/sci/ - Science & Math

COME ALL COME ONE, COME ON ME~

Bill will always be a winner to me

I can make up whatever I want and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me.

BILLS'S TURN IT'S ON

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/v/t34/1743376_1455061734709244_1965215145_n.jpg?oh=6ce8ebed3fd0907009538c058c0c9ddf&oe=52F38B19

I feel that Ken Ham is a far better speaker, but he has his facts and scientific definitions wrong.

Bill Nye master race, doesn't seem to have the same kind of luster in his speaking skills though, unlike his show.

Come on Bill. You are killing him. You don't have to be coy.

how much have i missed so f ar

BILL NYE CONFIRMED SEAHAWKS FAN

>>6332399
You missed a lot of Ken Ham saying stupid things

>>6332399
1:15:02

>>6332399
Ken Ham said that since you can't observe the past directly, evolution is based on faith and it's false because scientists are evil satanists

Bill Nye is using evidence like sedimentary layers and ice cores

>>6332423
He mostly got evolution right, except when he went all /x/ with God.

>>6332449
There is a bit of faith in evolution. Especially in historical science because "hurr durr we weren't there."

Science can't prove right, only prove what is wrong.

>>6332486
Terrible bait, gave me a huckle though.

>ITT: bill nye explains evolution to 5 year old

>>6332528
Not even bait brah.

>what is the scientific process
>what is a theory
>implying theory can never be wrong
>implying science doesn't change

>>6332486
Faith is quite different from conditional acceptance. Faith would require taking evolution as true irregardless of evidence. Conditional acceptance takes evolution as the best working model currently available which provides accurate predictions while simultaneously explaining a large body of other evidence.

Here he comes for the win to explain carbon dating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uMBbkSMppM

>>6332619
>irregardless

Holy shit Bill looks like he's about to murder Ken

>>6331868
>beard with no mustache

>tfw Deist

>>6332457

He never mentioned thermodynamics in the cell. He reckons that all the information required for the emergence of new traits already exists in the genome of each animal. The traits just switch on and off as required. But this negates the effect the random thermal motion in the cell which underpins the mistakes made in transcription. This would alter those original genomic template of 'creation zoo.'

But talking about dinos, missing links, lakes, floods and the eye is more appealing to people who are easily satisfied with the appearance of things

>maybe the rock slid on top

CHECKMATE

>>6332619
>irregardless
lel

That's why I said A BIT of faith.
I know that evolution is the best working model of how the abundant amount of species came to be about. Biofag.
The reason why I said there was a bit of faith is because it is the best thing we have and the 0.0000...1% of it being wrong. It's not 100%, there is still the possibility of it being wrong.

That is why historical science has a bit of faith. First because if there is some fault in evolution/natural selection, then everything we understand falls apart.
Also, there are alternative hypotheses of what happened in the past. We have to basically guess what happened in the past based on the differing evidences.
Ex. Do we believe that the dinosaurs died of disease, volcano, or asteroid?

>>6332877
lol

why are we watching this, what do we gain?

Q & A TIME

>>6333054
Circlejerking usually ends in an orgasm, which I hear is pleasurable.

Ken is losing hard.

>that fucking face

Ken Ham makes God sound like a tryhard.

Someone please make something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVoc-pCUcpk
with 1:34:38

#rekt etc pls

>>6333117
1:41:39

>>6333054

This is just two "experts" preaching to two separate and mutually exclusive choirs that have no interest in listening to the other side.

We circlejerk and leave go home covered in bill nye's cum, the christians go home and masturbate with a crucifix dildo, the world keeps spinning.

I'm from Kentucky

the creation museum is a fucking embarrassment

we're so sorry ;_;

>>6333152
Pretty much this, tho I am still holding out that Nye will carbon date Ham's corpse in his closing statement.

>>6333155

Used to date a girl from Maysville. When she told me about this I couldn't hold back my laughter.

>>6333155
lol its ok, every family has one.

>>6333155
Restore honor to your state. Win a Nobel prize.

Bill Nye can't scientifically explain where the big bang came from, the christians say that God did it.

This is the paradox of debating science vs. creationism and the reason there will never be any ground given one way or the other.

