Ken Ham almost understands evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0pDUTmPKPI

I hate evolution theory. It's really a debate of philosophy.

Is it all just anarchy, or is some higher power in play?
Is the real question behind the Creationism vs Evolution (which isn't a debate because admittedly creationists CANNOT provide solid evidence, whilst they CAN point out that they CANNOT be disproven) "debate".

I think it's healthy to believe God put evolution into play. It's the only realistic solution to the debate.

how can you hate a theory that explains beyond reasonable doubt the incredible diversity of life?

debate of philosophy??? I agree that there is no debate, on one side you have science, on the other you have faith.

Is it all just anarchy, or is some higher power in play?

Evolution is anything BUT anarchy, although there is random component to it, the way species have evolved is the opposite of random. However, Evolution still allows the "possibility" of a higher power in play (since we still don't know everything about life and our universe, every "gap of knowledge" allows for a higher power to be in play, at least until we know more about it)

whilst they CAN point out that they CANNOT be disproven

are you kidding me? everything creation related in the Bible CAN be and HAS been disproven (in fact, the Theory of Evolution disprove the bible creation)

I think it's healthy to believe God put evolution into play. It's the only realistic solution to the debate.

I can't say i agree on the "healthy" part, but if a christian wants to stay a christian and accept the scientific facts, he has to find a way to reconcile evolution with god. So i guess believing that god designed this amazing system allowing evolution of species is one way to put it (and what i think mainstream christianity chose to believe)

edit:
if you want to watch creationnism being debunked, you can watch the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate (2h) on:

Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Edited 4/18/2015 00:14:05

In the past I often have thought I got things right because I won each and every "argument". Then I had to realize the hard way that the only reason I never got disproven was that I was only talking to people who agreed with my viewpoint. The real reason I had won so many arguments was also that I wasn't truly arguing against the arguments of my opponents but I was arguing against strawmans. Usually arguing against strawmans is considered polemics but I guess nobody ever finds it necessary to really find out what their opponents have to say. Well, this is the internet where everyone is an expert on everything and only the stupid other guys have to learn stuff and get their facts straight.


Here is a quite well made debate between an unbeliever and a Christian to help you also see both parts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekse95-owyo

Norman, if you just read my last post, you will see that i posted the very same link!! a 2 hour debate that i did wach in full. In fact the onther link i gave "Ken Ham almost understand evolution" is also an extract from this debate.You really can't say to me that i don't hear both side of the "argument".

and you say "unbeliever vs christian", wich is absolutely wrong. it is an argument between a guy explaining what science says versus a creationist (you can be a christian and against creationism, in fact most christians are)

edit: Did you watch the full debate? and if so, do yu still think creationism is a viable model in today's modern,scientific era?

Edited 4/18/2015 01:29:12

If evolution is real why can't my Phone evolve into a tablet?

my favourite part of the "debate" is the last question:

"What, if anything, would ever change your mind?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8Babr_n4w

Evolution is real, just observe the different races of human. Humans evolved from the tropical regions of Africa because humans in these regions are of the most primitive, animalistic type. Contrast them with Nordic Europeans who possess greater intelligence and more ideal physical features and are responsible for designing the machinery that makes today's civilization so advanced.

i just reported you, i encourage everyone to do the same

Evolution is real, just observe the different races of human. Humans evolved from the tropical regions of Africa because humans in these regions are of the most primitive, animalistic type. Contrast them with Nordic Europeans who possess greater intelligence and more ideal physical features and are responsible for designing the machinery that makes today's civilization so advanced.

Social Darwinism at it's finest. The twisted extremist form of evolution supporters.

Social Darwinism at it's finest. The twisted extremist form of evolution supporters

Social Darwinism is an ideology, and a horrible one. it has nothing to do with science or "evolution supporters". Evolution explains how we got here, not how we should behave. In fact most evolutionary biologist (Richard Dawkins said it time and again) are against "survival of the fittest" as a social model.

Edited 4/18/2015 01:43:28

If evolution exists (it does) then man is inevitably going to evolve into different forms suitable for different regions. Some regions promote healthier evolutionary processes. Those who escaped the African and Asian jungles were treated with the highly ideal climate of Northern Europe, where they could challenge themselves with farming and metallurgy, far away from disease and the primitive humans who weren't intelligent to leave the tropics. These humans compiled ancient information with their own findings to create ideal machines (the industrial revolution).

