything that starts to exists has a cause, but what was the universe's cause? Its cause must have been outside the universe, therefore - timeless, spaceless and immaterial. By further research you will conclude that it also must have been powerful and personal - is this reminding you of someone?
@eagleeye2102 "The Big Bang theory is about the origin of the universe/nature from literary nothing" This is simply not true. It starts with an extremely dense and hot singularity. Which is not "nothing".
In other words, your argument is built upon a strawman, which isn't surprising at all.
"By further research you will conclude that it also must have been powerful and personal - is this reminding you of someone?" Not of 'someone', but of a logical fallacy known as 'argument from ignorance'
"(straw man), therefore (fallacious argument), and it must have been (fallacious argument) and you will conclude that (mindless nonsense not fit to be classified as a fallacy)."
It's crazy how you can type so many characters and not get a single thing right.
@eagleeye2102 yes there was something outside the universe, that was - timeless, spaceless and immaterial. His name was Fred.. A pan dimensional being who, after having a accident making beer in his celestial kitchen, created the big bang.. Fred created time, matter and physical order.. That is who.. or were you going for a abrahamic god? Well my Fred has as much foundation as your deity.. and is just as made up.. and answers as much.. (i.e. nothing).. cheers!
@eagleeye2102 "the theory would already predict that god did it" Which should be a hint of the enormous fallacy hidden in the concept of "bible based theories".
"God is thereofre one of the theories key assumption" It's called 'confirmation bias' and 'circular reasoning'.
@eagleeye2102 "Circular reasoning would be if I would say that God did it because God did it. "
Wrong. The circular reasoning is hidden in the concept of "bible based theories". You assume god exists and it's clear that you feel you are exempt from having to prove that that assumption is correct. The reason for that is because the bible says god exists. And the bible is right because god says so in the bible => there's your circle.
I haven't even stated that God exists. Using God as a key assumption is not circular reasoning unless you claim that God exists because you argue, without any evidence to support your claim, that the theory is correct. (God exists because the theory is true and the theory is true because God exists)
@eagleeye2102 "God exists because the theory is true and the theory is true because God exist"
How is that different from "god exists because the bible says so and the bible is right because god says so in the bible"?
Please, tell me why you feel like you are allowed to use "god eixsts" as an assumption/premise while being exempt from having to prove that assumption?
If you bother to actually look at the evidence, it should take a sane person no more than a precursory glance to see that all the evidence points towards evolution while none of the evidence points towards Creation unless it is distorted or lied about.
wow i just loved all the poodle jokes. matter of fact i think thats the only joke he makes and he made about 5 of them and they were all so hilarious i almost died laughing. POODLES. HAHAHA. theyre so stupid! hey did u hear the one about the poodle? i cant tell you...its 2 hilarious. i married my sister and we have 20 kids all named billy bob and billy ray and we like nascar and country western music i and i have 2 teeth left and i dont like no negres or faggots neither and i love jesus yee haw
nice fail, he talks about changes of expressions of a gene to try to prove his creationist idiocy while in fact those are one of the strongest finds in favor of the thoery of evolution
We still have earthquakes regardless if they are on fault zones or not. Look at Yellowstone park. Thousands of miles from any fault lines. It gets them all the time..
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Ok present the evidence that there was a global flood. Focus on your "stuff" as you call it. Then present evidence of how a boat was filled to hold all the animals and how they came from all the continents. So here provide your proof....
@Donal277 I don't have the time to go searching through all my resources. I have work to do, so I'll cheat and give you a link. Please don't bother answering back unless you have actually studied all of it. It's not that much. Here are two:
Google "jamesnienhuisradio" (dot com site)
Listen to both past broadcasts, and he's begging people like you to call in with counter-arguments. I'll be listening for yours.
I calculated the math involved with the 'noah flood' 40 days of rain to fill up to Mt. Everest is 360 inches of rain an HOUR. Not possible. 360 an hour would raise the surface temp to over 1000C+ due to energy transfer from water to air (friction). Noah would've been cooked alive.
Now, with that being said, 8000 meters of water added on top of the planet is about 10^23 gallons of water, which is 100 sextillion gallons added on top of the existing water. No way.
@radioactiveego Well for one, the rain never covered mount everest, or the majority of the himalayas for the matter. Global flood means that the waters reached everywhere, not that it covered the highest peaks. Check out the links I posted above. And are you factoring in the pre-flood climate and geographic conditions that were radically altered by the flood?
It says in the bible the waters rose 22 cubits above the tallest mountain (Genesis, 7:19-20). Math doesn't lie. In the case of Baumgardner's documents (I don't know what else to call them), the amount of energy released from a subduction process in the order 'he' was speaking was 1.0 x 10^28 joules of energy. That is more energy than the sun releases every second, or just as much energy as the moon's orbit. That much released energy would've left evidence.
@radioactiveego 1. You were not there 4500 years ago to witness it yourself, so unless you can travel back in time to confirm the calculations, yes, math can lie, especially when you factor in human error. 2. What translation are you using, because I'm reading 15 cubits above "the mountains", not the tallest mountain. Notice it doesn't say all the mountains, so you can interpret it either way.
Listen, I know it's hard for you to stomach, 10^28 joules of energy is so mind blogging large it would've left a huge amount of evidence behind that it even happened. That is more energy than the human race could ever use in 100,000 years. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter what you say..
@radioactiveego 3. That is why it is called a "catastrophe", it has left geological evidence all around the world with rock formation and the unstable tectonic faults that attest to it, and again your math is only hypothetical unless you can actually go back test it against the real thing.
Why are tectonic fault zones unstable? I'm interested on what you have to say about it. Don't quote any creationists nonsense, tell me why they are unstable Tell me why we have fault zones in the first place.
@radioactiveego Well I can't give you any details, I'm not a geologist. I'm just a college kid trying to find truth out this mess. I'm still trying to wrap me head around all the math this presents. Oh, that reminds me, what are your qualifications for calculating such math. Not trying to be rude, I just want to make sure I'm speaking to someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
@radioactiveego If they weren't unstable we wouldn't have any earthquakes would we. Another evidence is the Grand Canyon how can a tiny river whose beginning is lower than the end carve such a huge ditch. Only a massive flood could produce such a vast mark.
I think you need to take Geology 110.. The Grand Canyon lacks anastamosing channels aka braided system of rivers, so no evidence of any huge flood.
As for my qualifications, working on my post-graduate degree in physics. The math I used for the flood is 7th grade made, and the energy calculations are from studies of energy released in crust movement (work done and work caused)
@AstronomyGuru1 Actually I never have. Never wanted one. Didn't vaccinate my kids either. We are a very healthy family and rarely get sick. Do you like sports?