This is really just a waste of time. They can talk until they're blue in the face, but that's where they'll inevitably end up. Thus it has always been and will always be.

>>6333193
I've seen billboards for the "Dragon Exhibit" at the creation museum and almost spat my tea out

Aren't religious people the majority?

>>6333222
DOUBLE TRIPS

>>6333218
trying, i'm interning at a private spaceflight company in mojave doing rocket design

>>6333222
sweg

>>6333219
>there will never be any ground given one way or the other
Religion CONSTANTLY yields ground to science, forcing itself to move the goalposts in order to even continue existing.

I thought they still don't know for sure what the appendix is for

Anyone else getting errors from youtube?

> consciousness
lmfao

>>6333262
watch on CNN website

>not the majority
>here are all these creationist phds

>>6333155
Pike county here, we are pitiful. We have a saying here "All we know is minin' coal, an chewin' skoal."
It will take a long time for us to redeem ourselves.

>there are "a number" of creationist scientists

That number is small

>>6333262
Livestreaming to 500,000 people is probably tough on the servers

>actually, there IS a book
GOD SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT
>What's the point if you die?
IF GOD ISN'T REAL, I WOULD BE SAD. GOD IS REAL!
>What would change your mind?
NUFFING. I MET JEEZIS.

>>6333281
Thanks.

>I can't prove it to you but...

Yeah, you lost.

If you, as a christian, have not considered some scenario that could conceivably shake your faith, you are a simple-minded fool who has no concept of critical thinking.

Many people who don't believe in God don't believe in God simply because there's no evidence. I can think of all kinds of scenarios that could prove the existence of God, even subtlely.

This debate: Bill Nye: observable facts, Ken Ham: GOD DID IT

>>6333432

If that isn't what you expected, you're an idiot. There's a reason it's pointless to even debate this thing. It's because it ALWAYS ends up that way.

Science argument: Observable facts, no answer for spiritual/philosophical questions

Christian argument: Your facts are irrelevant, I have faith in the bible, and also I have answers to the philosophical questions that you cannot answer.

>I have no idea how to answer this question about geology. Historical Science hurr durr.

instasynch.com/rooms/v4c

better room

more people (Autists)

get in here

Ken Ham is ripping Bill to shreds. You all need to stop sucking Bill's tiny un-observable schlong.

Wow, I only heard about Bill Nye from hearsay from Americans, but he really knows his stuff.

>>6333582
Go back to /pol/

lol "I don't believe in Pangea"

wellyouseethere'sthisBOOK

This is hardly a debate. Nye is reking the floor.

WE 2nd LAW NOW

Please tell me that somebody got Bill's face after Ken said that energy and matter don't produce life.

>You can never prove the age of the earth
>Earth is 4000 years old

Does this guy even know what his argument is?

>>6333640
>what is video scrubbing

Fuckin' scrub.

>>6333640
that was great

>>6333582
g8 b8 m8 i'd r8 8/8

this guys psuedoscientific bullshit isn't even consistent with the bible.

>>6333598
courtesy of /pol/ btw...

>>6333676
He said that you shouldn't argue based on assumptions earlier.

>"You can't prove scientifically the age of the universe" - The person who believes the earth is 6000 years old.

WHAT IS LITERALLY?

>I have to know what they mean by "literally".

Man. MAN! Fuck this guy.

>It depends on what you mean by "literally"

CAN'T SHILL THE BILL

>>6333790
Can you define your terms?

What is this word "fuck," you talk about, mean?

>I take the bible naturally
>what i like is literal
>what i dont like is poetry

>thinking certain parts of the bible are poetry is "picking what you like out of the text"

whats all this talk about the observable universe supporting your theories, you cant apply that to the bible?

>>6333817
fuck
fək/
vulgar slang

exclamation: fuck

1.
used alone or as a noun the fuck or a verb in various phrases to express anger, annoyance, contempt, impatience, or surprise, or simply for emphasis.

Origin

>>6333826
there's like legit poems in the bible tho
psalms, proverbs, and so on

>>6333907
This. Ham is a pretty poor arguer. Kind of disappointing

>>6333907
I think Genesis is all poetry.

