Ken Ham Absolutely DISMANTLES Evolution in 25 Minutes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2024
- Watch Ken Ham absolutely dismantle evolution in 25 minutes. In this presentation, Ken Ham discusses major issues with the idea of evolution, ranging from the lack of observational science to the massive sense of purposelessness it leaves us with.
This video is part of Ken Ham’s Foundations series. You can watch the other episodes in this series here: www.Answers.tv/ken-ham-s-foun...
Visit Answers.tv: All Answers in Genesis videos, live streaming, and much more-all in one place.
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world: AnswersinGenesis.org/give
I’m pretty tuned into the fitness industry. So much of what we “knew for a fact” in that field has been overturned in the last two decades it would make your head spin. So when someone tells me “the science is settled,” I can only chuckle.
Sure, buddy. I bet that you're very familiar with how evolution works...
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Yes. By mystical mechanisms no one can seem to explain. But if you can explain how amino acids can form proteins and those proteins can form cells all on their own, and all of this happens by random natural processes, I’m all ears.
@@SDRBass Huh? Buddy, you are conflating evolution with abiogenesis. We know a lot about how evolutionary mechanisms, such as mutation, selection, and genetic drift, function. Meanwhile, abiogenesis explains how amino acids were able to form peptide bonds and undergo folding to form proteins, which were encased in an amphipathic membrane to form the first protocell. This occurred through dynamic chemical interactions and a selection mechanism. This makes much more sense than a mythological Canaanite deity making humans from clay.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Stop defending your religion with hand waving and answer the question. All of the other processes you listed have no inherent directionality to them. That’s the problem. If those mechanisms are truly random (meaning probabilistic), then evolution, as it currently stands, is a giant crock.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440Evolution works? Are you sure? IF evolution works ,then YOU are as guilty of accepting supernaturality as creationists are! How so? The universe is mindless,yet it was suppose to have set events into motion which are pivotal to evolutionistic premises. Natural or supernatural? Let us go further: The same mindless universe appeared out of nothing! OR it has always existed! Natural or supernatural? Let me help you with an answer. It is supernatural for something to merely pop up out of nothing or to have existed eternally. It you contest my assertion ___tell me ALL THE NATURAL WAYS THROUGH WHICH THE UNIVERSE CAME TO EXIST OUT OF NOTHING,OR HAS ALWAYS EXISTED?
Can someone please give the timestamp of where he "dismantles" evolution cuz I just cant find it...
not just dismantles. absolutely DISMANTLES! lol amazing.
That's because you have wool over your eyes
Naw he is right
I think science is amazing! Just because you don’t understand science , doesn’t mean it’s not true. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s not true. Just because it doesn’t give hope, doesn’t mean it’s not true. And if a book written by men claims to be written by God, even if it claims it many, many times, and claims to offer all the answers doesn’t mean it’s true.
And who did Noah’s children marry? There were more people there who were not descendants of Adam and Eve. (It’s in the bible)
Stupid people look for simple truths. Scientists on the other hand, look at all the complexity and say “Wow! There’s so much to discover!”
1. The bible doesnt claim to be written by God, it is inspired by God.
2. God or no God, every person on earth is a product of inbreeding. You dont need the story of Noah to know that incest was common in early humans. You and me are likely 10th cousins at least.
3. No one is denying the science; we are, however, saying the idea of molcules to man by natural forces alone is stupid and anyone who suggests this isnt to be taken seriously. If man can turn wolf to dog then god can turn ape to man.
4. Virtually all food you eat is NOT the product of natural selection. It is the result of an intelligent mind intervening in the evolutionary process. If you are unaware that the science shows not all evolution is caused by natural selection then thats shocking, considering that its in every single thing you eat. Google what corn looked like before humans used intelligence to control its evolutionary path. THAT is what we are saying God did - just so we are being clear here.
4. Just because you dont like the truth - doesnt mean it isnt true!
Ken is really good at dismantling straw men. It might be interesting if he would ever address the actual science behind evolution or common descent.
What science is that?
@@peterclarke3990 There are many facets of evolution and common descent. It would take a long time to write out every detail. It would be easier if you just asked me what you don't understand or would like to know.
@@tsdbhg Where are the transitional forms within the fossil record? Give me some examples of evolutionary change within animals with evidence of transitional change within the fossil record. Why did evolution take place? What was behind the obvious design within nature? That will do to be going with!
@@peterclarke3990
The science that you have never bothered to learn about.
@@peterclarke3990 There are thousands of transitional forms.
Evolution is inevitable. Anythging that reproduces, has to evolve. It's a mathematical nexessity.
Design in nature is improved by adaptation through natural selection.
It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair
I love it. I have never heard that one before.
@@markduell2468
Lol. I read it in a finance book but i thought of Ken Ham.
Not just his salary, but these days, his complete and utter cancellation from the "scientific community" for not towing the woke secular atheist line in our corrupt DEI driven universities..
@@Moist._Robot That's strange. I thought of evolutionary biologists.
@@scottb4579What is it that you think evolutionary biologists don't understand?
Who is like the Lord our God,
Who dwells on high,
Who humbles Himself to behold
The things that are in the heavens and in the earth?
Psalm 113:5-6
Why can’t we see or hear or feel him. Why is he hiding? Please don’t tell me about the trees etc.
@@RetiredRoo-oq1edbecause yahweh is just 1 of over 4000 gods man created. Matter of fact when yahweh 1st appeared in the historical record he was a very MINOR god out of MANY before the Hebrews became monotheistic. He was the god of storms. He was basically the Hebrew Thor. Praise Hebrew Thor. Hahahaha. What about Hebrew incredible hulk and Spiderman?
@@RetiredRoo-oq1ed
Check your own moral conscience... (Romans 2:14-15)
@@ChrisFerguson-zm4gt
How do you know that? How do you know that your god (Nature) and your naturalistic worldview are even possible?
Amen 🙏✝️
This is the best advertisement for not drinking while pregnant I have ever watched.
Can ham doesn't dismantle anything at any time. Nor can he. He's using the Bible which is a fictitious book or pardon me a book of fiction. Only through the eyes and ears of those already deceived. Could one interpret Richard Dawkins as incorrect?
Imagine Ken in a 25 minute UA-cam video dismantling 100+ years of scientific research by hundreds of thousands of scientists across many fields such as biology, geology, geography, virology, chemistry, paelontology, linguistics, zoology, archaeology, astronomy, particle physics, astrobiology, etc.
Let's nominate Ken for a Nobel prize for his "Absolutely DISMANTLE"ing of Evolution video!
@@wefinishthisnow3883 My imaginations not that good...
@@wefinishthisnow3883 "Imagine Ken in a 25 minute UA-cam video dismantling 100+ years of scientific research by hundreds of thousands of scientists ..." - You know the old saying: "A million flies can't be wrong so s**t must taste good ..."
Evolution theory is still being researched in universities all over the world and taught in schools all over the world and that reminds us of the phlogiston theory. Phlogiston theory in 1667 stated that phlogisticated substances contain phlogiston and that they dephlogisticate when burned, releasing stored phlogiston which is absorbed by the air. Phlogiston remained the dominant theory until the 1770s. Even after debunked, the phlogiston -theory was still taught in universities for some time. That sounds not unlike evolution theory today ... 😃
Phlogiston teaches us that just because a theory is widely accepted among scientists, it does not mean it's true. Indeed, phlogiston was in many ways a stronger theory than is evolution today. The phlogiston theory lasted for over 100 years. For most of that time, all the prominent scientists believed in it. But it was wrong. Although many today would laugh at the phlogiston theory as being hopelessly naive, nevertheless it was in many ways better justified than evolution, the ruling paradigm of our time.
Today we can see that like the phlogiston theory, evolution theory also is "hopelessly naive".
I would not fully put in fiction
We know that Jesus was a real person
Archeolegists do use religious text to search for hints about the past
But that doesnt mean everything in it is a 100% trur
This man is defently out of line and not talking about science anymore
@@jonaswerner8480 I think I get what you're saying and you're right. We don't "know" that Jesus existed at all, but just that there likely did exist a figure called Jesus who had some impact on Jewish society.
This is based almost entirely on writings like the gospels, Josephus and to a lesser extent Tacitus, but all of these sources were from writers born after Jesus' supposed death, so there's no writings from anyone who actually knew this Jesus.
Unfortunately there is not a single shred of archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus, but that is also true for many historical figures. The closest archaeological evidence we have is that the Romans likely did perform crucifixions and it's likely that this Jesus person was crucified.
Interestingly, this is not the same as the evidence for the books of Genesis and Exodus where there's not only a lack of archaeological evidence, but we actually have evidence from archaeology, biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, zoology, virology (and indeed every field of science) that effectively proves a literal interpretation of Genesis and Exodus never happened beyond all reasonable doubt.
Ken came and spoke at my church ( Granite Hills Christian Church) in El Cajon in the 80’s
And he made a big impact on a 12 year old me!
It's sad to see children become indoctrinated.
@@Israphel776 I agree, teaching kids evolution is really sad.
@@222ableVelo
I guess you are not working in a lab saving people's lives.
@@222ableVelo Are you homeschooled?
@@Israphel776Agreed. Have you seen what blue states are doing to children? Truly awful.
I have a book that proves Mr Tickle exists
is there any say that "sailing the seven seas" I believe that is the term, comes from the seven C's mentioned ~10:30
It’s more likely to be the 7 P’s🐹
“Do not give that which is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, for they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” Matthew 7:6 ✝️🕊️
The profound meaning of this saying of Jesus: certain truths and blessings of our faith are not to be shared with people who are totally antagonistic to the things of God. They have no appreciation for that which is holy and righteous. They would take that which is “holy” and the “pearls” of every precious truth of God’s Word as foolishness and as an insult. Just as a wild animal that scavenges for food would trample under his feet the one offering the “food” of precious jewels or even the holy things of God, so also those who are enemies of the Gospel and ridiculers of the things of God will scorn and slander the precious truths of Scripture and attack the very faith of believers who offer that Word to them (“lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”).
I really like John MacArthur’s application on this saying: “When people not only reject the gospel, but insist on mocking and reviling it, we are not to waste God’s holy Word and the precious pearls of His truth in a futile and frustrating attempt to win them. We are to leave them to the Lord, trusting that somehow His Spirit can penetrate their hearts.”
Dear friend, if you have someone in your life like this I would encourage you to pray for the Lord to open their heart to the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
GCC⛪️
That must be the same source attributed to Matthew that claims fulfillment of prophecies that never existed in the Old Testament nor any other document. May I suggest a slightly different version. Do not give false information in succor to the deluded and those who will not acknowledge actual truth for they will turn a blind eye to that which is fact.