You DO realize that by not vaccinating your kids, you're not only guilty of negligence that will quickly turn into child abuse charges when they contract measles, but you're also guilty of exposing your possibly contagious children to other children who are too young to be vaccinated (like at the local park), assuming you don't lock your kids up all day. You are riding the edge of the law and will be lucky if you're not prosecuted when a disease for which there is a vaccine appears.
Ok. I haven't even gotten like 5 minutes into the video yet. They are saying Ken Ham is not answering the question at the beginning and is getting off topic. Really? He was never asked a question at this conference, the question was added in later by whoever did the video. It is not his fault, people...
19:17 - No. Evolution has never been observed. Stop the charade. Cows have never been observed to turn into whales. Stop the lies. Dogs "evolve" into dogs-Yes. That is observed. Always has been. Do not say that evolution has been observed so flippantly. You assume it. Period.
When animals speciate, which does happen, they make two new "kinds" within the previous "kind". Kinds inside kinds are what we call a Nested Hierarchy. The Nested Hierarchy is a prediction of evolution.
How sad that he all the time underestimates people "...teach it at the level students can understand it..." which's like saying "you're not nearly as smart as I am". Thats the tool for domination - keeping people uneducated. And as we are sharing our own thoughts, I think Mr. Ham's biblical beard is off fashion in third millennium.
ahtivision 2 weeks ago
If I looked like Ken Ham, I wouldn't oppose evolution :-)
Probably his brain is an ape's as well...
davidthmovies 1 month ago
I like the comments this guy or girl typed in explaining how really complicated everything is. In other words what Mr. Ham was saying was too simplified. Therefore logic would dictate if the critic who wrote the commentary is right, then there has to be someone who created it because it can't happen by chance.......
wookieiam1 2 months ago
@wookieiam1 (you are going for the "watchmaker" argument... right? ) .. no.. chance had nothing to do with it.. just like in evolution... it is natural selection.. not chance.. (do you want to delve into the statistics of evolution? we can do that...)
daNDayati 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daNDayati I don't know if I was thinking of the "watch maker argument." However how many years does it take for bricks blown up out in outer space does it take for them to come together to make a watch factory. I guess it would be like a billion years or so, and then of course all the power would be hooked up about a billion years after that. And, about a billion years after that all the tools and machines would be in place to start making watches. It sure makes a whole lot of sense to me.
wookieiam1 2 months ago
@wookieiam1 making more sense to you.. chance (in mutation and other evolutionary mechanisms) and then natural selection.. do you understand aeronautics and the Bernoullis theory? (hint; he discovered the theoretical basis for lift produced by a rigid wing). Does it make more sense to believe that god lifts us us in a airplane? If you don't understand it, obviously it would make more sense. If you don't understand something don't hind behind your deity.. use your brain and study.
daNDayati 2 months ago
Comment removed
wookieiam1 2 months ago
@daNDayati Actually Burnoullis theory applies to low pressure areas created by fast flowing currents as in a spray of water in the shower creating a low pressure area the draws the curtain in toward the shower stream because the fast moving stream creates a low pressure area. And, one of the things that troubles me about POMPOUS ASSES like you is you think that if someone believes in God, he or she must be ignorant, or stupid. And, I for one won't hide behind my deity because you of you.
wookieiam1 2 months ago
@wookieiam1 Good, you found a Burnoullis theory citation.. that is a very good start.. now delve into evolution.. Science has a nice property.. it is self checking.. if theories work they stay, if they don't they won't.. Burnoullis and Darwin's theories work and have practical application. Pompous is denying proven theory..(and yes before you go there evolution has practical proof too)..your answer that your deity designed it has not practical application and is not really an answer.
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati By the way I didn't find that Burnoullis theory. I knew it. And as for evolution. How do you explain the platypus down in Australia. Which line of animals did that creature evolve from?
wookieiam1 2 months ago
@wookieiam1 There is some reading with that answer.. from the Journal Nature, May 7, 2008. According to the article, "the platypus genome, like the animal itself, is an amazing amalgam of reptile-like and mammal-like features..the group of animals called monotremes—which includes the platypus and the closely related echidna (and due to the evidence) is thought to have split from other mammals at least 166 million years ago". the wonders of modern genetics..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati I think the platypus evolved over 300 millions of years. And after I calculated the actual statistical numbers and combinations of genes possible between mammals and lizards I actually figured it out that it would have been billion of years to get the combinations correct to have a viable living creature. (This is so critical)> I also figured out that the Moon would have to be in a perfect line with all the planets in our solar system on the day the first platypus baby was born.
wookieiam1 2 months ago
@wookieiam1 cool.. now get your work peer reviewed (someone can actually check on your science and math). and then you can publish.. this is how science works.. (not like making things up like some creationist..).. if your work survives scrutiny then you will join the ranks of the learned..
by the way.. not knowing how things work does not mean they don't..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@wookieiam1 and don't forget.. try to publish Journal Nature and cite their May 7, 2008 article (google it..easy to find!).. this is really exciting..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati
Both Bats and the Platypus debunk the religion of evolutionism rather thoroughly.
Just as Living Fossils and the Cambrian explosion do as well.
Not to mention the FACT that Neanderthals (sharing upto 99.5% DNA with us) were confirmed as NOT being where Homo Sapiens came from (fact accepted by evolutionists as well).
Its not hard to find creatures, fossils, and many examples of refutations of evolution. Debunking evo-religion is as easy as debunking Flat Earth theory.
DisprovingEvolution 2 months ago
@DisprovingEvolution "rather thoroughly." your command of the English language seems good.(almost poetic) . your understanding of science, however, leaves a lot to be desired (as in there will always be corrections in scientific theory) and in any case provide citations.. and get out there and publish yourself.."Bats and the Platypus debunk the religion of evolutionism" would be a great paper.. (I would love to see that research!!)
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati
Here's some expert research on Bats. I do believe these men are scientists.....
/watch?v=EUhOGTgW8q8
DisprovingEvolution 2 months ago
@DisprovingEvolution (you are citing youtube?) you really have to get out and read more..try "Primitive Early Eocene Bats from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation" Nature: 451, 818-821 (14 February 2008)
daNDayati 2 months ago
@DisprovingEvolution
You dont have a clue as to what SCIENCE is do you?
FatRakoon 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution
Wow... I mean seriously... Wow!
Life is like a box of chocolates for you sonny boy.