>>6333895
It sounds like you're just taking the parts you like about the word and ignoring the other meanings.

Bill and is dumb jokes, gotta love him

>MY OLD BOSS

>HEH HEH HEH

Oh bill

>>6333936
Within the context of the bible, you're wrong. Many places in the bible explain genesis as a creation story, as history.

Unless you think the whole bible is just one big poem, i guess its a really descriptive one that records history though

>>6333937
Oh yes, please bring up how people are accepting "literally" to mean "figuratively". Good job, you sure proved me wrong.

>>6333915
he touches on stuff that is science and then he goes back to da Bible
> macroevolution vs microevolution
> abiogenesis
> inconsistencies of earth date measurements throughout history
> big bang

>There is a book

PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP

THE ORIGIN OF
THE ORIGIN OF
THE ORIGIN OF
THE ORIGIN OF

>>6333155

I'm from VA. I'm sorry for Liberty. I feel for you.

>muh appeal to authority

>THE ORIGIN OF
>THE ORIGIN OF
>THE ORIGIN OF
>THE ORIGIN OF

>>6333972
I think the entire bible was beautiful poetry in it's original languages. Also it was never suppose to be used as anything other art.

>>6334040

At least we have UVA, VT, and W&M.

>>6334107
>Not acknowledging it's use as a tool of political control.

it was good, lots of laughs, debate is over, we're still playing science related videos though.

Why would I buy the DVD from the Creation Museum when I should be able to attain a free secular copy from livedebate.org?

Goddamit, I teared up when he mentioned Sagan. He would have been fucking proud. Thanks for fighting the good fight, Bill.

Anyone have a download link? I just got out of class.

>>6334175
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

Ya did good Bill, ya did good.

>>6334107
actually it was supposed to be used as law

>>6334107
>never supposed to be used for anything other than art
>parts of the bible clearly give civic laws for the jews to follow
>Jesus telling people what is wrong and what is right in the cotext of the bible
>its just poetry man, just a pretty story brah

you're dumb.

BILL! BILL! BILL!

How can people even argue that the Earth is 6000 years old or 10,000 years old or whatever?

I mean honestly, all you have to do is show them a map of the grand canyon and any argument they make would be instantly demolished.

>>6334107
>it was never suppose to be used as anything other art.

This is the type of bullshit people only started spewing after the advent of scientific discovery.

>>6334213
i was joking. It was laws and myths of a 3000 year old desert tribe. If i was going to pick an ancient god to follow I would think I would pick Odin. Much more of a bad ass.

>all the fedorahbeards in this thread

Ken Ham won. It wasn't even close

*tips fedorah*

>>6334192
A classic. Sagan's the one man that really inspired me. My wife asked me why I was crying. She cries during sad parts of movies. I cry for science.

>>6334232
I broke my poker face when he said you can't prove the age of the Earth.

>>6334232
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25881953

its still about 6 million years according to what new evidence suggests, which fits into the perview of some "young earth" creationists.

there's not really a consistant number between all of them

Let me begin by rearranging your words. Literally will now mean naturally. Species now means Kinds. We don't know how to define kinds.My tie is blue, so that I like blue is science.

> ladies and gentleman, Mr. Ham!

Wow, this actually ended very well. Bill actually won.

Look at all this damage control: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Lessons_from_Ham-Nye_Debate

>>6334252
Odin sounds more badass than science, why dont you follow Odin now?

>>6333963
>>6333955
>>6333991
>>6334010
>>6334038
>>6334040
>>6334044
>>6334086
>>6334107
>>6334192
>>6334204
>>6334213
>>6334223
>>6334231
>>6334232
>>6334239

>>6333155
I'm from Texas. We have a creation museum too in glen rose. There's a whole bunch of dinosaur fossils out there. At the creation museum, their biggest showcase was a "human footprint fossilized inside of a brontosaurus footprint" which was supposed to be proof that humans and Dinosaurs were around at the same time. Of course the guy admitted to faking it, but I still run into people who tell me "hey anon, you know out in glen rose they found proof that humans and dinosaurs existed together right?"