Swing and a miss@@douglasrasmussen480
Where these bodies came from makes no difference.God created us like Himself: spirit. Find Spirit, Ken Ham, and you will know the Way.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
Be careful who you call pigs. We reap as we sow.
that is what the creationist do with their lies
Thanks for the advice. Good old Matty. And there I was, just about to throw my wife's pearls to some pigs. I didn't realize those naughty pigs would trample all over them. There's lots of great advice in the bible, for example" Cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days". Yep, I threw about thirty bread rolls in the ocean and, miracle of miracles, I found a few of them three days later. Quite what I'll do with the soggy bread, I'm not sure.
Ham: "...oh, by the way, I happen to have a book that claims to be the word of one who knows everything..." The word "claims" is instructive. Yes, it claims, but how do we know the claim is true? There is no one alive today who can confirm that claim, and therefore, according to Ken Ham, we can't accept it.
I don't really want to go into a deep debate here, but just to give you a bit of thought. Virtually every historical scholar, Christian or not, agrees that Jesus existed and he died on a cross. The Bible also had laws that we now know are to prevent the spread of diseases back when nobody know much about how diseases worked. There is also no one today who can confirm the claim that evolution and the big bang happened.
@@natcuber Absolutely incorrect.
Jesus living and being crucified has absolutely nothing to do with any claims of supernatural ability.
Secondly, people did know how diseases worked, humans aren't stupid. While we didn't yet understand germ theory we knew that sick people made other nearby people sick. Isolating them was common sense, the Quran says something's similar too.
Finally, would you like confirmation for evolution and the big bang, or am I wasting my time?
Were . . . you . . . there?
@@Templetonqguess…what…the…apostles…who…literally…wrote…the…bible…weren’t…there…either… 🤯
Whenever an architect or engineer designs something before it is built there is an effort made to avoid possible disastrous outcomes and failures. Sometimes it means adding things that one may never need or use but then in certain climates or circumstances it is definitely needed. Foresight and planning is what makes things last in those lines of work.Even carpenters know enough to measure twice before cutting to avoid mistakes. Yet even with our human ability to do these things go awfully wrong most of the time everywhere. Yet we are supposed to believe that by accident, with no planning, plants came into existence and produced oxygen so that animals could come into existence and produce CO2 and hydrogen and oxygen in the right combination would just appear so that water formed for both plants and animals to live together and make it possible for every other animal to develop because that's what happens when you have enough time. Has anybody even tried to reproduce what they claim to have happened? how many times did a chef put all the ingredients for stew on a table and watch them form a stew?
Life made all kinds of mistakes. Only the stuff that worked survived to continue the process. But it didn't happen "by accident". Genetic variation may be random, but evolution is most definitely not. "Plants" did not create the oxygen for the first animals. Animals actually came before the first land plants. The oxygen was produced by cyanobacteria. But nothing "so that" anything else could happen. Evolution simply built on what it already had at every step.
Something happening doesn't mean it happened "by accident". These things just happened. But if you believe the Bible instead, God is supposed to have created plant life before the sun (!) , and the earth before the stars and the sun. Does this make sense to you?
@@drsiege3434 The 3rd verse of Genesis says, " Let there be light". Now, this may not be the sun, but it could be a source of heat and light and therefore fuel plant life. By the way, is it a requirement that starts need to exist first before the earth exists?
@@natcuber so let me get this straight. There was light on the earth before the sun?
Please note that the sun and other stars are billions of years older than the earth and other planets. No life on earth could have existed without the sun. The earth couldn't even stay in place without being in the sun's orbit. The writers of the bible didn't know this, of course. They believed the earth was the centre of the universe.
Science has shown that the bible is wrong and full of outdated information that couldn't have been divinely inspired.
@@drsiege3434 - Something happening doesn't mean it happened "by accident". These things just happened.- " What do you mean by that? Just happened but not by accident ... So God created that something? I've never understood why atheists think God would be like a human who can't do all those miracles told in Bible.
God created plant life before the sun because He showed His omnipotence and He also created the earth before the stars and the sun. That's logical because in Bible God tells that in the future world there won't be sun at all because God himself is the light.
You weren’t there, you didn’t see the Bible written, you didn’t hear the oral tradition that supposedly preceded the writings, so you can’t say it’s true. Except ….
The observable facts that have withstood falsification and efforts to debunk them, make us feel [fill in the blanks]. I thought we’re supposed to stuff (I used a polite word) our feelings. Facts are what matter. How you feel about them has nothing to do with whether the facts are true.
To use the example in the video, you weren't there, you didn't see the Eiffel Tower get built, you didn't hear the oral tradition that supposedly preceded the writings of the year of its building or that it was used to open the fair on that day, so you can't say it's true. Its not about being there. It's about inferences and reliability of sources from deductions within oberservable evidence today. We all have the same evidence. Your foundation is just off. Also no, zero atheists actually care what facts are true. Over 80% of atheists today say they would not believe in God even if he came down from Heaven on a white horse. With that level of ignorance, I don't expect atheists really care. They just hate theism. That is all. They are proving nothing by trying to take Christians out of Heaven.
No, he doesn't. Lack of understanding of science is not the way to argue against it
But he does understand science. He's been thought thousands of times, outargued hunderds of times, convinced dozens of times. He's just a con at this point.
@@futuramaniakTrue. There are much better examples of believers in God that argue from science. There are present day scientists as well as from the past, the literal heroes of science that gave us many of our greatest discoveries including the development of the scientific method, itself.
Extremely ignorant comment! You don't even truly understand science or you wouldn't of made such an Extremely ignorant comment as such.
@@futuramaniak Dr. Ham is a teacher, and a philosopher...I will be the first to admit that scientific debate is not his strong suit. He's not a very capable apologist. He is excellent at teaching to believers and giving them information to engage in discussions like this one. You put Bill Nye or Richard Dawkins into a discussion with Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe and I think you'd see a different scenario entirely played out.
@@futuramaniak This guy has a BA in applied science. He’s no more a scientist than an actor portraying a doctor is a real physician.
This is more of a philosophical presentation than an evidentiary one. I understand that thumbnails and titles have to appease the algorithm, but I think this could have been given another title.
That said, hope you people are doing okay.
This guy is preaching to the choir! They laugh on queue and clap on command!
No question that many are unevolved...none at all.
de-evolution is more so the right term for evolution.
0:19
Ham's opening statement attempts to hold Richard Dawkins responsible for the feelings of inadequacy of people who apparently embrace an
all-or-nothing version of biblical apologetics.
Let me clear this up:
1) Dawkins is not responsible for the mental health of complete strangers
2) those strangers are responsible FOR THEIR OWN mental health
3) if in order to cope with reality, they find rigid apologetics appealing, that is their business
4) they instead attempt to project their issues with such reality upon other people
5) which strongly suggests to me that their band-aid-"fix" of their own issues, is not actually working
6) and it is very common for those with mental health issues to project them on other people
7) rather as an alcoholic will do by blaming other people for pointing out the issue with alcohol
8) nor is Ken Ham's brain-damaged ideology a good replacement for objective reality either
When Sagan said, "The cosmos is all that is . . . " (notice he didn't say "all THERE is") he was not affirming materialism. He was simply defining the word "cosmos" as including absolutely everything. In the very next sentence, he goes on to describe the wonder of the cosmos.
This is the foundational misunderstanding at the start of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”, and it only goes downhill from there.
Exactly! That's the straw man that the creationists want to dismantle every time. Ham and his lot don't have any real answers either. If they're version of god created it all, then he is certainly responsible for it all as well!
@@toddballard-zw5fg Their stated goal is to put real science and creationism on the same level, as if real science is faith based too.
"he is certainly responsible for it all as well!"
Nah. The bad bits of the universe are our fault because our ancestors ate some magic fruit before we were born. Now THAT'S science! ;)
I’m a Christian but this video does nothing to convince a non Christian because it’s based on emotion not based on logic
It's not even emotion, it's just a broken premise....the idea that the "bible is the word of god". There is zero proof of this assertion. We do know the bible was written over many centuries, by many different authors, some unknown. There's no way you can conclude "it's the word of god". That's just absurd.
That’s because creationism isn’t logical or scientific. It’s the complete opposite. It begins with a conclusion and tries to justify that preconceived conclusion . Science begins with a question (hypothesis) and ends with a conclusion that must be based in evidence. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests the earth is 4.3 billion years old, and I have seen evolution occur in microorganisms in real time. I grew up with Ken Ham and AiG, but I eventually got out of it and obtained a degree in biology with a specialization in microbiology and aquatic ecosystems. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, do 99% of scientists just hate god so much that they’re lying to you, or is creationism pseudoscience? At this point I don’t know if Ken actually believes this nonsense, or if he’s simply a grifter. Either way he’s definitely wrong.
@@hongotedesco8931 It is interesting to note that the Bible is not a single text; it is a volume of texts, a collection of 66 books. These 66 books were written over the course of 2000 years by people ranging in station from the the cupbearer for a pagan king rebuilding the wall around ancient Jerusalem to a Physician testifying before a local nobleman about all that the Apostles did. There were fishermen and tax collectors, noblemen and commoners...all telling parts and pieces of the same narrative, with no meaningful contradictions. Any archeological evidence since has always confirmed the biblical narrative, with information that only an eyewitness could provide.
At very least, it must be considered as an unparalleled collection of historical volumes, that has stood up flawlessly to 20 centuries of scrutiny...
@@jeremyelford7926 Ah, but a mistake is assuming that was *originally* written is the same as what we read today. Not to mention is what was written what actually happened. Eg, we know that the gospels were written long after the events, by anonymous authors that weren't eyewitnesses. They were likely based on oral accounts that could've changed in a myriad of ways. Not to mention the 3 synoptic gospels, which scholars all say had the same source (but they have no way of knowing exactly how that happened, ie, did one synoptic gospel get written first, and the other 2 based on that? Or were all 3 derived from the same source? They don't know).
Which brings me to "stood up flawlessly to 20 centuries of scrutiny". What does that mean exactly? What kind of scrutiny are we talking about here? Eg, are we to interpret the creation myth in genesis as literal? It isn't, it's just a made up story, and it's obvious that it's a made up story. A catholic priest will tell you this. So what does scrutiny mean?
When the gospels talk about the virgin birth, is that also to be taken literally? If so, there's no way to confirm that statement, there's no way to prove it; there's just zero evidence for it. Thus applying scrutiny to it, you'd have to conclude it's made up.