You are as stupid as they come ... Seriously
FatRakoon 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution
You are very funny. I think you must be a smart troll. No one could be as idiotic as that. You're trolling is almost at an expert level. Just don't make yourself sound as stupid as this, though.
killgriffinnow 1 month ago
@wookieiam1 I Do not deny the evolution of animals, or any creature. I actually believe there is room for a belief that natural selection works in many animals and insects. They evolve and survive based upon their ability to endure the environment. Only this is automatically built in the creature through the gene selection process. Strong genes, develop a stronger insect, or animal in that the creature can survive the environment.(I don't know how to explain in short) But, this is built in.
wookieiam1 2 months ago
Did you copy and paste your rebuttals in your video from some wikipedia page that you didn't really understand? haha Because some of your arguments don't even argue against his views. A few of them actually support him. Lol I'm still wondering if you completely understand biology with some of your statements you made. I'm not saying this with bias toward either view, but I have to say, if you really want to be a credible source, you should look at things more subjectively instead of ranting :-P
moose9317a 3 months ago
@moose9317a
ExtantDodo is two graduate students in biology.
You're a random dumbass who's only able to offer vague criticisms and incredibly fallacious "advice."
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
lastly, it isnt repeatable. you agree with this. doesn't matter WHY it isn't for the sake of this particular argument, the point is that it is not repeatable. these 3 criterion are basis for scientific fact. evolution doesn't fit within these parameters. next, evolution is a theory. google the definition of theory. look at the definition, and look at the example they give. darwinian evolution attempts to explain what we see when we look back at the history of the natural world. theory.
3001w 3 months ago
@3001w
"google the definition of theory. look at the definition, and look at the example they give."
Okay.
"theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."
Don't YOU feel stupid.
Also try looking up the 300,000+ peer-reviewed publications of observations and tests concerning evolution on PubMed. Might get a little less stupid.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
It pains me to know he did this...
tomwiddv2 4 months ago
This guy looks like the missing link.
donnyaldridge 4 months ago
"Al" genes
"Alaphants"
[cue laugh track]
UnmaskedTuxedo 4 months ago
There is no need to go past 2:03 : "We gonna start with the Bible and build our thinking on the Bible".
Common, this is a good old "this article is written on the basis on this article" joke, he (as most fundies) will try to prove the Bible right by looking into the Bible without going for for evidence in the real world, right?
SwineNahNah 4 months ago
Thanks for your brilliant analysis , I wasn't able to learn much from it, maybe you can post an analysis of this video?
watch?v=7-7s9J421BI&feature=related
smoothpeople33 4 months ago
"Start with the bible and build our thinking on the bible"! Well that's that then... anything that does not agree with the YEEC fundamentalist interpretation of this variously translated and interpreted collection of bronze age myths and anecdotes must be wrong. Sounds like a sound structure upon which to base one's exploration and understanding of life, the universe, and everything. Ken's Creation Amusement Park down in Kentucky just keeps those dollars for dope rolling in.
CarajilloDulce 4 months ago
i am sure that nobody is sure.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
Just look at the audience he's talking to, for goodness sake; laughing at all the right places: do they credit every word he says?
Would this guy care to debate with a team of top evolutionary scientists? Then we can all get to laugh...
MatlockJack 5 months ago
Whoever constructed this video to try to defame his charecture, has been bias and unconstructive. They clearly are NOT lovers of science or truth. Bity pointless argumants on minor flaws or misunderstanding. I have watched much of his teaching and then gone away to think or expand on it. He has just as many valid proven points ie genetics and they have as much or more valid foundation than Darwin who admits his THEORY is flawed.
namistaken 5 months ago
@namistaken Scientists who come up with new explanations for data do so through research and publication. Please tell me, what research did Ken Ham do and where was it published?
"Darwin who admits his THEORY is flawed" No, he didn't. And even if he did, it wouldn't make a shred of difference. Evolution still happens (fact) and evolution theory (mutation and natural selection) still is the best fitting explanation for that fact.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
Ken Ham is a scientific genius, whose revolutionary ideas about dinosaur-human cohabitation are so threatening, that the atheist hoodlums of this nation actually fel threatened. So much so that they will stoop to nothing to try and tarnish Mr. Ham's great name. Mr. Ham, continue fighting the good fight. Our lord in heaven watches over you.
Eye2EyeIIV 5 months ago
@Eye2EyeIIV "Ken Ham is a scientific genius" Really? Where can I read his papers? Where can I review his research and experiments? Where can I read his proposed hypothesis?
Don't bother responding if your answer is "the bible" or "answers in genesis".
I'm only interested in scientific papers and journals. If Ken doesn't publish in those, then he isn't doing science and then we can simply discard your statements about him.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@Eye2EyeIIV do you seriously thnk that dinosaurs didn't exist? HE'S A FUCKING STUPID ASS EVANGALIST! SCIENTIFIC GENIUS? ANY 1ST GRADER WITH HALF A BRAIN KNOWS THAT DINOSAURS ARE REAL!
titteringfiend1 4 months ago
@Eye2EyeIIV Even a child can see the absurdity of dinosaurs living with humans. It just doesn't compute. Mammals overtook reptiles because of our intelligence. The dinosaurs had an advantage because of their size and strength. There is strong evidence for an asteroid wiping them out as well. By the way, how do you creatards rationalise the long history of bombardment on this planet if you believe in a young earth. I am sure creationists have a response to this, but i bet it's lame as.
debrainwasher1 3 months ago
wasn't this guy in the 'geico' commercials?
cruciphile 6 months ago
evolution is not the cause of racism but a stimulous of it and an excuse for it.
j919or 6 months ago
@j919or Evolution is just a proven fact on which every unbiased scientist agree (and they're about 99,9% of scientific community).
Some people can use it as an excuse for racism, but they're utterly wrong and misunderstanding Evo:
Indeed evolution doesn't make any claim about superiority of any race. it only states the true fact that some individuals are better FIT to their environment, so they can better survive and reproduce.
Evolution is a FACt which has nothing to do with morals.
PacoDellaMerendola 6 months ago 8
Comment removed
prn72271 5 months ago
@PacoDellaMerendola nothing that is undeniably known uses the word theory, no matter how you dice it. When theory is used it denotes that assumptions are being made regardless of how much research seems to point to a certain end. I am sure you know that.
These 99.9% of these people are unbiased? how many of them are atheists. That statement in and of itself is biased.
prn72271 5 months ago
@prn72271 "I am sure you know that. " And I am sure that you know that words can mean different things in different contexts...
A scientific theory is not the same as when you use that word in a bar when you lay down your "theory" of how 9/11 was made possible to your mates in a pathetic attempt to look wise and tough.