>>6334272
I'd agree MOSTLY with Ham, but you're right

Ham is pretty bad at this debate thing

>Watching this in college dorm
>Everyone's face when they mantion Garl Sajando
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfmMfDSFisc&list=UUPsDdWokYPtOQ7OXXcdUTRw

Fuck it, I'm going to go full fedora for a minute. Bill won definitely, but was still a shitty debater. I wish we could have someone against him who took every opportunity that Bill missed to destroy him. I wanted that debate to end in hick tears.

>>6334262
that reading comprehension, or lack thereof

>The latest investigation, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, agrees that some segments are very ancient, but says the full system is young.

>>6334274
He is the most badass of mythical gods. science gives us way more badass shit.

>>6334290
He should have ended it by pointing out the many glaring inconsistencies within the Scripture, proving the bible is not infallibly the word of God.

There are literally DOZENS of verses he could have used.

>>6334291
Hey man, you're the one that made it all about the canyon, i was just pointing out that the canyon itself is young, and you'd need to look at something else

can any one tell me the time of the 'What colour do you like' question?

2:00:00 is not it...

>>6334295
top kek, anon.

>>6334272

Too bad Ham didn't break down and repent but maybe I was being too optimistic

>>6334290
> I wish we could have someone against him who took every opportunity that Bill missed to destroy him.
>tfw Christopher Hitchens is dead

I don't agree with everything the man said, but Goddamn could he debate.

>>6334299
>omg Odin so badass just like my metal song
Atum jizzed out the world you fucking nerd

>>6334302
im not actually the anon who brought up the canyon. I just saw your link and read it out of curiousity. And noticed immediately that it backs up anons argument: you can use the grand canyon to go WAAAAY back in time.

>>6334262
except the canyon is only 1 out of 20-30 mile of the earth's crust. It's no indication of how old the earth actually is, but it definitely is older than that 6000-10000 year bullshit.

>>6334232

It's simple, Ham is trying to disprove the concept of time because God.

>>6334299
you're right, Pulsars are NUTS

>>6331747
Bill disgraces the name of science by lending credence to this idiot by taking the stage and debating him, as if the subject were up for debate

>>6334290
I would agree with this. Bill could have done better by staying on point and giving shorter, more prompt answers. I love Bill and his stories, but when you have two minutes, don't waste it on a corny joke. He's got the answers, he should be busting them out promptly and with great conviction.

I think he could have been much more forceful and been more convincing. He also didn't call Ham on any of his (many, many, many) logical fallacies or intellectual dishonesties, or even on the fact that Ham changed his OWN position ("you can't know that natural laws were the same yesterday and will be the same tomorrow" "science works because God keeps natural laws the same as they were yesterday and will be the same tomorrow") during the debate.

>>6334262
>inb4 20-50 years from now the canyon is recalculated with newer technology and found to be only a couple thousand years old

>>6333117

>>6334310
Yes, Hitchens could pick apart an argument with the best of them. I think Nye was trying to be polite and not get into a religious or philosophical argument, but rather wanted to discuss science and the (for lack of a better phrase) "science of creationism".

>>6334333
oh that last part you mention had me absolutely fucking raging.

thing is tho, everybody watching it saw it, too. and its on the record. thats all bill really needs (tho i agree he should have used way more teeth, but then again its bill nye the nice guy)

>>6334352

I want a drunk Dawkins to debate ham.

There are people in this thread, right now, who don't believe that humans were saddling up on triceratops 6000 years ago.

>>6333222
fer God's sake, WHY

Why can't they just see scientific development as a way to learn about God's creation instead of making horse shit museums

>>6334333
bill wasn't trying to convince any creationists

he was trying to get people excited about science and engineering and show that, for practical reasons, being a fundamentalist christian shouldn't influence an anti-science policy

>>6334359
While that would be funny, it would be awful at the same time.

I personally don't like the way Dawkins presents himself, but I will not say anything about his qualifications to argue biology.

So here are my impressions, I'm curious what other anons thought.