@@jeremyelford7926 What "archeological evidence" proves the universe was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago?
The revised common lectionary Epistle reading for this week - Transfiguration Sunday is spot on for this: 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 ESV
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Thank you Ken, excellent teaching and video.
this man is a liar. Nothing about that is "excellent"
I think Ken is a remarkable person, spilling this kind of arguments without rolling over the floor laughing.
I’m still waiting for the dismantling of evolution I was promised in the video.
Careful, they prefer to delete comments like this.
God is scared of research in biology, geology, geography, virology, chemistry, paelontology, linguistics, zoology, archaeology, astronomy, physics, astrobiology, etc.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 Indeed. I have lost count of how many times I have had comments deleted, and accounts blocked. every Creationist Snowflake can be quite different
Funny your message hasn’t been deleted. Got have mercy this man. Remove the scales from his eyes. God bless you. Hallelujah amen.
@@WKDMOUSE67 God moves in mysterious ways. I am sure the scales will be removed from his eyes when the biblical god adds a comment in here demonstrating where Ken Ham dismantled evolution in this video. It was a comical video.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 dna is information, and that does not arise, by chance....as the technology increases the complexity of life becomes clearer...and as such, evolution becomes more and more suspect....
If you don’t look at science, facts and reason, then yes, evolution may seem crazy. Not as solid as a magical invisible man making everything lol
What facts? And what reason?
@@tobychidi What exactly is it about evolution that you don't understand?
@@LordMathiousI’m guessing, quite a bit.
Evolution is not science; science is what is observable, testable, and observable. Evolution is none of these; we do not see evolution happening, we do not see it in the fossil record, and we do not see it in the laboratory. As it is not observable, it is not testable, as it is not testable it is not verifiable, as it is not verifiable it is not science.
What is the evolutionary ation for the origin of the universe? None; “it just happens.” That is a rejection of cause and effect and an embrace of magic.
What is the evolutionist explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe? “It just happened“: magic.
What is the source of the biological instructions in DNA? “It just happened“: magic.
I don’t believe in the magic of evolution, I believe in cause and effect, I believe in the logical, orderly creator of the universe. I will leave the magic to you.
@@LordMathious“what is it exactly about evolution you don’t understand?”
I understand the idea behind evolution. What I don’t understand is why evolutionist persist in believing in evolution when the evidence, for it has never been found; 160 years of phi he does not support Darwin‘s idea of evolution, 60 years of genetic science does not support Darwin‘s idea. I understand natural selection; it is a process of elimination, where, by way of environmental conditions, certain traits contribute to the survival of a life form. However, as it is a process of elimination, some traits are also lost which may not be survival factors in the current environment, but with changing climate might well have been, i.e., a species survives through an ice age, but has lost through natural selection survival traits that would’ve helped it in a much hotter, dryer, climate. The fossil evidence supports this: the fossil record shows the extinction of more than 90% of all kinds of creatures that ever lived. Natural selection gradually eliminated, viable, survival traits.
Natural selection from genetic variation is not viable explanation. I understand the idea, but genetic variation is simply genetic mutation in which biological instructions in the DNA molecule is either lost or becomes garbled and unusable. I understand the idea that small mutations and copying errors could accumulate to phenotypically traits that would be advantageous in survival, but this is not born out in the fossil record; as Darwin called for transitional, fossil forms, stretching over eons of time no such have ever been found. There is no fossil evidence of one kind of life form evolving from another, therefore, no origin of species as Darwin calls for.
In addition to the fossil record, not supporting evolution in that there is no record of in numerable transitional forms between one kind of life form and another, so also genetic science does not support evolution. It has been found at the human genome is the king at a rate between 1% and 2% per generation, and the human race by some estimations may be extinct in 6000 years. This is evolution, this is de-evolution, again, supported by the fossil evidence: lifeforms become unviable, and no longer reproduce.
I do understand evolution: not being science it is a belief system. I have been told by evolutionist quote, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” There is no evidence for evolution, extraordinary, or otherwise. I’m told by evolutionist “lack of evidence is not an evidence of absence.” But an absence of evidence is in fact, not evidence: evolution is, therefore, a matter of philosophy, at a belief system, at worst a cult, which is cling to with a zit tree that produces two effects: (1) believe in evolution without question (2) ridicule of those who do not accept everything they are all about evolution without question. You need to look no further than comments in this thread and support of that observation.
“Science is the culture of doubt.” - Richard Feinman. Evolution, not being science, evokes questions like “what exactly is it about evolution you don’t understand” with no self reflection.
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith". We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." -- Bertrand Russell
Maybe no one speaks of faith, but it's still there. Faith and evidence are not opposed or exclusive of each other. They work hand in hand. Every scientist uses faith. In fact, every human being uses faith every day. Faith is part of everyone's experience and not something to shy away from or ridicule. To do so or to try to diminish the use of faith is foolishness.
Exactly. As Thee Dalai Lama says, when the truth is known faith is unnecessary. Dawkin's problem is that he doesn't believe knowledge of the truth is possible. This is because he doesn't bother to do any research but just has faith in his poorly researched opinions. I'm surprised any decent academics take him seriously as a scholar. .
@peterjones6507 I hear what you're saying when you say faith is unnecessary when the truth is known. But there is more to faith than just trust in the unknown. Faith is also the confidence and trust we have in the known. That is why every person on earth uses faith every day. We still have to trust the known too. If a person has been faithful to us 1000 times, we trust them to show up or be there again. The repeat becomes evidence and we KNOW by faith. Every time we sit in a chair we put faith in a chair. Each time we drive we put faith in other drivers, even total strangers that we put faith in without knowing them. But we have confidence because it's always been safe with other drivers. Nothing in life is completely known either. We just trust the evidence by faith. Every scientist trusts evidence by faith and uses faith to conduct more experiments.
@@adamr8628I would completely agree with what you say. It's an important and often forgotten point. Faith is, after all, the basis for atheism. My point was that it is possible to go beyond faith to certainty, albeit only when we become truth. It would, for example, be a mistake to say that Jesus had faith that Man and God are one.Likewise for the Sufi master Al-Hallaj, who was brutally executed for stating, 'I am Truth'. Bertrand Russel, whose words I was responded to, knew nothing and wanted to know nothing of any of this.
Evolution is based on emotion
Any chance to get this video in Spanish?
God bless your ministry.
Sí. Al menos si ves diferentes símbolos blancos en la esquina inferior derecha del reproductor de UA-cam, uno de los cuales es "papel con tres líneas de texto" y el siguiente es "rueda". Primero selecciona ese "papel" (Subtítulos) para que aparezca una línea roja debajo. Luego haga clic en "engranaje" (Configuración) y seleccione desde allí "Inglés (generado automáticamente)" y finalmente seleccione el idioma de destino deseado en el menú desplegable.
----
Yes. At least if you see different white symbols in the lower right corner of the UA-cam player - one of which is "paper with three lines of text" and the next one is "wheel". First select that "paper" (Subtitles) so that a red line appears under it. Then click on "gear" (Settings) and select from there "English (automatically generated)" and finally select the desired target language from the drop-down menu.
@@MR-ub6sq many thanks
I'm a Christian but the Evolution is obvious TRUE. I study it and I understand it. There are millions of proofs for Evolution.
We humans are all animals, clever apes that evolved to be aware that God exists and we must worship Him. But we must always seek the TRUTH and not ignorant lies.
May God bless us all.
@@willpower6720no creationist has ever shown it’s a religion. Will you finally?
@@willpower6720 No bro, not even close. Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it's as close to fact as you're going to get. In contrast, something like christian mythology, is as *far* from truth as you're going to get. It's just invention.
No one has a problem with believing in God..I'm sure the Bible was only meant figuratively and not to be taken literally....you can believe in God and science at the same time
Im an evolutionary biologist and atheist, and have no problem with considering many of the teachings of Christianity as being important life lessons and often greatly positive and beneficial moral compass. None of that however needs conflict with clear evidence for evolution.
He should submit his evidence paper to the scientific community and await his Nobel prize.
Where these bodies came from makes no difference.God created us like Himself: spirit. Find Spirit, Ken Ham, and you will know the Way.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
@@robertdouglas8895 So, if it makes no difference, why not just accept evolutionary biology as the explanations of the diversity of life?
@@davegaskell7680 If that works for you to help each other now, then do so. Does it help, besides put your mind at ease? Does it help with medical surgery, with decreasing pain or stillborn babies?
My focus is helping people by realizing the world is determined by our minds, not by the past.
@@willpower6720
No, science is not just another opinion. It is evidence and reason. What you said is true about faith, which is fine, but science is important too. And if they are not reconciled, you have a problem.
@@willpower6720 No - it isn't a choice and it isn't that either or. You either believe something because the evidence persuades you that it is true or you don't believe it. I don't believe any religious claims.
Ken Ham should submit his work to a biology university and win a Nobel prize!
Nobody has proven macro evolution either, so I don't think there are any Nobel Prizes to be won in this subject.
@@jounisuninen what's a macro evolution? Is that a scientific term?
@@igorkrugly4842
No
It's speciation.@@igorkrugly4842
LOL
What is being taught about evolution: "Plants and animals share a Eukaryotic ancestor that lived maybe as long as two billion years ago. The only measurement of evolution that makes sense is time. Therefore, everything on the earth is equally evolved, since everything shares common ancestry and has been evolving for the same length of time." If you assume that time is the only measure for evolution and I don't accept it does that mean...!
That quote is exactly correct. But time and evolution are unrelated questions. Time just exists. The Earth is over 4 billion years sold. What happened diring those 4 billion years is a matter of scientific evidence.
@@jockyoung4491 What happened during those 4 billion years is a matter of scientific evidence and there is no scientific evidence for it. There neither is evidence for 4 billion years.
Young Earth:
1. Amount of salt in the sea.
2. The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
3. Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64-66.
4. The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern Siberia. J. Creation (TJ) 14(3):83-90.
5. Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” -Lalomov, A.V., 2007.
6. Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth.
The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130-137, 1988).
7. Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also articles on limestone cave formation.
8. The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay, with fluctuations especially during and after the Flood, is evident from historical measurements and is consistent with the hypothesis of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of only thousands of years. Humphreys, R., Earth’s magnetic field is decaying steadily-with a little rhythm, CRSQ 47(3):193-201; 2011.
9. Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. See Woodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth, J. Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999.
10. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work.
11. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
12. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
13. Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
14. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
15. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
16. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years.
17. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296-298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
Excellent work
All this time and money and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.
Evolutionist can not prove evolution. Scientist have known carbon 14 doesn't work since the 70s.