Here's a nice hint for you: Germ THEORY of Desease. So... do you consider it "just an assumption" that germs cause deseases?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@prn72271 "These 99.9% of these people are unbiased?" Probably not. But you see, that's why we have the Scientific Method. It makes sure that none of your bias taints your conclusions or data.
It requires form factors for your experiments/papers, demonstrable and repeatable results, scientific predictions for further testing, usefullness in explanation, lack of contradiction, etc.
This is why science flies you to the moon while religion flies you into buildings.
ScientificBob 5 months ago 2
@ScientificBob I find your last comment laughable, you behave as if science doesnt have many atrocities to its name.
Science is not biased but interpretations are, that is evolution.
prn72271 3 months ago
@prn72271 "you behave as if science doesnt have many atrocities to its name" How could it? Science doesn't 'do' anything. Science is a method to study the natural world. If anything here is laughable, it's your idea of what science is (and does).
"Science is not biased but interpretations are, that is evolution" Evolution is not an interpretation. It's a theory that explains the data and makes predictions about what other data you should be able to find (or not find).
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@ScientificBob thanks for an "unbiased" response.
You and i know both know that science has its atrocities, to think otherwise is self deception.
Anyway, there is many good things that reliogion has done. You can trace many selfless acts to religion, so it is disengenous to try to paint all religion under one brush as I could do with science, that would be quite petty.
prn72271 3 months ago
@prn72271
"You and i know both know that science has its atrocities, to think otherwise is self deception."
Projection and dishonesty. What can you name?
"evolution must be biased as because you are working backwards for what you believe. "
What? Coherency, please.
"No species has changed to another"
This is a blatant lie. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed publications covering observed speciation and over 290,000 supporting evolution in general.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@prn72271 "You and i know both know that science has its atrocities" Science is a METHODOLOGY to find out how stuff works. Attrocities are committed by humans. They might employ science to do so, but that is very irrelavent to what science itself is.
"there is many good things that reliogion has done" There isn't a single good act that the religious do that requires religion. But there are MANY evil acts from the religious that could ONLY be done through religious faith.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prn72271 "You can trace many selfless acts to religion" I'ld postulate that atheists who do the same acts are far more respectable.
"so it is disengenous to try to paint all religion under one brush " No, it's not. ALL religions requires blind faith of their followers. That's never a good thing. And it's the complete opposite in science, which is evidence-based instead of faith-based.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@ScientificBob evolution must be biased as because you are working backwards for what you believe. So everything in your mind must line up with it, even if it doesnt make sense.
No species has changed to another but you are forced to believe it by your bias.
prn72271 3 months ago
@prn72271 "evolution must be biased as because you are working backwards for what you believe" That makes no sense whatsoever.
"So everything in your mind must line up with it" No. Everything in reality (= the facts, biology, genetics, fossils, ...) must line up with it. And it does. Very well. Without exception.
"even if it doesnt make sense." The day that it stops making sense is the day I (and science) will stop accepting it as an explanation. Don't hold your breath though.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@prn72271 "No species has changed to another " That's demonstrably wrong.
All it takes to correct that ridiculous idea is for you to google 'observed speciation' and read.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@ScientificBob Clarity, yes we can have different species of plants for example that is because two of the same are compatiable but together can form another kind but your belief is that birds have become something other than birds. The burden of proof lies on you to prove that.
prn72271 3 months ago
@prn72271 "species of plants " Or animals. Or bacteria.
"but your belief is that birds have become something other than birds" No, it isn't. It's clear that you don't know how evolution works. It's like a tree. Species don't jump branches. They might split into 2 or more branches, but the stay on the same branch (lineage).
"The burden of proof lies on you to prove that." I have no reason to defend a strawman.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@ScientificBob I am sitting here looking at the current theory of the evolution of the bird. Now, I dont know what you are reading but these animals are no birds.
I have nothing to prove. You do.
I choose to place my faith in Jesus Christ.
"call on the name of The LORD and be saved".
Take care and be blessed!
prn72271 2 months ago
@prn72271 "I am sitting here looking at the current theory of the evolution of the bird. Now, I dont know what you are reading but these animals are no birds."
I have no idea what you are saying. Are you reading a text that claims that birds involved to non-birds? Because I'm gonna have to call "bullshit" on that one. Biological evolution works like a branching tree. Species don't jump branches. Our descendants will forever be subspecies of primates, mammals and homo sapiens.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@ScientificBob I believe evolution to the extent that it is taught is a farce of farces. What you are claiming is that similar DNA structure auntomatically means - descendant's.
If evolution works like a branching tree to form so many species, we must admit that it it very intelligent. Evolution is therefore a god. I cannot believe such order in the human body alone can be the product of a lifestyle process.
prn72271 2 months ago
@prn72271 "What you are claiming is that similar DNA structure auntomatically means - descendant's." No. Not 'similarity' but HIERARCHY. The phylogenetic tree really isn't something you can just ignore.
"If evolution works like a branching tree to form so many species, we must admit that it it very intelligent" Ow fuck... Seriously, just for once I would like to argue with a creationist who isn't completely oblivious to what evolution theory is all about...
ScientificBob 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prn72271 "I cannot believe such order in the human body alone can be the product of a lifestyle process"
This is what Dawkins calls the fallacy of personal incredulity: my evidence for not accepting evolution is that I don't believe it.
Luckily, nobody cares what you believe. All that matters is evidence. And natural selection is perfectly capable of producing complex functional things through a blind selection process. Learn about it before saying stupid things.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@prn72271 "I choose to place my faith in Jesus Christ"
I choose not to employ FAITH when trying to distinct truth from fiction. Instead, I place my TRUST in verifiable evidence.
Note the difference: faith and trust.
Faith is what you need when you don't have evidence.
Trust (or knowledge) is what you have when you have testable, verifiable evidence.
Evidence trumps faith. Always and everywhere. On any subject.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@ScientificBob - when you say testable what do you mean? scientist say that the earth started from a big bang, is that testable? scientist claim that animals have morphed from one type to another, is that testable?
You do chose faith. Many have said you dont have faith to believe evolution but it is obvious that you do, firts and foremost you believe what the scientist tells you but we all know that scientist told many lies to support evolution.
prn72271 2 months ago
@prn72271 "when you say testable what do you mean" I'm not sure how the term can be confusing...
"a big bang, is that testable" Yes. Big Bang theory makes predictions about cosmology and physics. Predictions are testable.