Because Bill was sort of speaking for my side, I went into this debate ready to be pretty critical of Bill and more interested in Ken's arguments. Mostly because understanding Ken's arguments means I can be prepared with a response in the future as most other creationfags will repeat Ham, Hovind, Behe, etc.

Bill did okay.

Both of them could have just fucking avoided the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Ken kept making the argument, "Creationists can be scientists too."

Here's the rebuttal: "Yes, they can. You can also be a doctor and choose not to accept atomic theory. You can be an engineer and choose not to believe the germ theory of disease. This is certainly possible, it doesn't make their ideas about creations any less incongruent with science"

Also, as all of you pointed out, Ken's argument was semantic, "You can't prove historical science"

Bill painfully and finally got around to the rebuttal: "How can you assert that natural laws were different in the past than the present?"

He could have, and should have, rekt the argument sooner. He could have called for better evidence.

He also could have bitch-slapped Ham by pointing out the MULTIPLE times Ken made his entire dichotomy between "historical" and "observational" science contradict themselves.

>>6334365
Religion is a hell of a drug.

>>6334364
I need to get one of those for myself

Anyone got a download link so i can watch this again later? Or should i just drop the 8$ or whatever for a download from their site.

>>6334377
(sorry, forgot to remove trip)

The best example of this being when he posts the research suggesting there was an original "dog ancestor" population (a mitochondrial dog eve, if you will). Bill could have just asked Ken to bring the graph up he used as evidence and pointed to the goddamn y-axis that shows this dog ancestor came around 400,000 years ago.

Honestly, there were a lot of low-hanging fruit bill could have responded to that he didn't in a timely manner.

That being said, bill did better than I thought he would and Ken did worse (he could have gone full hovind and bombarded bill with shitty creationist arguments to throw him off guard).

LEVEL TWO SNOW WARNING

HEEEEREEEE COMES GOD

The fact that Ham's unwillingness to assume consistency of current natural laws with those of the past due to lack of first person observation is equally applicable to his own viewpoint because he wasn't around to verify that the contents of the bible were truthful recordings of actual events, so if he thought things through he wouldn't even be able to believe himself, and is therefore a 'tard.

>>6334386
Don't give any money to that "museum". I'm attempting to download it now, but I'm sure others already have it. I'll post a link to it in this thread once I get it if someone else hasn't already posted a link.

>>6334377
I would agree with everything you said here.

I'd also say that Bill should have pushed harder on the predictive power (or utter lack thereof) of creationism. Ham claimed that Creationism "makes predictions" but they were flimsy and I think Bill should have picked them apart better.

>>6334365
>Why can't they just see scientific development as a way to learn about God's creation instead of making horse shit museums
This is pretty much what most Christians do. I mean, I totally disagree with old Earth creationists but they don't try to re-write the laws of physics according to their personal beliefs.

>>6334394
Thank you very much friend.

>>6334370
this.

Watching it now, it seems like Bill is debating second and being the science guy first.

I can't blame him. You honestly can't argue with Ham, simple because he's just stupid and illogical.

>>6334407
Ham just kept Begging the Question for every single question he was asked. He wasted time covering his reputation, saving face, arguing semantics and ignoring the questions, then just fell back to beg the question for his answers. It's just pathetic.

>>6334399
Guy you are responding to.

I thought Bill did a pretty good job trying to counter-point Ken's "biblical" predictions.

I mean, look at how much time he spent talking about ships to refute the idea of an Ark. I just thought that was crap, to be honest.

Or like when Ken brought up the 'ol "Darwinism leads to racism", my buddy said Hitch would probably have destroyed that by pointing out what the Bible has to say about certain "races" of people, slaves, or genocide.

Nye is a little to respectful to be satisfying to an asshole like me, but hopefully the style will woo the masses.

>>6334390
I already got my car stuck at my mothers after power sliding a sideways a trench in her yard as I tried to get a mustang out of it. It's fucking great anon, just like kentucky.

You weren't There. YOU don't KNOW!

Someone just make an image of Optimus riding Grimlock with the caption "What now, Athetits?"

Bill Nye: "Here is my concern, what keeps the United States ahead. What makes the United States a world leader is our technology, our new ideas our innovations."