1)They won't admit it because of their religious faith in evolution. Faith only, no science
2) They want to keep their jobs or grants.
3) They have nothing else. Not even a book.
The evolutionist scientist who discovered the red blood cells in a dinosaur mummy and published her findings, saying this dinosaur can not be billions of years old, was thanked by her university for such a scientific find, by sacking her. Red Blood cells can not survive even millions of years..
Mary, not sure of the spelling of her last name, Switzer.
Same surname as Albert.
Evolution is a theory used by atheists to justify atheism.
I can find several...and I haven't spent a dime
Thank the Lord Jesus Christ for ken ham who teaches biblical truth 🙏
The Lord sent Ken Ham to bolster our confidence it exists? 😂
The Bible is merely a collection of fairy tales.
The Supreme illusion of the World Mind is that it accepts mortality/form as reality.
Through Conscious Realization We must Establish Our Oneness with God....!
Christ is born in us when we come to the virginal conscious realization that Spirit(Divine Consciousness)is the Only Presence. It is an unadulterated, unsullied moment of Illumination. It is an immaculate conception of the rare, but highly receptive, intuitive readiness for the Absolute Truth. It is an unblemished, impeccable Mystical insight into our True Spiritual Nature. The Birth of Our Spiritual State of Being as the Activity of Truth in Our Consciousness.....!
Christ teaches from a different level that the human intellect is not prepared to receive!!
Jesus was saying what all Illumined beings said before and after him, which is:
Realize your own Divine Christ(Immortal Nature)within, and it will lead you out of the Veiled Dream of Time and Space. Out of the Cycle of Birth and Death.
Follow me(Accept Your Immortality), I, the Christ of your being across the Mystical Ocean of Time where you don't walk in the world of matter, form, physicality, iniquity, mortality.....
The Truth(aka Christ, just a name used to identify a State of Consciousness) we are walks in the Kingdom of Heaven right here, where no mortal being or carnal mind can reach it!!
The Christ we are is Untouchable, and only sees that which is the Kingdom of Spirit/God!!
All Illumined Beings Rest in this Principle:
Abstain from the Temptation to believe that which is finite/material is of Consciousness/Spirit/God. If it's happening in Time and Space it can not be taking place!
Both the religious and atheistic world interpret this Mystic teaching through the same illusory sense known as human intellect, and this is what the Mystical Manuscript points out to those that are able to Discern it. Religion is born of ignorance, and atheism is born of religion, so what we have here are two sides of the same coin of nothingness. Both turn away from Oneness, from Omnipresence, from Spirit, from God!
We must abandon the illusion/nothingness of the personal, physical self, and accept the Perfect Spiritual Body of the Kingdom of Spirit as the Only Reality. When this happens there is no longer anything to fight, to correct, pray to, pray for, or to run to or from!!
"My Kingdom is not of this Material World"
My Kingdom is the One and Only Spiritual Kingdom! The Kingdom of Heaven Within!
The bible(and every other ancient Mystical Manuscript) has been hijacked by the carnal minds/human minds ignorance of the belief in a life separate and apart from Omnipresence(God....Oneness), yet, if Spiritually Discerned as it's meant to be, shows us how to walk out of the appearance of matter, out of the shadow of the Acceptance of birth and death(Atheism), and into the Immortal State of Our Being that is Spirit/Immortality/Incorporeality/Consciousness As the Only Presence.
The Bible reveals the Unreality of the Material Dream of the Mind, and the Reality of Spirit/God as the Only Presence.
The Truth and Untruth are placed next to each other in the Bible to show us Immortal Spirit as Reality, and the Mental Distortion we call Finite Form that we Entertain as Reality....
What we believe we are experiencing as a mortal being is actually the Binding/Imprisoning of Spiritual Immortality as the Truth of the Activity of Our Consciousness into a Mortal and Material Sense of Awareneness.
The message of the bible(and all true Spiritual teachings) is not for the timid, it is for those who are willing to walk the Earth in Proportion to their Receptivity of Spiritual Immortality as Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Shankara, and many others have(THE STRAIT GATE)!
Through the Realization and Acceptance of Spirit as the Only Presence Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and many others became Interpreters and Demonstrators(as you will ultimately be)for the language of the Realization of Spirit/God as the Only Presence. Thereby Demonstrating the Unreality of the Material World, Human Mind, and the 5 Senses.
Everything of the Senses is Perishable because it is not of Spirit, and therefore, not a Reality.
Everything of Spirit is Imperishable, and your Divine Infinite Being, that which Jesus called The Father Within, the Buddha called the Buddha Mind, and Lao Tzu called the Tao, is Immortal, Omnipresent Spirit.
Where everything appears to be, only Spirit/God is....
The Cornerstone of the Christ(God/Spiritual Consciousness Realized)Teaching is that Spirit/God is the Only Presence, not to worship Jesus the illusory form that is nothing and can do nothing of itself....(with Spirit being the only Presence, to worship anything of an illusory material nature, such as a human form, is to worship a graven image, as all matter is a graven image).
GOD/SPIRIT IS OMNIPRESENT!
(God/Spirit is the Only Presence)
Therefore, to Be Reborn is to Overcome the Belief of a Human Birth, and Accept Spirit as the Only Presence!
What is not of Spirit is not a reality.
Every Temptation of this World is Meaningless when you know the Truth of Your Immortal Christ/God/Spiritual Being!! The Matter/Error/Evil is not there, ONLY THE TEMPTATION TO ACCEPT IT AS REALITY IS!!
The Bible is a Mystical Manuscript written for the Development of Spiritual Discernment by those of a Mystical/Spiritual Consciousness, and written in such a way that if it were to make it's way outside of the Mystery Schools it couldn't be Spiritually Discerned by man with breath in his nostrils, and would instead be misinterpreted, and this choice has worked Perfectly, as the World Mind Illusion worships it as a religious document!
No religion has found God, ever!!
Only the Mystic has Realized God/Immortality because the Mystic knows where not to look!
Religion, Philosophy, and Science seek God/Spirit in the Material World of Illusion through the faculty responsible for it, the human mind, hoping for a glimpse of Truth/God where no Truth/God of any kind Exists.
The Mystic(of my Household, aka my Consciousness)knows God is the Realization of Infinite, Incorporeal Omnipresence(Spirit) that is the True Essence of Being.
The Mystic Discerns the Reality of Spirit through the Unreality of Matter.
The Mystic knows Our True and Only State of Being is Incorporeal, Infinite, and Omnipresent.
The Mystic sees only the Spirit of Immortality through the Sense of Form/Matter of all beings.
The Mystic knows that if it is happening in Time and Space it is Not Taking Place.
The Mystic allows Infinite Perfection to be his Thought through Conscious Awareness of Spirit as the Only Presence!!
Therefore, the Mystic reaches not for God or Truth, the Mystic Rests in the Realization of it!! This releases him from the reliance upon that which is ERRONEOUS, the 5 Senses!!
We don't Transcend, We Realize!!
The Mystic allows Infinite Perfection to be his Thought through Conscious Awareness of Spirit as the Only Presence!!
The Mystic doesn't accept Love as a Sensual Emotion. The Mystic Knows Love is a State of Spiritual Integrity!
The Mystic belongs to no religion, no human belief structure, and never to the mortal world of man with breath in his nostrils.
The Mystic Says:
I am not in this world to acquire or achieve anything: I am here as an instrument of God/Spirit to bear witness to Spirit/God's presence. I have appeared for one reason, that God/Spirit, through me, may be made manifest on Earth. I have appeared for the Glory of God/Spirit, not for my personal glory, not for my personal reputation or my personal wealth, but appear that Spirit/God might be Glorified as His Love shown forth through me!
Prace Be Unto You!!
@@Moist._Robot Our confidence in God comes from logical thinking as much as from science. World is full of evidence for Intelligent Design. In the courts of law, indicium is used as evidence. The existence of God is demonstrated all the time around us by indicia.
Atheist claim that a lack of belief in God's existence stems from the lack of evidence or empirical proof. But atheists do not understand what means “evidence”. Evidence is an outward sign. Indication means evidence. Since logically thinking people see indicia for God, we have the evidence for God existing. If atheists are not able to see the indicia for God, it’s rather their problem.
Atheists neither do know what means “empirical”. Empirical means originating in or based on observation or experience. Since logically thinking people observe and experience God’s work, God does exist. If atheists are not able to observe and experience God’s work, it’s their problem. For any logical mind the evidence of God is compelling.
"A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called EMPIRICAL evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science Question: How many times has (macro) evolution been repeatedly observed or experimentally measured, getting positive empirical evidence? Answer: Not once. The "universal common ancestor" is a product of lively imagination. Nobody has seen it, it has never been proven by an empirical test.
Biblical truth says the Earth is flat, but never once says anything about its age. Yet Ken ham denies the Earth being flat. Genesis and Job outright say the Earth is a disc with a crystal dome that sits on top pillars. The bible says the sun and moon are the same size, and both are smaller than the earth. It says that outright, directly. NEVER once says the Earths age. But ken hambone denies the age of the earth but says the earth is round 😂. THE BIBLE says it’s flat, but ham knows that’s factually incorrect with no ability to lie about it, unlike how he lies about evolution and the age of the earth.
Are you kidding This guy knows better
The Bible does not say death entered the world. It does say sin entered the world. Context matters, death came to man.
Geologists do not "construct" the geological record. They categorize it based on observation and evidence.
Observations and evidence used to support a presupposition, which is a construct of the geologists' minds. Thus, it is indeed true that geologists construct the geological record.
@@cryxibus
They DESCRIBE it; they don't construct it.
@jockyoung4491 They don't merely describe it. They define it, which is synonymous with what is meant by "construct" in this context.
"They categorize it based on observation and evidence." - If evolutionists, based on their biased assumptions.
Evidence is the same for both sides. It is how you interpret it. Interpretation is based on your world view- whether naturalistic or biblical.
The great thing is we believers don’t have to convince the non-believers that the Bible is true. We’re just supposed to tell them what it says.
To non-believers, it's evidence that matters, not what a book says.
Where these bodies came from makes no difference.God created us like Himself: spirit. Find Spirit, Ken Ham, and you will know the Way. Here's what it says.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
@@robertdouglas8895 It looks like you just decided to copy and paste that as a reply to every comment. If you don’t have an original thought, then you just might be a troll. Do better.
@@TenMinuteTrips I did edit some of my replies according to the content, but some I didn't need to do that. If you learned nothing from what I wrote, then so be it.