"animals have morphed from one type to another, is that testable" 'Morphing', first of all, is not what is being claimed. Descent with modification is what is claimed. And yes, that is very testable. Evolution makes a ridiculous amount of predictions.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@prn72271 "You do chose faith" Nope, I don't. Faith = gullibility.
"firts and foremost you believe what the scientist tells you " No. I accept the evidence. I should probably also mention that I have written software that uses the principles of evolution theory. So I'm actually engaged in practical application of the model. I actually now for a fact that it works.
"we all know that scientist told many lies to support evolution" But nobody cares what scientsts SAY, only what they can prove
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@prn72271 and go forth and be ignorant, is that what you are saying?... how dare you!!!.. you make the claim and say "I have nothing to prove".. you pathetic irresponsible religious slob. You chose ignorance and superstition and you want to drag us all down with you... please shove your "blessings" up where they belong..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati drag you down? if you use such launguage you are dragging yourself down. I am not sure why you got so angry but I have no issues with you at all. You can believe what you want and I will follow Jesus. He saved me & transformed me. I will not reject Him in the face of a theory (or anything else), though man swears by it.
science has no aswer for eternity (cause and effect) but in order for there to be something now, something had to have always been. What is it? matter?
prn72271 2 months ago
@prn72271 OK, you must see that the battle lines have been drawn..between the people with imaginary supernatural "overseers" who want to poison or even destroy scientific discourse and those who want to better our lives and the lives of future generations through free inquiry and research. Yes I am angry with you.... your "blessings" are insult.
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati well you and I are in no battle at all.
There are many Christian scientist's. Dont make it seem as if Christians oppose science.
Science will never be able to make you a better person, it has no moral value. I can say with surety that following Christ does though.
I am not sure how me saying "blessings" is an insult to you. The anger is in your heart.
prn72271 2 months ago
@prn72271 Then what do you think you are doing here, (christian soldier?) I personally understand the need to defend ourselves from religion and I am fairly sure that you are not crossing the line to join our forces...of the NAS scientists only 2% profess to a "personal god(s)" .. Science and civility can make us better participants in society, humans have innate moral codes and social norms that work well without god(s) . You "blessing" remains a presumptious insult. My anger is well founded.
daNDayati 2 months ago
@prn72271 "There are many Christian scientist's" And not a single one of them mentions anything "christian" in their work. There is no "god variable" in any equation. Anywhere.
"Dont make it seem as if Christians oppose science." I beg the differ. Stem cell research anyone? Dark ages anyone? If it wasn't for christians, we'ld allready have a colony on Mars. Christianity set us back a thousand years by blocking free thought in medieval times.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prn72271 "Science will never be able to make you a better person, it has no moral value" Science is a methodology to seperate truth from fiction. Nobody claims it gives moral values.
"I can say with surety that following Christ does though." Ow please, give me a break. You get your moral values from being a part of a social context, just like everybody else. Not from some dumbass bronze-age book.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@ScientificBob evolution is not observable, testable or repeatable. this means that the scientific method cannot prove that evolution is a FACT. its a theory. maybe, if your right, its a really good theory that is probably true, but it is still just a theory. saying it is a fact is actually showing bias and a huge mistake from a strict scientific perspective.
3001w 3 months ago
@3001w "evolution is not observable, testable or repeatable" Except off course, that it is. Google 'observed speciation'. It's also very testable as evolution makes LOADS of predictions about the world, obviously. And evolution not being repeatable is actually a prediction made by the theory. Repeatable, off course, in the sense that we will not see the same species evolve twice.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@3001w "this means that the scientific method cannot prove that evolution is a FACT. its a theory" Epic facepalm as a result of the epic science fail on your part. Theories don't become facts. They explain facts. Common ancestry = fact that needs explaining. Natural Selection = theory explaining the fact.
"but it is still just a theory" Yeah.... 'just' a theory. Like gravity, germ theory, relativity, atomic theory, plate tectonics, heliocentrism, ... The stupid... it's too much.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@3001w "saying it is a fact is actually showing bias " No, it's showing knowledge of the difference between fact and theory. There are FACTS of evolution that need to be EXPLAINED. These FACTS are explained through the THEORY of NATURAL SELECTION. Common ancestry is a FACT. Natural Selection is the theory (and it will stay a theory as theories don't become facts and facts were never theories).
"huge mistake from a strict scientific perspective" Epic facepalm again.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@ScientificBob first of all lol at how mad ur getting right now. chill dude. secondly, lets look at the observable, testable, repeatable thing again. its not observable because evolution is considered to be a slow process, right? we can observe the supposed effects of evolution but not evolution itself, at least not macro-evolution. it isnt testable because we can't physically experiment with it, which is what is meant in the 3 criterion. lastly, not repeatable. (next post)
3001w 3 months ago
@3001w "first of all lol at how mad ur getting right now" Not mad. Just incredibly frustrated at people who think they are in a position to argue about science while they can't even grasp the basics of what science is.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3001w
"evolution is considered to be a slow process, right?"
Most of the time. Not always.
"it isnt testable because we can't physically experiment with it"
Because billion-dollar biotech industries just don't exist and universities worldwide don't have evolution labs. Keep lying, troll.
"at least not macro-evolution. "
Let's see you actually try to define this term.
"evolution attempts to explain what we see when we look back at the history of the natural world."
You have a better one?
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@PacoDellaMerendola
At no point has anyone ever claimed evolutin is fact, even Darwin admintted to millions of holes in his THEORY. To make such a claim is uninformed ignorance, the kind that keeps people blind to any other possibilities. The very claim people make of religion, men, not religion stifle men inquisitive nature with definite speach like Fact when it is not. To use the term fact leads people to believe that it is in need of no further investigation, which all would agree it is!
namistaken 5 months ago
@namistaken "At no point has anyone ever claimed evolutin is fact, even Darwin admintted " When Darwin published his work, evolution was a hypothesis (which was accepted and became a theory not long after). The coming of genetics is what turned evolution into a fact and genetics didn't exist back in Darwin's time. It is to say, common decent is a fact. Evolution Theory is actually mutation + selection. If that is proven wrong, you still have the facts of genetics to deal with.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@namistaken "THEORY" The extra emphasis on the word "theory" only exposes your scientific illiteracy. A really good theory doesn't become a fact or law. It explains facts and laws. Theory is the end stage of any proposed explanation in science. In a very real sense, a scientific theory is a proven hypothesis. And a hypothesis, by NO MEANS should be considered a "guess" either. It's much better then just a guess.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@namistaken Just to make it extra clear: evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory. Evolution as in "common decent" is a fact from genetics (as demonstrated by the phylogenetic tree and the workings of hereditary DNA). The THEORY of evolution is 'mutation followed by natural selection' = the mechanism by which evolution occurs.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@j919or "evolution is not the cause of racism but a stimulous of it and an excuse for it"
Really? So... what was the stimulous for racism against jews for the 1850 years that preceeded evolution?