Bill Nye: "If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process and try to divide science into observational science and historic science, we are not gonna to move forward, we will not embrace natural laws, we will not make discoveries, we will not uh, invent, innovate or move ahead."

> Let us not further define and organize science to better understand the universe.

TOP LeL?

> Bow tie Story
> Man unable to tie bow tie in positions other than looking down.
> Closed Minded
> Bill Nye wears bow ties religiously

>>6334377

Bill fucked up by not clearly and succinctly debunking every piece of misinformation Ken through out with a sentence or two. It would have been simple and effective to mention that certain fossils only appear in certain layers of strata right after Ken claimed that the flood buried everything together. All he had to say was, "Ken, why is it that we have to dig deep into rock dating back to the jurassic era to find dinosaur fossils, where we find fucking tons of them, but we only ever see mammalian fossils up where the cretaceous layers are, where there are no dinosaurs whatsoever?"

And when Ken was spewing his nonsense about creationism being used to make predictions, he could have used the same example. "Your flood myth predicts that all of these fossils should be buried together in the same strata. We need the opposite. Your model fails."

>>6334407
I agree, I think he had a good approach. Be positive about science, show that it's not a game designed to attack God.

While I agree with scientists like Dawkins, I think he's a bad communicator and comes across and condescending. Nye did a good job of presenting evidence rather than just attacking the opposite viewpoint. So, a worse debater but a better communicator.

>>6334435
Wee see* the opposite, not we need the opposite.

>>6334429
The point of the bowtie story was to illustrate how something he was told as a child was probably made up but that doesn't mean he should just discard the story.

>>6334440
I think this just speaks to the way Nye is. He's not about arguments. He's about education and you can tell.

I mean the *angriest* he got was when he said, "I'm completely unsatisfied with your argument".

>>6334445
Yeah, it depends what you wanted out of the debate I guess. If you wanted to have someone totally rip into Ham from the get-g then no doubt you'd be dissapointed. I thought it was interesting.

>>6334443
Actually, it's probably true but I get your point.

My Granddad owned a funeral home. My dad told me that my Granddad would do the same for him when he was younger and needed his tie tied.

Problem with creation vs evolution debates is 99% of both sides go in with no intention of even slightly entertaining the possibility that the other party could be right.

>>6334443

The irony in your post.

>>6334454
how the fuck do you entertain that YOUNG EARTH creationism is right

this wasn't a creationism debate

this was a YOUNG EARTH creationism debate

it's like arguing with someone that believes wood is inorganic

>>6334452

> Actually, it's probably true but I get your point.

Prove it?

>>6334457
Explain?

>>6334454
Ham said as much explicitly. He might as well just sat there and say, "I'm right, you're wrong. Nanananana"

>>6334460
I rest my case.

This video is proving more difficult to download than I previously thought it would. It seems it's been segmented on youtube and is being presented in chunks.

Is anyone else attempting to download this or is anyone who already bought the digital version willing to share?

>>6334465

How do you know?

Why is sci so smart?

>>6334454
Because creationism is mythology and has no place in science.

But you still have indoctrinated crazies still spreading BS.

Enjoy hell everyone.

>>6334454
>Problem with creation vs evolution debates is 99% of both sides go in with no intention of even slightly entertaining the possibility that the other party could be right.

Yeah, this is bullshit. And it's proven in pretty much every creationism debate. Bill begged Ken to give even the slightest bit of evidence for creationism, and he failed every time.

But you don't want to see that, because that would make it harder for you to feel superior to both of them.

>>6334421
"The natural Laws haven't changed." -NYE
"YOU Weren't There! You don't KNOW!" -HAM

>>6334454
>99% of both sides go in with no intention of even slightly entertaining the possibility that the other party could be right

If this was true, no one would ever win a Nobel Prize in any scientific field.

I was raised Catholic. We learned that science aids religion and that they both are meant to coexist together. I was taught that the Bible was not to be taken literally. I completed all the initiations into the church and now I am a college freshman who identifies himself as a mix of both a Catholic and an agnostic. I will probably remain that way for a long time.