Hey creationist, If evolution is false and creationism is true, answer both these questions with evidence backing up your claims, and i’ll give you $1,000
1. Provide a single example of a falsifiable prediction made by evolutionary theory that has proven it false.
2. Provide one FALSIFIABLE prediction made by creationism that has not already been proven false
There is a third approach which says that science is not in conflict with Faith.
“They know this from photographs” says the guy as he waves his ancient book which most definitely has been verified and proven to be 100% accurate.
It has been verified and proven over and over again...
@@jeremyelford7926 can’t tell if you’re serious or sarcastic
@@bepis126 I'm serious...the Bible has withstood centuries of attempts to discredit it...
Ken Ham saying he debunks anything is golden
God bless you brother Ken 🙂🙏✝️ in my prayers and I appreciate your ministry
Your profile pic is blasphemous
Ken ham dismantles himself in 20 minutes
I was fascinated watching this. It's such a perfect confluence of scientific ignorance, wilful deception and biased reasoning that I'm truly impressed.
Dishonesty like this is what firmly pushed me away from Christianity.
Unfotunately it is quitre typical of these kinds of channels. There is a large industry for science deniers and theyg et increasinlgy sophisticated,
What this individual does is pure manipulation, everything he says are exclusively manipulation methods, it's as if he were reading from a "manipulation manual". What I find fascinating is the level of the individual's toupee. It is absolutely limitless, it can say absolutely anything without feeling any shame, embarrassment or empathy. The characteristics of any manipulator...
I am guessing what pushed you away is some emotional trauma......
@@philipbuckley759 I'm sorry, Philip. Your guess is wrong. It was a gradual realisation that the whole Christianity thing was a pyramid of lies and self delusion right from childhood. Brainwashing keeps one invested. Once you start allowing yourself to ask serious questions, the illusion disappears.
@@philipbuckley759
Any kind of manipulation, including(mostly) religious manipulation, produces emotional traumas on humans, and even physical consequences on the human brain. The gaslighting practiced by this Ken is the lowest form of abjection I have encountered in recent years. It is absolutely toxic to anyone who pays attention to her and believes what the manipulator Ken says.
A lot and I mean A LOT of information was packed in this small 25 min video. From thousands of years of philosophy, disputes over what kind of God would create the universe we live in, to what science is and how all of this disagreement is because of personal beliefs and starting points instead of actual lack of evidence/facts from one of the sides.
*** "a lot I mean A LOT" ; we can not solve the science problems with the Bible nor solve the problems of faith with science, their purpose is different, as science and believe are also different, there are not contradition if we study both equaly and without bias, honestly.***
@@adelinomorte7421 I would agree with you were it not for the fact that religions make truth claims that can be scientifically tested and shown to be incorrect (e.g. 6 day creation, global flood, etc.). If the biblical accounts were taken to be allegorical/fable/parable and not to be taken literally then, again, no problem but some people consider the biblical accounts to be literal truth so that then brings direct conflict with the scientific understanding.
Yeah, a lot of lies.
@@mnmnrt examples?
@@mnmnrtnext time, watch the video, but not on mute
I wasn’t sure how much I agree with the click bait title, I was expecting more info right from the get go but this started out by going over info on starting points I had just watched in another video. BUT, if you stick with it, there is PLENTY in the second half. :)
Amen!
He said it in the first minute in response to Dawkins, "But if you start with the bible it says something very different...". Exactly, why would you ever start with the bible? Why not start with Harry Potter?
There are at least 10 types of solid proofs for evolution including ancient organism remains, The fossil layers (verified every day by radio decay data - some can pinpoint back to 30,000 years and others can go back 15 billion years but with less accuracy), similarities among organisms alive today, similarities in DNA, and similarities of embryos.
Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects of the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. The study of human genetics shows how closely related we are to other primates and how connected we are with all other organisms - and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.
You are just a thought that someone
Somewhere somehow feels you should be here
And it's so for real to touch
To smell, to feel, to know where you are here
And my streets are paved with gold and if
Someone asks you, you can call my name
Who needs digital photographs when time period and fossils are all very scientifically the same? The Shroud of Turin in dozens of test have a definitive time period. The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence.
There is meaning in life even if no god. Believe me. Which is kind of what Religion tell us - take everything on faith.
Nobody is saying there isn't a flood. It's just not caused by god. I doubt a humane god would want to hurt the Egyptian first born.
Still waiting for him to dismantle evolution...
The title of this post lead me to beleive Ken would offer a strong refutation of evolution. I didn't get one. No suprises here. As a Christian I expect better from my fellow beleivers.
Are you living up to your expectation you put on others?
How could Ham offer such when the evidence for evolution is so strong? Were you wanting a miracle? LOL
@@slik00silk84 There is NO evidence for Neo-Darwinian evolution.
Now ask them what they think about the globe, and they're gonna tell you how the bible is wrong and society is right.
@@slik00silk84 I thought I would give him the opportunity to convice me.Modern science was birthed from a Judeo_christian world veiw, ie; A reasonable God made a reasonable world that could be known by reasoning people. As a Christian, therefore I follow the evidence wherever it leads. Current neo darwinisim no doubt jas its problems but it is the best fit so far. Being a theist does not limit my options and Though I would not call myself an evolutionist i am happy to accept the label 'imperisist' in regard to the material realm.
This should have the same disclaimer flat earth videos have.
And any observational science presupposes a creator because it takes experimentation which requires a scientist, creating an experiment.
the universe isn't an experiment genius
Exactly! It was designed and created by God!
@@jenniferoutlaw1975 your religious beliefs that a god created a universe he didn’t need is evidence of nothing
@@AMC2283 no, the presence of life demands an explanation that your humanistic worldview cannot provide...
@@jeremyelford7926 feel free to believe in god. Evolution is exhaustively verified.
We don't have God's word. We have man's word claiming they are from God.
Do you have any evidence supporting this view? Have you read the Bible, or are you just speaking from ignorance? Have you tested the Bible and found it wanting?
@@jeremyelford7926 The evidence supporting this view lies simply in the fact that there is no evidence that can substantiate the existence of a "god". Scientists can never claim that there is no god, they just merely state that there is no evidence to support that god exists. If you have listened to Dawkins he clearly states this. Because of this they do not really pay much attention to it, again, because there is really no compelling evidence to even make them start looking.
Yes, have read the bible. It reads like a book that has been put together by stories of myth and fable that have been handed down word of mouth for centuries. It is contradictory at best, and certainly does paint the picture of a benevolent despotic, even narcissistic, ruler of the universe. Palpatine wishes!
And to your last question. Yes, it is wanting...it is very wanting, particularly if you take it literally as Mr Ham does. I must admit that there is one thing in the bible that I strongly agree with and that is the snake. He tells Eve that if they eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge they will know god. Science has certainly provided this for us. We do "know" god - it is the natural universe around us, and even what is beyond that. It certainly is not a benevolent, despotic, narcissistic ruler of it all as depicted in the bible.
God used man to write the Bible but that doesn’t mean it was from man that’s like saying a man used a pen to write a letter you wouldn’t say the pen wrote the letter, The man did and it’s the same with God
Well Ken, after listening to 25 minutes of sophistry, twisted facts, gish galloping and simple deception, evolution remains resolutely undismantled.
It's pretty tough that way
Well if you think him listing off a bunch of reasons for his belief is "gish galloping" then your analysis isn't that credible.
@@blusheep2
Ken mixes up "reasons" and "belief" the same way he mixes up faith and science. If your "reasons" for believing something are because the Bible says so, that is faith. Nothing wrong with faith, but it isn't science. Ken has never really tried to refute evolution scientifically. He doesn't understand it well enough for that
@@blusheep2 A relentless spew of falsehoods, half truths, and misunderstanding may not EXACTLY be a gish gallop but its close!
@@coreyc490 No its not close at all. Are you another one that wants to demonstrate how little credibility they have?
If there was only one type of each animal on the Ark, then to get the variety of each type, 'Evolution'. People lie, including preachers.
There's at least a dozen reasons why the Noah's ark story is pure fiction.
The same formation as the Grand Canyon happened after Mt. St. Helen erupted but occurred in decades not millenia.
The grand canyon was created by erosion, not volcanism. The geology is completely different
@@jockyoung4491 The Grand Canyon was created by erosion in few weeks, when the waters of the Flood streamed back to ocean and the mud and clay were still not petrified.
@@jounisuninen
Obviously not.
the two are not even vaguely the same.
Carving channels through unconsolidated mud and ash is a very different proposition than through sedimentary rock. @@jounisuninen
Ken Ham Absolutely IGNORANCE about Evolution in 25 Minutes
Care to elaborate? I think he summed evolution up quite nicely.
@@emanuelsagan3733 he misrepresented and lie about evolution up quite nicely.
biology 101 go look it up!!
@@emanuelsagan3733You mean aside from the constant misrepresentation & blatant lack of education in the subject?
Ham is a grifter who argues against evolution out of ignorance & religious bias.
Both you and him should read the work of Francis Collins.
He’s the Evangelical Christian, who’s also an Expert in Biology & the former head of the Human Genome Project.
““Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.”
“The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.”
"Ken Ham Absolutely IGNORANCE about Evolution in 25 Minutes" - Evolutionists are as ignorant on evolution, because nobody knows which evolution theory is the correct one. They can't tell it.
The so-called evolution ("All life on earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor") is like a chameleon. When science proves that mutations produce decay but not evolution, Darwinist evade the critics by giving evolution a new definition that is suitable to the current situation like: ”Nobody has claimed that evolution always means positive change” while Darwin's book ”Origin of Species” claims the opposite!
Neo-Darwinian loosely determined evolution explains deftly even the contradictory phenomena like fossils and missing fossils both ”proving evolution”, positive and negative changes both ”proving evolution”, genetically devolving subspecies ”proving evolution”, so-called living fossils "proving evolution" etc. That’s why the evolution theory can’t be consider a scientific theory - or be taken seriously at all.
Evolutionists tell us that evolution is slow and gradual but it can also be quick and advance by saltations. It causes mind blowing changes or keeps everything static for millions of years. Evolution is random and without direction, except when it advances towards a goal. Acquired qualities can not be inherited except when they get inherited ... Anything works to prove "evolution" - just name it and buy it!
Evolution is a belief system. Knowing DNA and the way the DA grades overtime and how complex it is basically tears down devolution of Darwin because of DNA and how complex it is the life starting in a primordial soup is pretty much impossible, and there is no one that can prove that it can be done. It is so extremely complex life didn’t just start from a less complex environment. In fact, DNA and some of the most simple organisms is extremely complex, and putting all of that together by chance is near impossible, that alone debunks evolution, the fact that we cannot find any organisms anywhere mutating in different steps along millions of years tells you that it never happened. What we see is complex organisms suddenly appearing and many organisms living together did you know that they actually find mammals with a lot of the dinosaur fossils. No one wants to talk about that one.