And for general bigotry and cruelty against anything non-christian?
Btw: gravitational theory is evil. It acts as a stimulous to jump of buildings. Therefor, we should teach our kids "intelligent falling", caused by a divine being.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
GO KEN HAM, YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!
lovingthetruth7 6 months ago
@lovingthetruth7 I bet a hundred bucks your mom and dad are brother and sister
Reasonwillwin 4 months ago
....What's with his obsession with poodles?
KiwifruitPixie 6 months ago
He is surprised that they found that the mutation allowing resistance to pesticides was already in the population when they were exposed? Well, duh. If it wasn't present, they all would have died and we wouldn't be talking about them. This point proves nothing, and definitely does not show that the resistance was not a mutation.
dragonfiremalus 6 months ago
Comment removed
dragonfiremalus 6 months ago
Comment removed
dragonfiremalus 6 months ago
The whole "where did the genetic information come from for ____" argument is totally off basis. They were mutations that worked. You don't need to create new information. The basis for all genetic code is already in there (a,c,u,t). All you need to do is mix them in the right order, found by trial and error. If you had a dictionary on your computer and copied it enough times, the errors in copying the binary code could eventually give you Shakespeare.
dragonfiremalus 6 months ago
I really like your references. It is funny that he claims to be against evolution but then explains his theories by explaining evolution and saying that's how it happened. Why is he arguing with evolution?
dragonfiremalus 6 months ago
Extanddodo, great video, but you should re-upload it with you reading the text (like thunderfoot) instead of forcing me to read. Its a video, not a pdf book. I think allot more people would appreciate that. Again, I love the video.
FrozenPetrolPie 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102 hi there. I used to read ken ham and Lee strobel, and thought what they said was true, but they are lying. I studied the claims they make, and they are just not true. I also took a course on evolution - and most Christians don't actually know what evolution is. Evolution is a fact, and I am a Christian. Lying for god is still lying. God bless
bagospannerz 6 months ago
I wish someone would set up a televised global debate between creationists and pretty much the entire scientific community. I don't care how long it would take to get through because I'd love every second of creationists constantly getting their fucking lying asses kicked. It might also help end the 'creation' debate by showing them all to be a bunch of tards.
galenwolf 7 months ago
@galenwolf And it needs to be on EVERY channel. However, I could see some ID supporters calling it discrimination and using it as an attack against evolution.
AgowTisro 7 months ago
Ain't it ironic that Ken Ham looks like something out of ''Planet Of The Apes''?
SanityIsSuchADrag 7 months ago
Hi extant dodo, I love your video, take 'em down!! You are so well informed but your list of resources are overwhelming...Can you suggest some good reading? I understand technical language just fine despite my abysmal upbringing...Yes, there;s a back story here but I won't get into it!
silverfistful 7 months ago
@55588211
Ken Ham has some whacky crackpot conspiracy theory, but I guess if you don't know what his points are, you will have an even tougher time trying to defend them....
odinata 8 months ago
Something interesting that you state at 6:00 is that evolution is "descent with modification" now isn't evolution supposed to be an assent from inferior species to superior ones? Which by the way is a complete violation of Newton's law of thermodynamics. You know everything breaking down over time, that kind of thing.
MrCivilwarlover 8 months ago
This isn't a critical analyse, this is an evolutionists interpretation of what Ken Ham is saying.
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102
What is Ken Ham saying?
odinata 8 months ago
@odinata He goes through the Creationist world model.
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102
So lthen it IS a critical "analyse" (sic) of "the Creationist world model".
odinata 7 months ago
@odinata This is an evolutionists interpritation of the Creationists Worldmodell plus the right observation that Ken Ham actually is not talking about the original subject.
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eagleeye2102
You just said "He goes through the Creationist world model."
Are you having a hard time figuring out what YOU are talking about?
odinata 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102
I don't get it. The guys of Dodo always list their references at the end of all of their analyses, yet creationists STILL pretend they don't exist or dismiss all of them out of hand as "propaganda" without even looking.
This is why creationism is inherently dishonest.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew It's Creation*
And Secondly, this isn't true. I, as a Creationist, always check what atheists and evolutionists have to say about Creation and Evolution in order to educate myself. It makes me kind of angry when evolutionists always have to repeat that Creationist don't educate themselves - it isn't even true. Maybe they do it in order to get people to not even look at Creation? Who knows.
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102
"I, as a Creationist, always check what atheists and evolutionists have to say about Creation and Evolution in order to educate myself."
And yet continue to ignore the vast majority of the evidence and distort the rest anyway. It's literally impossible to defend "Creation" honestly unless you concede that it's entirely a matter of faith.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew You don't know me, so why do you say that? I might not be able to defend Creation with my 17 years, but I at least want to research and look at the evidence before I get dogmatic on rather Evolution or Creation is true.
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102
"but I at least want to research and look at the evidence before I get dogmatic"
That's the point...you don't dogma to accept evolution. You think the vast, vast majority of scientists accept theories like evolution because they WANT to? It's out of obligation to their profession! They are dedicated to furthering the progress of human understanding and they'd be dense to not accept the essentials of evolution. It's also a false dichotomy to suggest that there are only two options
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew I disagree.
"You think the vast, vast majority of scientists accept theories like evolution because they WANT to?"
Well, according to you they wanted to choose evolution because of the evidence(?).
"It's also a false dichotomy to suggest that there are only two options"
Well, yes(?).
So, do I have to believe it now or do I have the right to study biology and come to my own conclusion?
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eagleeye2102
"Well, according to you they wanted to choose evolution because of the evidence(?)."
Wrong. "Wanted" implies an apriori position. They accept evolution because they have no other rational choice.