This so called "Social Darwinism" is a natural conclusion of anyone studying evolution that isn't too naive enough to believe in "equality" "anti-racism" and other bullshit liberal ideas. Political correctness is an enemy of science.

Edited 4/18/2015 01:52:49

Nobody actually disproved my claim? I thought a Rubix Cube "proving" evolution was flawed somehow.

Did you watch the full debate? and if so, do yu still think creationism is a viable model in today's modern,scientific era?

I kind of watched the full debate, maybe skipped a couple minutes at the start where the guys presented their stuff freely. Apart from that I saw nothing unexpected in the video, just two well trained speekers presenting their stuff (while the creation guy was better prepared imo). Before I watched the video I believed that evolution was rubbish and afterwards I believed the same. Since I'm not interested in biological or physical stuff I didn't find the arguments that interesting, just noticed that one guy said stuff and then the other guy tried to falsify / relativate it and then vice versa.

and you say "unbeliever vs christian", wich is absolutely wrong. it is an argument between a guy explaining what science says versus a creationist (you can be a christian and against creationism, in fact most christians are)

This Ken Ham guy agreed with you there in the video that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution since this point isn't part of the gospel. Apart from that I listened more closely when this science guy tried to attack his opponent on a biblical basis, I believe he said stuff like "You are taking the creation report literally but not point xyz from the mosaic law, so you kind of decide randomly what you want to take literally". The problem is that as always when confessing non Christians argue about the bible stuff really doesen't get very complicated. Since Ken Ham probably follows a dispensational understanding of the bible he should have no problems with arguments like that. But back to your point, I said it was a debate between an unbeliever and a Christian simply because this science guy confessed to not be a Christian and because this Ken Ham guy is a Christian. In fact I do agree with Ken Ham on the point that you can believe in evolution and be a Christian believer, however this is a abomination.

Before I watched the video I believed that evolution was rubbish and afterwards I believed the same

can you name ONE thing, just one thing that you think is rubbish in what Bill Nye said? And can you tell me why you think it is rubbish without using god or the bible as an argument?

Since I'm not interested in biological or physical stuff I didn't find the arguments that interesting

I think this says it all. Biology and physics are the key to explain the universe, but you prefer to close your eyes to it and confort you in your religious beliefs.
At the end of the day, you just chose to block scientific knowledge out of you psyche, and denie everything that isn't the bible story, without critical thinking.
I really don't understand how you can hear all those evidences against the bible myths and still blindly believe in it while being honest with yourself. Even christians thinks it is crazy. Even Pat Robertson think its crazy!

How do you explain people living 900 years in the Bible?
How do you explain that we recieve light coming from stars farther away than 10000 light years when the universe is less than 10000 years old?
How do you explain why kangaroos only live in australia, and that no kangaroo fossil have ever been found anywhere else. (remember, noah's ark landed somewhere in the middle east)
I could go on and on, you get my point.

The thing is, you can't explain it because it is bullshit. You shit on 2000 years of accumulated knowledge, in the name of blind faith. The only argument against evolution is "because god said it"

You have a simple and convenient model to explain things. Wich of course doesn't really exlain anything in a scientific way but it is a nice fictional model that everyone can understand and that fits the religious doctrine.
I don't have a problem with that as long as these crazy beliefs aren't taught to children.

edit: the only thing i agree with is that Ken Ham was better prepared for this debate, since Ken Ham is used to public debate whereas this is not Bill Nye's area of predilection.

Edited 4/18/2015 03:15:03

Kem Ham and his "historical science vs observational science"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LW06dav7KA

^Yeah bill nye isn't really a debate guy. Just a TED talk guy.

Your kangaroo argument is explained by science : tectonic activity and ice age activity.

You have to consist that we didn't use the gregorian calendar in those times. Not to mention, there's always things lost in translation.

Well, i don't think we know the Centre point of the universe yet, and it's possible that we are near the Centre. Unless I'm mistaken? So that explains that we can receive lights from distant stars. I'm also not sure if God made universe first or earth, but that's another thing.