My starting point is the Bible. I believe we all need to rely on God. God bless you Ken. I look forward to hearing more and continuing to learn more about God and Jesus. Proverb 3:5 is my daily routine; to lean on God and HIs understanding.
ah yes, finding an argument you like and rejecting everything provided that may reject the argument you like in favor of the argument you like being true
Logical thinking should have no exception. Ken Ham wants, as he says himself, to teach you how to think logically "as a christian".
For something that unites the Bible and science through an understanding of prophecy (and the pitfalls in both) check out ‘Seven Times: Egypt to Istanbul’. It will also tell you where we are on the prophetic timeline - the Daniel 12:12 last day.
Claims made without evidence are easily refuted without evidence.
He gave lots of evidence; did you even watch the video?
Your comment is evidence that you most likely didn’t watch the video, or you didn’t understand the video.
The tenants upon which evolution rely on to be proven have never been observed. If man can turn wolf to dog then why cant god turn ape to man?
This logic is not lost on anyone with a brain.
I've wrote a book too ,I don't lie and I know all....
Ok we believe u
That's how I feel about The God Delusion.
@@mrtadreamernow read the bible with the same healthy skeptism.
I'm somewhere in the middle in all of this. I used to be a christian. I'm not nor will I ever be an atheist. Because both of them deal with the absolute. Both claim to know something neither of them can prove. I'm not stupid enough to play those games. I won't pretend to know what I don't know. I have no idea if there is a higher power. But at the same time if I play make belief in my own thoughts, I'm not stupid enough to think my limited logic is smart enough to even understand that higher power should one exist. I know that if we were to take the thousand smartest people on earth, there will still be a unlimited amount of things they don't know compared to what they actually do know. Thats my stance on it. We think we are way more intelligent than we actually are. On the grand scale of things we know very, very little. Seems to me that an honest man would admit what he doesn't know rather than pretend he knows what he knows he doesn't know.
Well you are wrong. Atheism does not deal in absolutes nor does it claim to know things it doesn't know. That's what religion does. Atheism says that we do not believe in a god because we see no evidence that there is one. We see no evidence that a God is needed to create the universe, as it seems to get along just fine without a creator. Atheism is simply a lack of belief due to evidence.
Notice can ham doesn't debunk evolution in twenty five minutes in front of a nobel panel and pick up his peace prize for the debunking of evolution.
It's almost as if ken ham is lying about the debunking evolution in twenty five minutes
The irony is that scripture is humanity's first pass at science and philosophy. Not separate from them. We got a lot wrong. We still do, but we learned and improve generally.
The exception of course being the faithful who stubbornly hold to the belief that all there is to know about all things is contained within their favorite scripture.
@RobertSmith-gx3mi..... Yep, hecould have just done it in two minutes. With the information contained in DNA. Could have expanded that with the workings of the human body. Imagine all that coming from gene mutation and natural selection. A better chance that the infinite monkey/typewriter theorem is a possibility.
@@tonymak9213 Arguing from ignorance against evolution does not debunk the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. It is and will remain the accepted scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. At least until a better theory comes along and "sky magician created that" is simply an assertion.
@@tonymak9213Google “God of the gaps fallacy”, you’ll find that what you wrote has been presented and refuted ad nauseum.
@@RobertSmith-gx3mihonestly sky magician would be way more plausible than (mostly harmful) mutations eventually creating lungs, eyeballs, and consciousness. I have a degree in science and when you truly start digging into the supposed original evolutionary methods, its so much sci-fi bullcrap that it always makes me laugh when people discredit the idea of intelligent design somewhere out in the void of darkness. We have no idea, stop blindly following nonsense. Darwins theory was proposed before DNA was even discovered. Its an outdated theory.
I would rather stand by God and be judged by the world, than stand with the world and be judged by God.
Coming to the cross of Jesus Christ is the only way to inherit eternal life. God took on human flesh, lived a perfect, sinless and blameless life, suffered greatly, shed his blood and died a physical death as a sacrifice for our sins and rose from the dead, to prove that there is a resurrection and to sanctify all who would place their trust in what He did for us, we are His creation. He loves you dearly... your sin debt has been paid in full, your God offered pardon has been signed with the precious blood of Christ.
You can accept His sacrifice with all your heart... or you can reject it. The choice is yours. We cannot save ourselves. Hell is for the self condemned only. Ending up in such a place, will be because you chose to be there.
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love tword us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ⁹ much more then, having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
God bless you and all whom you love. 🙂
"Hell is for the self condemned only. Ending up in such a place, will be because you chose to be there. " - This is so true. Still atheists tend to blame God for their own choices and for the wickedness of the wicked.
I reject Hell. I do not give consent to be placed in Hell. Hell is against my will completely. I also reject the sacrifice of Christ on my behalf.
@@bobhubson8511 if you truly believe this then what brings you here.....
@@philipbuckley759 a compulsion to be a voice of sanity against the madness.
Who believes that all the wickedness they committed doesn't count anymore because a spottless human-divine hybrid virgin zombie's blood was spilled voluntarily on their behalf? That paying homage to such an event is the one and only way to be deemed worthy by the one who set the works in motion knowing full well all non Gods make mistakes and fail at times.
Madness.
well, even Hitler was a christian
The only thing Ken dismantled here is his own credibility and critical thinking skills.
Not possible to dismantle evolution
Ken Ham Absolutely DISMANTLES himself in 25 Minutes
What are the religious fictions and myth? Surely you don’t mean evolution?
@@therick363
I mean the Christian fictions & myths.
@@AtamMardes ah. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate the cordial response.
Love ya work guys.
@ 3:10 The problem is not with God.
The problem is with us.
WRONG. God designed us, any flaw in our brains or bodies is a DIRECT consequence of what God himself did. And I know your reply will be original sin corrupted us, BUT GOD HIMSELF WOULD STILL HAVE TO DESIGN THE CORRUPT VERSIONS OF US. God himself would have had to design the consequences that would happen if we ate the fruit. Anything that possibly could ever happen is Gods fault. HES OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT. Nothing can possibly happen without his control. He engineered the fall, he designed us to fall, HE CAUSED EVERY PROBLEM. STOP giving God all of the CREDIT with none of the RESPONSIBILITY:
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v
Not helping. Please don't spam on every comment no matter how unrelated.
3:10 speaks of what we don’t know. Not sure what problem we have that god does not have?
@@RetiredRoo-oq1ed
God is Omnipresent & Omniscient & Omnipotent.
God does not have a problem!
We do as a fallen and sinful creation.
God cares for us and our problems and helps us through them. He has got us covered if we let Him.
God knows the end from the beginning and works with our free will. Many times there is suffering involved with our problems.
There will always be problems for us until the last day.
Be blessed Retired Roo
@@RisenShine-zy7dnGod is also non existent!
How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways passed finding out.
Great video w/super info!! Always enjoy Ken's sense of humor, & also the terrific artwork & short videos included in these presentations!!
Just a shame it’s all nonsense in it?
@@Moist._Robot How did you think to prove it nonsense?
@@jounisuninen
Evolution is real whether you like it or not.
@@jounisuninenBecause evolution is the single most supported thing in science that has ever existed, there is more evidence for evolution than the Earth being round or gravity exisitng, or heliocentrism. Yet Ham doesn’t deny those three things. al
@@jounisuninen Hey creationist, If evolution is false and creationism is true, answer both these questions with evidence backing up your claims, and i’ll give you $1,000
1. Provide a single example of a falsifiable prediction made by evolutionary theory that has proven it false.
2. Provide one FALSIFIABLE prediction made by creationism that has not already been proven false
Ken Ham is at the ridiculous end of religious apology, and that’s an extreme thing.
@@willpower6720 You’re or your?
@@willpower6720Bro, you've got the whole internet to learn about evolution. You're just not willing to learn, are you?
@@willpower6720 Or Ken is wrong and misunderstands the Bible bc he doesn’t take it in its cultural context and thinks it’s a science book which the Bible never claims to be
@@willpower6720 No it’s not bc it doesn’t speak bout science these ppl weren’t scientists and what science do u think it says
@@cubeofmars291 "you've got the whole internet to learn about evolution. " - We can learn of "micro evolution" but it really is no evolution at all, just intraspecific variation where in every fertilization same genes are reshuffled. No new genes appear to generate a path towards a new species.
Evolution ("macro evolution") instead is based on a hypothetical Universal Common Ancestor. Nobody has found such an organism. There are no fossils of it either. The ancient fish could produce different fish but it had no genes to make life on land possible. You've been fooled by Charles Darwin.
By the way ... mutations won't help here. If mutations could create new life forms, why has DNA the mechanism that eliminates ALL mutations it finds? Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured. [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.]
Not much a sane person can do but laugh...
or cry 😢
Can you elaborate on that? I see all of you humanists saying the same thing..."no sane person...", or "nobody who knows science...", "no true Scotsman...". Yet you are all singularly unable to produce any refuting evidence of your own. So tell me which part of Dr. Ham's discussion moves you to tears? Start citing some supporting facts; saying that it would take too long to explain, or any variation thereof, is a cop-out, not an argument.
Facts, please.
Actually if you use common sense it makes more sense
It's interesting that you've employed your sense of self evaluation...by what standard do you declare yourself to be sane, and by extension, all those who disagree with you, insane? Does belief in evolution come as a result of sanity? Or is somebody insane simply because they disagree with you? You're making a lot of judgments here, which is interesting given the lack of any type of real standard that a belief in humanistic evolution brings along with it...moral relativity is a hurdle that evolution can't overcome...
@@theTavis01 yes, it is appalling how these poor people have the naivety to believe that they are not cosmic accidents with no real guidance or purpose to their lives. How sad it is that someone may have a defensible belief in a God who designed them and the beautiful world we all inhabit.
Cry indeed...weep for these poor people and their inherently hopeful outlook on life...
Guess what? We observe red shift. Galaxies move away from eachother, so they uses to be closer. They must have all come from one point. HMMM...
The issue here is that naturalists exclude spirits on purpose. Once they do that, they must look for natural methods in which the universe came into being. Once we exclude spirits as they do, what they invent to explain what they never saw makes sense.
