A YouTube Debate (Christian vs many atheists)

[mojo487]

If anyone is interested in reading a semi-lengthy debate on creationism vs. evolution in a YouTube comment section, feel free to check it out. It's me debating a few atheists on an encounter between Bill Nye and Ken Ham.

Share your thoughts! (My comment should be the latest one on the video)

side note: I originally posted this in Christian Ethics, but I think this section of the forum is more appropriate. If mods feel it necessary, I don't mind if the other thread is removed.

 

[Living Soul]

Ugh. Sounds like an awful night in my humble opinion.

I remember watching the video of Bill Nye touring the Ark Encounter and how smarmy and smug he was about everything. (All the while, his lacky Amon Ra tripping over himself in the background) I can't imagine being miserable enough in my own life to be able to walk into someone's establishment and criticize everything inside. Not to mention the cringe-worthy parts of Nye awkwardly speaking to kids and calling them "beautiful little animals."

 

[mojo487]

It's only awful when they decide to mock or make fun of others for their beliefs. But I rather enjoy talking to these atheists, because I once questioned my faith as well. I can usually pick apart their points and arguments fairly easily, like in this Youtube debate.

 

[NobleMouse]

Thanks for sharing this video! I've watched this video before and found it interesting (as well as the debate between Nye and Ham at the Creation museum)! Of particular note on this video for those interested on the topic of evolution/natural processes, watch again from about 2:50 to 3:05 - Ham will ask Nye how he (Nye and by inference, the secular scientific community at large) can prove that life arose by natural processes. Nye responds: "We (secular scientific community) haven't proven it." This shows that evolution is a presupposed idea.

The idea of evolution was not formed by naive, ignorant people and the men and women within secular science are incredibly intelligent. From Jean-Baptiste Lamarck to Charles Darwin, the idea was conceived on the observation of genetic variation within species - not an illogical hypothesis. If I had to guess, I believe these men applied a type of "uniformitarian" mindset to extend what was observed as a variation within a fixed species in the present (ex. finches of the Galapagos islands) to infer by extension that these small changes could accumulate over very large spans of time (in the past) to explain all forms of life today - key here: this extension/inference has never been observed, and is absolutely needed to support the idea of evolution.

A conclusion (such as evolution) without observation (seeing life gradually changing from one kind/species to another), is as Ham put it "a belief" - a presupposed idea, but is one that is unsupported. Alternatively, if we want to understand how life came into being, one might logically turn to the giver of life and see what they have to say on the topic. God tells us each was created according to it's kind and that is exactly what we see, period. When fossils that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old are found, we see things (as examples) like sharks that look like... sharks, we see birds that look like... birds, amazingly these created kinds never changed to a new species. We do not share common traits with other forms of life because we evolved from that other life form, we have common traits because we have a common creator.

In Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[compassion 4 humanity]

In my opinion, it’s best not to debate atheists. Every time, they will insist you prove God with evidence or scientific method. They don’t see any merit in theological arguments. Nothing gets through to them.

In reality, atheists are in love with their sins and don’t wish to repent and know God. They deny our heavenly father’s existence not because they are skeptical, but because they prefer sin instead of the way, the truth, and the life.