"do I have the right to study biology"
Yeah, but don't act like you'll come to the opposite conclusion of 99.98% of scientists without distorting or ignoring data.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102 The bible isn't an alternative scientific theory anymore than scientology is an alternative theory, or the many other religious explanations for reality. And saying 'god did it !' isn't really an explanation because you have merely shifted the question, and created a more complicated question of 'where did god come from ?'. And which god ? Humans have created thousands of gods on top of the well-known ones. Perhaps the zulus were right about their god in the volcano.
debrainwasher1 4 months ago
@debrainwasher1
Of course the Bible is no alternative theory, a theory is a way to explain natural phenomenon, the Bible is a historical document. We can, however, create theories which are based on the Bible. The god did it argument is only a false argument when it is used to fill a gap. Biblebased theories, however, don't fill any gap, the gap never existed, the theory would already predict that god did it. God is thereofre one of the theories key assumption, no god of the gap.
eagleeye2102 4 months ago
@eagleeye2102 The bible is an historical document ? So you believe that those crazy stories actually happened ? And why would you make a bible based theory anyway, since we know that civilization goes back alot further than 4000 BC. And religion evolved into christianity, just take a look at the gods before Jesus that were so similar e.g. Osiris, Krishna, Perseus, Mercury, Mithra, Adonis, Dionysus. And the Noah's ark tale was copied from the epic of gilgamesh. Look it up.
debrainwasher1 3 months ago
@eagleeye2102 "the Bible is a historical document" No, it's not. The bible is a collection of ancient myths which in turn are borrowed from a whole range of ancient polytheistic religions.
"The god did it argument is only a false argument when it is used to fill a gap." No. The god-did-it argument is a false argument UNLESS you can actually prove that a god exists. You see, you can't attribute X to Y (and thus use Y as explanation of X) if you can't even prove that Y actually exists.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@ScientificBob
If the Bible is a collection of ancient myths and religions can be debated. However, People can use "God" as a key assumption. "For our theory to be true, God must exists". This is what the Creation models are based on, but this isn't circular reasoning because nobody has yet claimed that therefore, God exists. The claim could rather be: "because the theory fits the evidence, God exists" Which is not circular reasoning either.
eagleeye2102 3 months ago
@eagleeye2102 "However, People can use "God" as a key assumption" No, they can't. Just like I can't assume that robots rule the world to lay out a Matrix Theory.
"This is what the Creation models are based on" Indeed. They are just religious concept and nothing more.
""because the theory fits the evidence, God exists" Which is not circular reasoning either" yes it is, because 'god exists' was assumed in the premise. The conclusion of your argument can't be that the premise is correct :-/
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@ScientificBob
We don't know if the Universe was created by nature or the supernatural, so by creating theories which give an explanation for the Universe, we are allowed to use the Supernatural as a key assumption. If the theory later fits all the available evidence, the belief in the supernatural is verified. That doesn't proof that the supernatural exists, but it does suggest so.
There is no evidence that we are in a Matrix.
eagleeye2102 3 months ago
@eagleeye2102 "by creating theories which give an explanation for the Universe" The thing is that you need data to suggest your hypothesis. Otherwise it's just a brainfart. And you don't have data so... yeah.
"are allowed to use the Supernatural as a key assumption" No, you're not . Just like I'm not allowed to assume the world being ruled by robots to lay out a Matrix Theory. Same thing.
"If the theory later fits all the available evidence" It doesn't.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@eagleeye2102 "There is no evidence that we are in a Matrix. " There is no evidence that the world was created. There is no evidence that your religion of choice is the correct one. There is no evidence of anything supernatural existing. There is no evidence that your deity of choice exists.
And, last but not least, there isn't a single piece of data suggesting anything of the above.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@ScientificBob
The Big Bang theory is about the origin of the universe/nature from literary nothing. Once there was nothing, and then there was the expanding universe. Now, we know that everything that starts to exists has a cause, but what was the universe's cause? Its cause must have been outside the universe, therefore - timeless, spaceless and immaterial. By further research you will conclude that it also must have been powerful and personal - is this reminding you of someone?
eagleeye2102 2 months ago
@eagleeye2102 "The Big Bang theory is about the origin of the universe/nature from literary nothing" This is simply not true. It starts with an extremely dense and hot singularity. Which is not "nothing".
In other words, your argument is built upon a strawman, which isn't surprising at all.
"By further research you will conclude that it also must have been powerful and personal - is this reminding you of someone?" Not of 'someone', but of a logical fallacy known as 'argument from ignorance'
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@eagleeye2102
This is you:
"(straw man), therefore (fallacious argument), and it must have been (fallacious argument) and you will conclude that (mindless nonsense not fit to be classified as a fallacy)."
It's crazy how you can type so many characters and not get a single thing right.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew
Give me evidence to support your argument.
eagleeye2102 2 months ago
@eagleeye2102 yes there was something outside the universe, that was - timeless, spaceless and immaterial. His name was Fred.. A pan dimensional being who, after having a accident making beer in his celestial kitchen, created the big bang.. Fred created time, matter and physical order.. That is who.. or were you going for a abrahamic god? Well my Fred has as much foundation as your deity.. and is just as made up.. and answers as much.. (i.e. nothing).. cheers!
daNDayati 2 months ago
@eagleeye2102 "the theory would already predict that god did it" Which should be a hint of the enormous fallacy hidden in the concept of "bible based theories".
"God is thereofre one of the theories key assumption" It's called 'confirmation bias' and 'circular reasoning'.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@ScientificBob
Circular reasoning would be if I would say that God did it because God did it. Using God as a key assumption is not circular reasoning.
eagleeye2102 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eagleeye2102 "Circular reasoning would be if I would say that God did it because God did it. "
Wrong. The circular reasoning is hidden in the concept of "bible based theories". You assume god exists and it's clear that you feel you are exempt from having to prove that that assumption is correct. The reason for that is because the bible says god exists. And the bible is right because god says so in the bible => there's your circle.
ScientificBob 3 months ago
@eagleeye2102
"Circular reasoning would be if I would say that God did it because God did it."
Which, essentially, you are.
Assuming the existence of something for which there is no evidence whatsoever is a fallacy.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew
I haven't even stated that God exists. Using God as a key assumption is not circular reasoning unless you claim that God exists because you argue, without any evidence to support your claim, that the theory is correct. (God exists because the theory is true and the theory is true because God exists)
eagleeye2102 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eagleeye2102 "God exists because the theory is true and the theory is true because God exist"
How is that different from "god exists because the bible says so and the bible is right because god says so in the bible"?
Please, tell me why you feel like you are allowed to use "god eixsts" as an assumption/premise while being exempt from having to prove that assumption?
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@eagleeye2102
If you bother to actually look at the evidence, it should take a sane person no more than a precursory glance to see that all the evidence points towards evolution while none of the evidence points towards Creation unless it is distorted or lied about.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
5:24 Well then get the evolution idea of the past out of science!