............ you yourself explain what you never saw happen with a god you never saw. 'spirits' is a weird thing and hundreds of books can be filled with the possible definition. however i will go further on the following definition; a non physical entity that exists in every being. it's convenient that its not a physical entity since that means its presence can't be proven, it just so happens it cannot be seen, heard, smelled or felt, which are coincidently exactly the senses everyone uses to observe the world around them. so the only reason to believe spirits are real would be; i dont like the idea of death being nothing, because it would mean my life means nothing' which it does, nobody exists with a purpose everyone is going to die, deal with it. spirits can't be proven, all properties of life have a logical explanation, none of which require a magical spirit to be present. so please make the final step to realisation and humor me, what EVIDENCE do i have to assume i and every other being in the universe have a spirit? what does it mean to have a spirit? and please come to the realisation that a spirit has no reasonable explanation to exist. a spirit only makes sense if you accept that a god as described in the bible exists which you claim to do only because spirits exist. Biologists do not 'invent' explainations, they pose a hypothesis and try everything to disprove it. when they fail at disproving a theory it becomes a fact, something that is accepted to be true without any reasonable doubt.
So, Ham's favorite line is "you weren't there." There are so many flaws with that statement. 3/4 gospel writers were not there for the crucifixion, and frankly John the Apostle, likely did not write the gospel of John . Paul was not there for any of Jesus' teachings.
You know what is there "Genetic links between species that can only be passed down through reproduction." That is testable and repeatable.
None of the apostles wrote any of the gospels.
For starters between 2% and 5% of the people could write and anyone who could write definitely wasn't a fisherman or tax collector. The gospels were written by educated Greeks between approximately 50 and 100 years after alleged crucifixion.
Actually no one who wrote any books of the Bible was there to witness Jesus.
@@1974Imperium you are correct. There is not one shred of contemporary evidence for Jesus.
@@user-ln1ec9qr5y that I have to disagree with. There are 4 narratives and many other “gospels.” So, Jesus most definitely existed, but the stories in the gospels are all oral tradition and very little first hand accounts.
@@spc1689 More like ZERO first hand accounts. Anyone who claims Jesus definitely existed is ignorant of history, ignorant of human behavior and indoctrinated to the point of being clueless about reality.
By no means can anyone say Jesus actually existed. There are others throughout history that were passed on orally, then written down that may not have existed since there is absolutely ZERO contemporary evidence.
Whenever stories are passed down orally they are never 100% accurate like the game telephone demonstrates.
People wrote down things sometimes and often recorded things that were not ordinary occurrences which would include miracles. Since there is ZERO contemporary writings of any miracles it is likely they were added or were embellishments.
So if Jesus was real it is likely he was a popular preacher that made the Romans feel threatened so they crucified him. Then the stories spread around, were exaggerated and exaggerated and then written down when they made it to Greece. (Then 4 gospels were selected out of the 40+ ignoring stories they didn't like (there was one were Judas was not a traitor but they didn't like that one) and some gospels were simply copied. Mark copied from Matthew and added an ending. Luke either copied from Mark and Mathew or copied from another source that Mark and Mathew copied from while embellishing everything.
There a lot of information about the bible priests either don't know or keep quiet about because it doesn't support their narrative.
Religion is a very DISHONEST institution. That is a FACT.
At another level, with my older brother with his "I'm for the evolution". I like old movies, but each time I talk to him about an old movie, already with his reply "oh it's old" in a way he doesn't care, it's old so not important. Like if modern movies are better hahaha
so, because yr brother prefers newer movies evolution isn't real?
Old is just new but a bit older
Ken Ham
Awesome work
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace are renowned for their contributions to the theory of evolution by natural selection, However, they did not directly address the origins of life itself. The question of the origin of life remains a separate field of study known as abiogenesis, which explores how life may have arisen from non-living matter. While Darwin and Wallace laid the groundwork for understanding biodiversity, they did not address the ultimate origin of life.
"In the realm of Particle Physics and Particle Chemistry, a captivating debate surrounds the fundamental constituents of matter, specifically focusing on the intricate building blocks of quarks, electrons, and gluons Can we unravel the profound essence of these particles and their interactions, which ultimately sculpt the very fabric of our universe? Delving into the heart of this discourse lies a fundamental question: What are the elemental particles that constitute quarks, electrons, and gluons, and how do their dynamic interplays delineate the fundamental architecture of matter? As we probe deeper into the subatomic realm, we unravel the mysterious dance of quarks, the elementary particles that make up protons and neutrons. Are they truly indivisible, or do they harbour deeper complexities awaiting discovery? Likewise, electrons, the enigmatic carriers of electric charge, stand as solitary entities, yet their behaviour perplexes even the most astute physicists. How do these particles, seemingly devoid of internal structure, exert such profound influence over the properties of matter? And then, there are gluons, the mediators of the strong force binding quarks together within the confines of atomic nuclei. How do these elusive particles govern the stability and structure of the very matter from which life itself emerges? In the grand tapestry of existence, proteins and sugars, the very building blocks of life, find their genesis in the intricate arrangements of these fundamental particles. Can we decipher the profound implications of these subatomic constituents on the macroscopic world, shedding light on the origins of life itself? Thus, the discourse unfolds, as we delve into the depths of particle physics, seeking to unravel the mysteries of existence through the lens of quarks, electrons, and gluons, and their profound implications for the nature of reality and the origins of life."
The intersection of science and spirituality has long fascinated scholars and thinkers alike. As we delve deeper into the mysteries of the universe through scientific inquiry, we often uncover awe-inspiring complexities that evoke a sense of wonder and reverence. Some argue that the more we uncover through science, the more we perceive the intricate design and orderliness of the cosmos, which hints at a guiding force or intelligence behind it all - what many refer to as "God."
From the elegant precision of physical laws governing the cosmos to the intricacies of biological systems, scientific discoveries continually illuminate the grandeur and sophistication of existence. Each revelation unveils a new layer of understanding, prompting reflection on the profound questions of existence, purpose, and the origins of life itself.
In this light, some view the pursuit of scientific knowledge as a journey toward uncovering the handiwork of a divine creator. They see the intricate web of interconnected phenomena and the delicate balance of nature as evidence of an intelligent design imbued with purpose and meaning. For them, science is not just a tool for understanding the natural world but a pathway to deeper spiritual insight and appreciation.
However, it's important to acknowledge that not all interpretations of science lead to the same conclusions about spirituality or the existence of a higher power. Science operates within the realm of empirical evidence and testable hypotheses, while matters of faith often transcend the boundaries of empirical observation.
Therefore, while science may provide insights into the mechanisms and processes of the universe, it can not definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. Ultimately, the relationship between science and spirituality is deeply personal and subjective, shaped by individual beliefs, experiences, and interpretations.
In essence, the journey of scientific exploration can indeed deepen our appreciation for the mysteries of existence and inspire a sense of awe and wonder that some interpret as evidence of a divine presence. Yet, the quest for understanding is ongoing, and whether one finds God in the revelations of science or elsewhere remains a deeply personal and profound journey of discovery of the origins of life.
God's evidence of His existence is just plainly cystal clear. People just don't want to accept it. It's like there is a beautiful garden but you don't believe there is a gardener behind it.
there may be a god. But it is not the narcissistic psychopath depicted in the bible.
Oh well, this makes my day. As good as watching a standup comedian…..
He’d probably be the richest and most well known biologist that ever lived if this was true.
My guess he is pretty rich given he's found a niche where all he has to do is cast aspersions on what others do, claim things, focus on the problems with evolution that others have identified and he has a huge following who will gladly donate money.
Interesting clickbait headline “it’s obviously false”. Obviously is not a word that scientists usually use.
At least evolution is based in observations made and studied and tested over and over again, instead of being told once orally then written down way too far away from when it was told, leaving room for the "telephone effect".
When has a, test, shown a species evolving into another??
When is it going to start?
Um ... On Feb. 30th 2024 at 25:00 hr
@@WingDiamond :D
In a time when the godlessness of the world is ever-increasing, it is more important than ever to heed the word of God.
The word of God is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path (Psalm 119:105). It is a sure foundation that we can build our lives upon (2 Timothy 3:16).
When we neglect the word of God, we are neglecting the very thing that has the power to change our lives. The word of God has the power to convict us of sin, to teach us truth, and to lead us in righteousness (Psalm 119:9-11). It is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12), able to convict us of sin and dispel our self deception.
No it isn't.
@@mnmnrt of course it is. Why would you think otherwise? 🤔
Well Christians already do neglect the word of god bc we don’t understand it in its cultural context so we get things wrong and end up like Ken ham and think science is wrong and evolution is false when the Bible isn’t a science book and we shouldn’t take it as such
And what does the word of God say about professional liars like Ham?
@@theTavis01 what makes you so sure that you aren't the one who has been lied to? Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Without Christ you cannot know truth.
Because it stands to logic and reason that a celestial wizard shook the universe out of his sleeve (sigh)
Someone said about half of the priests believe in God and only very few of the bishops. Philosophers and scholars of Bible are almost all atheists.
Ken seems to know basic arguments of atheism very well. It certainly looks like knowing more has strong correlation to atheism
Love this
Dawkins challenges is good it is science
@@willpower6720 my englis not perfect
What?
Atheists admit they do not know how matter or energy or time appeared. These of course can't be eternal because universe exists under the law of entropy, which in turn means that universe will inevitably meet its end in the heat death. Still atheists can't admit that the obvious answer - in fact the only possible answer - is God. Nitpicking with the question of "which god?" is irrelevant in this context. Being in absolute denial about God tells of the nature of atheism not being based on logical thinking or the lack of evidence.
Richard Dawkins' words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” It was not very clever from Dawkins to admit that, since atheists expressly consider themselves intellectually oriented. He inadvertently admitted that atheism was never based on intellect or science. Atheists became happy when they finally could refer to something that at least LOOKED scientific, albeit being just the ignorant Darwin's pseudo scientific ideas.
Here we saw Dawkins’ atheistic world view, but no scientific or intellectual approach from him. Based on Dawkins’ statement, atheists were atheists before Darwin and would always be atheists with or without Darwin. For being atheist, no scientific evidence is wanted or needed.