>>6334484
>But you don't want to see that, because that would make it harder for you to feel superior to both of them.
I just made a generalized statement about the communities surrounding both sides. Not trying to feel superior to anyone.

>>6334473
Because...I watched the debate? He says quite plainly that you should consider things from multiple perspectives.

>>6334490
Or the 1% maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG2newDukk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG2newDukk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG2newDukk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG2newDukk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG2newDukk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG2newDukk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG2newDukk

>>6334504
I got 34 seconds in.

>>6334495
A lot of Catholics nowadays are only so culturally.

>>6334504
Playing all seven at once. Magical.

>>6334504
BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL

>mfw feel that I went to the same university as Ken Ham

oh fuck this

>>6334509
That's like two bills a second.
Imagine walking out your door everyday and seeing oh there are 86,000 new bills today

>>6334520

Did you meet him?

>>6334509
>>6334504
>>6334519
no pauses, no skips

>>6334524
no mute?
at least 90dB?

SECULARISTS HAVE HIJACKED EVERYTHING SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN

>>6334532
There's a book that explains all that

>>6334495
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists

>>6334531
no mute
as loud as it can go without waking up the entire floor (it's 3:30am here)

This is the only rant I'll ever write on this. Bill won because he and most scientists are what I call ID types. Ken lost because he is a DD type. Most religious ppl are DD types. I explain what's what but the jist of it is about fear and how we behave with our opinions and beliefs with respect to it. The terms are both just shit I made up:

http://wp.me/p4axPL-5c

>>6334523
Nope he has been exiled to the bible belt of the united states of America.

Because he'll have no funding within Australia to start his creationist musem (because religion is dying so slowly in Australia and no rich pastors to beg from)

>still no download link

Please

>>6334541
Of all the anime to throw into your rant, why BRS TV? That anime was shit.

>>6334544
none of my FF download extensions work for the youtube video ;_;

>>6334537
>All French or Italian
Aren't there any other Catholic countries out there?

>>6334541
It's not in the bible, so it's not science. Go make money somewhere else while I run a museum and make money off this debate.

>>6334537
It's not very surprising. the church was very organized for it's time and created sects of science and other things like medicines etc. Unlike backwards christian beliefs, the Roman Catholic Church has significant achievements in its past, even with all of the corruption and shit that plagued it.

>>6334544
I'm trying every method I can man. The video is segmented on youtube, and aside from taking a video capture of my monitor while it plays, I'm not going to be able to get it.

I'm wondering if there's any identifiable metadata embedded in the video from debatelive.org.

Debatelive isn't affiliated with that Museum is it?

>>6334550
Yea someone needs to re-record it off youtube or something.

>>6334551
South America is filled with Catholics but they don't care about science the same way Europeans and North Americans do.

>>6334272
>Bill Nye was critical of the Great Flood, not admitting that Jesus expressly confirmed that the Great Flood existed.

Well, yeah. Jesus never said that.
Jesus doesn't exist.

>faith in evolution
is that essentially saying you have to admit it is a theory?
Do he realize a theory is more rigorous than a belief?
>red herrings everywhere

Ken Sham vs Bill Lie

>>6334534
Source?

>>6334561
>Having faith in evolution
>Actually knowing evolution is right, until a better solution comes along

>>6334551
quite a few britbongs, but for a long time you could only go to uni in the uk if you were catholic

Question:
What irrefutable piece of evidence would be needed to disprove the bible?
Hard mode:
No discovery of life on another planet.

>>6334565
word

intelligent design bros ww@?

>>6334551
>>6334537
And they are all from the 14th to 19th century.

>>6334572
Irrefutable disproof of an afterlife would do it.

>>6334572
the death of all human life

>>6334577
You gonna ask a dead guy about it?

>>6334572
The Rapture.

It'd be pretty obvious and ultra cunty. If he's real, doesn't mean I have to like him.

"us"? are you implying that I'm as retarded as you and your ilk?

>>6334569
Odd, I'd have thought that by the time the UK existed, that Protestantism would have been the dominant religion.

>>6334580
Nobody knows how to disprove it. You didn't ask for that either; just what would suffice.

>>6334498

Nope. 99% of scientists do not ostracize Nobel Prize winners. And it's pretty sad that you actually believe that.