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
wow i just loved all the poodle jokes. matter of fact i think thats the only joke he makes and he made about 5 of them and they were all so hilarious i almost died laughing. POODLES. HAHAHA. theyre so stupid! hey did u hear the one about the poodle? i cant tell you...its 2 hilarious. i married my sister and we have 20 kids all named billy bob and billy ray and we like nascar and country western music i and i have 2 teeth left and i dont like no negres or faggots neither and i love jesus yee haw
911BeganTheEndOfGod 8 months ago
nice fail, he talks about changes of expressions of a gene to try to prove his creationist idiocy while in fact those are one of the strongest finds in favor of the thoery of evolution
grasthube 8 months ago
I think it's pretty pointless to "critically analyze" this buffoon's arguments.
I still think Kent Hovind is wackier though due to his many conspiracy theories along with his "radical YEC view" and no evidence whatsoever.
AceofDlamonds 9 months ago
This is not science, it is stupidity.
DaisyJaneCloud 9 months ago
We still have earthquakes regardless if they are on fault zones or not. Look at Yellowstone park. Thousands of miles from any fault lines. It gets them all the time..
radioactiveego 9 months ago
That's exactly what evolutionists do, decide on a conclusion and look for evidence to support it, ignoring the stuff that contradicts it.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 9 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Ok present the evidence that there was a global flood. Focus on your "stuff" as you call it. Then present evidence of how a boat was filled to hold all the animals and how they came from all the continents. So here provide your proof....
Donal277 9 months ago
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 9 months ago
@Donal277 I don't have the time to go searching through all my resources. I have work to do, so I'll cheat and give you a link. Please don't bother answering back unless you have actually studied all of it. It's not that much. Here are two:
Google "jamesnienhuisradio" (dot com site)
Listen to both past broadcasts, and he's begging people like you to call in with counter-arguments. I'll be listening for yours.
Google "globalflood" (dot org site)
Detailed scientific evidence for flood.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 9 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
I calculated the math involved with the 'noah flood' 40 days of rain to fill up to Mt. Everest is 360 inches of rain an HOUR. Not possible. 360 an hour would raise the surface temp to over 1000C+ due to energy transfer from water to air (friction). Noah would've been cooked alive.
Now, with that being said, 8000 meters of water added on top of the planet is about 10^23 gallons of water, which is 100 sextillion gallons added on top of the existing water. No way.
radioactiveego 9 months ago
@radioactiveego Well for one, the rain never covered mount everest, or the majority of the himalayas for the matter. Global flood means that the waters reached everywhere, not that it covered the highest peaks. Check out the links I posted above. And are you factoring in the pre-flood climate and geographic conditions that were radically altered by the flood?
I don't get that last bit.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 9 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
It says in the bible the waters rose 22 cubits above the tallest mountain (Genesis, 7:19-20). Math doesn't lie. In the case of Baumgardner's documents (I don't know what else to call them), the amount of energy released from a subduction process in the order 'he' was speaking was 1.0 x 10^28 joules of energy. That is more energy than the sun releases every second, or just as much energy as the moon's orbit. That much released energy would've left evidence.
radioactiveego 9 months ago
@radioactiveego 1. You were not there 4500 years ago to witness it yourself, so unless you can travel back in time to confirm the calculations, yes, math can lie, especially when you factor in human error. 2. What translation are you using, because I'm reading 15 cubits above "the mountains", not the tallest mountain. Notice it doesn't say all the mountains, so you can interpret it either way.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 9 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
Listen, I know it's hard for you to stomach, 10^28 joules of energy is so mind blogging large it would've left a huge amount of evidence behind that it even happened. That is more energy than the human race could ever use in 100,000 years. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter what you say..
radioactiveego 9 months ago
@radioactiveego 3. That is why it is called a "catastrophe", it has left geological evidence all around the world with rock formation and the unstable tectonic faults that attest to it, and again your math is only hypothetical unless you can actually go back test it against the real thing.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 9 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
Why are tectonic fault zones unstable? I'm interested on what you have to say about it. Don't quote any creationists nonsense, tell me why they are unstable Tell me why we have fault zones in the first place.
radioactiveego 9 months ago
@radioactiveego Well I can't give you any details, I'm not a geologist. I'm just a college kid trying to find truth out this mess. I'm still trying to wrap me head around all the math this presents. Oh, that reminds me, what are your qualifications for calculating such math. Not trying to be rude, I just want to make sure I'm speaking to someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 9 months ago
@radioactiveego If they weren't unstable we wouldn't have any earthquakes would we. Another evidence is the Grand Canyon how can a tiny river whose beginning is lower than the end carve such a huge ditch. Only a massive flood could produce such a vast mark.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 9 months ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
I think you need to take Geology 110.. The Grand Canyon lacks anastamosing channels aka braided system of rivers, so no evidence of any huge flood.
As for my qualifications, working on my post-graduate degree in physics. The math I used for the flood is 7th grade made, and the energy calculations are from studies of energy released in crust movement (work done and work caused)
radioactiveego 9 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 Actually I never have. Never wanted one. Didn't vaccinate my kids either. We are a very healthy family and rarely get sick. Do you like sports?
ironmyron 9 months ago
@ironmyron
You DO realize that by not vaccinating your kids, you're not only guilty of negligence that will quickly turn into child abuse charges when they contract measles, but you're also guilty of exposing your possibly contagious children to other children who are too young to be vaccinated (like at the local park), assuming you don't lock your kids up all day. You are riding the edge of the law and will be lucky if you're not prosecuted when a disease for which there is a vaccine appears.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
Ok. I haven't even gotten like 5 minutes into the video yet. They are saying Ken Ham is not answering the question at the beginning and is getting off topic. Really? He was never asked a question at this conference, the question was added in later by whoever did the video. It is not his fault, people...
TheEliteSystem 9 months ago
19:17 - No. Evolution has never been observed. Stop the charade. Cows have never been observed to turn into whales. Stop the lies. Dogs "evolve" into dogs-Yes. That is observed. Always has been. Do not say that evolution has been observed so flippantly. You assume it. Period.
ironmyron 9 months ago
This is a silly rebuttal, waste of time video. I take him seriously. He is just presenting Biblical history. No reason to hate him for that.
ironmyron 9 months ago
Does anyone take Ken Ham seriously?
orangemod 10 months ago
Ken Ham, teaching people how to "un-learn" science.
orangemod 10 months ago
When animals speciate, which does happen, they make two new "kinds" within the previous "kind". Kinds inside kinds are what we call a Nested Hierarchy. The Nested Hierarchy is a prediction of evolution.
UnmaskedTuxedo 10 months ago
I prefer a British evolutionary biologist. He would say, we have |AHN-suhz|, not |EAHN-suhz|.
UnmaskedTuxedo 10 months ago
@kensey3000 you are an idiot. Your levels of stupidity are surprisingly high.
firetools 10 months ago