2000 years of knowledge? Wrong. A century or 2 of knowledge. 1800 years of theories.

Note : You have "blind faith" in evolution". It's correct "because scientists said it".
Would you look at the parallels?

I have an issue with evolution being taught to children when we should never discuss the matter beyond Natural Selection ( natural selection is a thing i believe in very much, since it has been proven very well). If we start teaching children this dogma, you're asking for an ideological slump of single minded drones.

Evolution is a nice fictional model that is simple and convenient that fits right in with atheist doctrine.

Now, is there evidence for Evolution? Yes. Should it even be considered in a world where we have bigger problems? No. Want medicine? Save rainforest. Want to understand where we come from? Try a hospital. The problem with this whole debate is that it is useless. Nobody's mind is changed. Nasty words are thrown and both sides are on a different page. It's also more of a religious debate than about where we cover from. Let's have a debate with a Christian evolutionist and atheist creationist.

This entire thread is de facto useless. "Proof of Evolution ".

I'll tell you what we're all going to evolve into. Splats on the road.

If evolution is real why can't my Phone evolve into a tablet?

Phones and tables aren't living. Nothing that's living can evolve, only created and upgraded.

Do you really think what I said was anything more than a joke?

Your kangaroo argument is explained by science : tectonic activity and ice age activity.

Please, don't just throw something like that in my face. Explain to me exactly how tectonic activity and ice age explains that there is a lot of species (kangaroo is one example) that can only be found in a specific area. According to the bible, all animals landed with noah's ark on a mountain in the middle east. Did the kangaroo made a big jump from the middle east to australia?

You have to consist that we didn't use the gregorian calendar in those times. Not to mention, there's always things lost in translation.

i don't see your point

Well, i don't think we know the Centre point of the universe yet, and it's possible that we are near the Centre. Unless I'm mistaken? So that explains that we can receive lights from distant stars. I'm also not sure if God made universe first or earth, but that's another thing.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" there is no mention of the universe since at the time he bible was written, we didn't understand a lot about it. You can only assume that "the heavens" means the universe.

There is no center of the universe as far as science goes. The thing is, we receive light from stars (the very fact that we see the stars means their light reaches our eyes). We receive light from stars located so far away from earth that the light would have had to travel during a lot more than 10000 years to reach us.

2000 years of knowledge? Wrong. A century or 2 of knowledge. 1800 years of theories.

I don't understand what you mean. care to explain?

Note : You have "blind faith" in evolution". It's correct "because scientists said it".
Would you look at the parallels?

no it's not "because scientists said it". The evidences are overwhelming. Just look it up for yourself, we live in a technological era where knowledge is made accessible very easily. And the scientists job is to follow the evidences wherever it leads. In science, every evidence if verifiable and in fact verified, tested. Please watch one or two videos about the evidences for evolution(links in first page).

I have an issue with evolution being taught to children when we should never discuss the matter beyond Natural Selection ( natural selection is a thing i believe in very much, since it has been proven very well). If we start teaching children this dogma, you're asking for an ideological slump of single minded drones.

Natural selection is the biggest part of evolution. The rest are random mutations and genetic drift, wich can be observed in a lab. Natural Selection is the only thing in the theory of evolution that is difficult to observe due to the wide timeframe it operates. (but if can be observed on some levels nonetheless).

Evolution is a nice fictional model that is simple and convenient that fits right in with atheist doctrine.

simple and convenient?? really? you really don't know much about it do you?
atheist doctrine? what is that? please give your sources.

Now, is there evidence for Evolution? Yes. Should it even be considered in a world where we have bigger problems? No.

lol?

The problem with this whole debate is that it is useless.

I agree, since there is no debate. there is just evidence on the on side, and denial on the other side. This is really one of many disagreement of science vs religion (and historically, science is right everytime)

This entire thread is de facto useless. "Proof of Evolution ".

I also agree, "proof" is a bad choice for a word. "evidence beyond reasonnable doubt" is the scientific term for any scientific theory. Apparently tho, it is not useless, since a lot of people still don't have a clue about what science says.

edit: i'll stop this useless argument now. If you want to educate yourself about evolution, and then post here the specific doubts you have about it with an educated opinion. I'll be happy to answer

Edited 4/18/2015 11:12:23