I had a debate with an evolutionist about how life and species came about. I pointed out that if a single cell was indeed a little piece of protoplasm, it may explain what occurred next. That is, simple life becoming more complex over millions of years. However, electron microscopes have demonstrated that a ‘simple’ single-cell life from is far from simple! It is more complex than any machine that humans have ever created! It has been estimated that, all things considered, life occurring spontaneously anywhere in the universe is 1:10^120000 To put that number in perspective, there is a mathematical axiom that states the threshold between improbable and impossible is 1:10^50 To put that into even more perspective the universe is supposed to be around 14 billion years old which is around 44x10^16 seconds! Then the evolutionist admitted that the creation of the first cell was probably impossible (a fine example of an oxymoron if ever I heard one!) Then went on about Panspermia, to which I replied “Beings on planet A, seeded planet B, who seeded planet C, who seeded planet D and so on, so who or what seeded planet A?” No answer to that. However, he said that regardless of the impossibility of life spontaneously coming into being, evolution still holds true! I then said “Think about mathematics. We have 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 from those numbers we have addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, calculus, trigonometry, Pythagoras theorem etc etc”: To which he agreed. So I said “What would happen to mathematics if it was shown that the number ‘1’ didn’t exist?” And he said “There would be no mathematics. The whole thing would fall to pieces!” The silence was palpable as I left him to ponder that one!
The fact is we don't know how life originated. And because we don't know, we can't put a number on it, we can't give it a probability. That is incorrect reasoning about the issue.
@@hongotedesco8931 Spoken like a true evolutionist!
@@paulsimmonds2030 Not really, it has nothing to do with Evolution. It's about reasoning correctly about an issue.
talking about odds? kindly show the calculations that prove your god did it.
Ultimate Proof of Creation - by Dr. Jason Lisle.
When did the "ABSOLUTE DISMANTLING" happen? I didn't hear a single piece of evidence against it.
@@willpower6720 I'd love to hear more about how it was disproven. Links?
@@willpower6720 that's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. You do realize that "you shall not bear false witness" is one of the ten commandments, right? Right?
I think I'm correct in stating this Genesis bible text.... 'Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature'. Your g thing and its doctrine needs to bring much much more to this discourse in its thinking and the creation of a species from dust - its a tough ask for many Ms of us to comprehend the dust/rib thing to bring us where we are today.
Creates the whole universe out of nothing but needs a rib to make a woman 😂😂😂
You do understand the Bible is not a science textbook, it is not a history textbook, it is a theological textbook
They've been told.
@stevewintermute195
Do you want to say that the Bible has nothing to do with reality, with the way it is written in Genesis that the Earth, the grass, the trees, the Sun, the stars, etc. appeared? So it's just a story?!
@@ancataut7891
In a religious sense, Genesis is neither true not false. It is mythological and therefore instructive. It just isn't science. It is only when people insist that it HAD to actually happen exactly trhat way word for, that they can be fact checked. We have fossils of when grass and trees appeared.
@@jockyoung4491
And these fossils you have, is 6.000 years old and are they older than the Sun and the stars?!
This is exactly what I said, that what is written in Genesis never happened in that timeline in reality. More directly, genesis reflects how its human authors imagined/believed that the Earth, the Sun, the stars, and the Moon would have appeared. And so on The authors then claimed that the gods had "dictated" the text, there is nothing more complicated than that. It's like primary school. The rest is pure manipulation.
@@jockyoung4491 Bible is not meant to be a naturalistic textbook, still it is more reliably scientific than any Darwinian theory.
Like the fact that the universe contains no empty space but is kind of "fabric" that affects the speed of light.
Also the fact that there is no evolution, just devolution as all living matter advance towards extinction.
Also that universe had a start and meets its end in the heat death.
Also that mankind is about 6000 years old as show the latest studies in genetics.
Also the DNA which shows God's handwriting as it's impossible to appear in any unguided process.
Also that creation is made of particles that are indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century science discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
And so on ...
Lots of events on for children for Darwin’s day this weekend In Shrewsbury.
Even at the local church.
Hey creationist, If evolution is false and creationism is true, answer both these questions with evidence backing up your claims, and i’ll give you $1,000
1. Provide a single example of a falsifiable prediction made by evolutionary theory that has proven it false.
2. Provide one FALSIFIABLE prediction made by creationism that has not already been proven false
@@HangrySaturn
I’ve just woke up and read this.
Imagine waking up a creationist?
Be like having a lobotomy.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v Hey, those are really nice questions, but i have one for you...
WHERE'S THE LAMB SAAAAAUUUUUCE!?!?!?!
Haha he didn’t understand the irony
That's excellent news. Shows that the vast majority of Christians are sane and accept the overwhelming evidence for the MES.
Do I even need to watch this?
All that’s going to happen is:
1. Assert the bible is true
2. Assume evolution is false.
The end.
The appeal to Authority is very powerful, especially when you think that authority can give you immortality. No reasoned argument can compete with that.
@@jockyoung4491 very true.
You're a prophet 😂
@@jockyoung4491 Yup, manipulation 101.
Take humans greatest fear, death. Promise an escape from it, wam bam, all the dumbest and most gullible will fall at your feet.
Some things I've never understood about the Bible - how is it that God knows everything, and also punishes Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit? If he so wanted us to stay with him in Eden, and also knows everything, why didn't he know that they would eat the fruit and so just put the tree someplace where they couldn't get to it? Seems like he knew they'd mess up - out of ignorance and not malice - and so let them do it, but then got super mad when they did. That doesn't feel right or just.
Why couldn't he have forgiven them? They were little baby people who didn't even know they were naked. They may have had adult form, but they hadn't lived adult lives. They just got there. They can't have known what the consequences would be for disobeying God because there had never been disobedience or consequences in all of human history...which at that point was, what, a day and a half? Is it fair that the first consequence ever given was the death penalty for not only the people who did the bad thing, but all of their offspring forever? That's not even a little heavy-handed?
Why did God need all the animals on the ark? Couldn't he have just re-created them all? It was apparently easy enough the first time - why couldn't he repeat it?
Anyway, no. Ken Ham did not dismantle evolution. Saying, "A thing can't be true because I don't want it to be and also I don't understand it" does not dismantle that thing.
He dismantles any evidence of his intelligence.
This video is really weird. And I don't really mean this in a good way.
You start off the video declaring that you want to teach people to think logically. I wholeheartedly agree with this and wish more people thought in a logical manner. However, you tack on the qualifier "as a Christian" which makes absolutely no sense to me. The idea of logic is agnostic to beliefs. It's agnostic to just about everything. Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, gay, a drug dealer, or a subway hobo, logic should operate the same. I assume you're trying to say "think in a way that logically supports your Christianity" which is inherently applying bias. So, already not off to a good start.
You then continue the video by making an argument about origins. As someone who's been around a fair amount of apologists, I can already see this is going towards the "evolution doesn't explain the origin of life" route which is concerning. Ken, evolution is the theory of the diversity of life, not the origin of life. If you want a theory for the origin of life, you don't look at the theory of gravity and declare it false. You're making the classic mistake that a lot of other people make. I'm not even sure how you can make this mistake and claim to have been a teacher. Or educated, for that matter.
Speaking of logic, you immediately rush in to quoting scripture. Your language during this segment is really odd because you keep using a particular word: "claim". You have a God that "claims" to know everything. You have a book that "claims" to be the word of God. I can accept these as claims but... those have to be proven, Ken. I will grant you that you do have a book that claims to know everything and that it does claim to be the word of God. Now, you have to prove that claim. I know you won't and I know you can't but the language you use betrays your intent.
After this, you go off to explain the basic beats of cosmology in a rather sarcastic manner. The crowd laughs and you say "you know they weren't there". What is this proving? That humans have a, relatively, short and finite lifespan? This is rather obvious. Is your point that we can't know anything to be true unless we've seen it with our own eyes? By this logic, which is hilarious, you can't possibly know that Adam and Eve existed, the entire planet was flooded, God sent plagues to Egypt, Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins, or anything else claimed in the bible. After all, "you know you weren't there" so you're just trusting that the book that makes all these claims is true. You don't know. You see why this is a bad argument?
Likewise, of course no one was there for the formation of Earth. However, things that happen typically leave evidence of the event. Earlier, you mentioned a Sherlock Holmes movie you were watching. Was Sherlock there to witness the murder and every detail of it? No, however, he was able to piece together the events of the murder, and who carried it out, by the evidence that was left behind as a result of the actions being carried out. To put this in simpler terms: If I smack the hood of your car and leave a hand imprint in it, regardless of whether you were there to see it or not, you can logically conclude that someone smacked the hood of your car by the evidence that was left behind. This isn't a novel concept.
Five minutes into the video and, ironically, five paragraphs later, you make the claim that "no one can explain how [life forming] happened". I'm not sure if you think everyone watching you is a complete fucking idiot but there's this term that's commonly thrown around called "abiogenesis". Abiogenesis is, as far as I'm aware, the leading theory on the origin of life. You see how we have two separate terms and theories for the origin and diversity of life? This was one of my earlier points but I don't know why you're effectively going to a coffee shop to order a Big Mac. You're looking in the wrong place for what you want but instead of having a shred of self awareness and realizing you were wrong, you blame the coffee shop for not selling a Big Mac. Regardless of that mild tangent, abiogenesis is, as far as science has been able to explain it, explained. Your inability to understand, or find, the information is not a science problem. It's a *you* problem.
We're not even at the six minute mark but you mentioned Darwin and made the statement "dogs change - they change into dogs". Honestly, yea - you're right. However, have you noticed that there are... different kinds of dogs? In the slides you showed, you showed about a handful different kinds of dogs. This shows that the theory of evolution is right. I have a Shihtzu sleeping behind me. You know God didn't create Shihtzus 6000 years ago, right? They have no ability to survive in the wild by themselves because they were specifically bred to be companion dogs. We artificially selected them out of other breeds of dogs. This shows that life is diverse and can change.
Additionally, you seem to have no sense of scale. Shihtzus in the current form aren't an exact 1:1 replica of what they were when they were originally bred. While we still regard this specific breed as Shithzu, they've *changed* over time. Show my dog to an ancient daimyo or shogun and they wouldn't know what the hell they were looking at. Likewise, fast forward a few thousand years into the future and what will they look like then?
We're only six minutes into the video and you've already shown yourself to be willfully ignorant, deceptive, not understanding the topic you're talking about, and purposely misrepresenting the opposition. Honestly, I haven't watched a Ken Ham video specifically from Ken Ham before now but I can easily conclude that the things people say about you are correct. You were a teacher? I genuinely hope you got fired and your qualifications revoked. You're not teaching our accumulated understanding of what our species has learned - you're actively trying to discredit it with shit you can't even prove.
good. Points. throw genesis 49.10 in his place and ask if this prophesy is a true prophesy. If Judah is not ruling the world since that prophecy was made then his religion and 2 others are collapsed. when I hit rabbis with this one they explode and start calling me names
About dogs' evolution, they have been artificially bred by men to develop certain characteristics. Your argument is faulty.
@@lva9821
My argument about the diversity of life is faulty because of our observed instances of life diversifying? Well look at that.