>>6334579
That's happening anyways. We're not going to be in the timeline forever.

>>6334572
>What irrefutable piece of evidence would be needed to disprove the bible?

We already have it. The Bible makes claims about geology, history, biology, and medecine that are demonstrably false. That's why we have so many people today, now that we actually know that killing a bird and rubbing its blood on your thumb toe doesn't cure warts, claiming that it isn't meant to be taken literally. Because now we know better.

The real question is, what evidence could you submit to someone who refuses to disbelieve some interpretation of the Bible despite any evidence to the contrary. The answer to that is nothing. You can't reason someone who doesn't value reason to reason.

>>6334572
There is, archaeologists has disproved every single aspect of the bible, including Torah and Quran.

Now Christian apologists are now clinging on the hope that Jesus might have existed around 0AD.

Talking about clutching the straws.

>>6334602
If Jesus didn't exist, why would we measure time by his death? Checkmate atheists.

>>6334600
>The Bible makes claims about geology, history, biology, and medecine that are demonstrably false.
what about poop?

the bible says to poop in a hole, that's centuries ahead of its time!

>>6334588
What does the Nobel Price have to do with this >>6334454

Still no download link guys?

How long is this going to be hosted on youtube?

>>6334610
Please. People were pooping in rivers and streams situated in public shit rooms well before the time of the bible.

I bet the bible even tells you to scrape your asshole with your left hand after you shit instead of with a moist sponge like the glorious Romans were doing for years before Heyzuse showed up.

>>6334628
>not using the 3 seashells

>>6334625
The debatelive site says it will be up on youtube for a few days.

I tried downloading it with various methods, but it's a segmented video on youtube, so a majority of my download methods don't even recognize it.

I'm not sure if the site (debatelive.org) uses any DRM with their videos, but if they don't you can download it for $13 and share it. Even if they do you can strip the DRM from the video in most cases, unless it's something actually embedded in the video itself.

>>6334634
someone pay money and upload it for me for free

>>6334638
>>6334634
Buying the video sends money directly to the ministry. I'm trying to not do that unless its absolutely necessary.

>>6334495
>>6334537
Catholicism has a long history of supporting science because the Church generally regarded the pursuit of exploring and discovering and understanding more about God's Creation as an extremely noble pursuit.

In many of the instances in history of the Church persecuting researchers, the reasons were often political or personal in nature, not religious. Case in point - the Church didn't really have that much of a problem with Galileo's theories on the nature of the solar system... they had a problem with his open mockery of the Pope in the form of the character of 'Simplicio' in <span class="math">'Dialogue~on~the~Two~Great~World~Systems'[/spoiler]

There is very little which prohibits both the acceptance of scientific knowledge and spiritual belief, provided one is not too heavily invested in fundamentalism, literalism, and dogmatism associated with their beliefs.

>>6334600
exactly
What can the Bible do for use,its inaccurate in , astrology,cosmology,geology, history, biology, and medicine. Its not suited for a basis of morality or ethics. Its only now used for creating unfalsifiable dogmas and doctrines that most people try to bend as far as they can make it go. It teaches us nothing

>>6334644
Same. However I can't seem to find a download method that captures the video all at once. I'd managed to download a couple chunks that are a few seconds each, but I don't love /sci/ enough to stitch together a video that's over 2 hours long that way.

>>6334648
Hopefully someone will just record the screen and audio then upload that somewhere. It will not be as nice and will take forever, but its better than giving them any money.

>>6334495
Is this your blog? Nobody gives a shit.

>/sci/ evolution fags cant even download a video of the internet
evolution status #rekt

My favorite part of this whole debate was when Ken had that chart with all the ways to measure the past and said "90% of these date the earth under one-billion years!"

... How many of them are under 6000 :)

>>6334654
Hey dude, they just aren't evolved enough yet. Just give them long enough and they'll evolve into a superior more capable form.

>>6334660
Were you there?

>>6334660
While I understand the point you are trying to make, the point he was trying to make is that (as he believes) the methods we use to date things is not accurate and varies greatly.

He's dumb, but you missed the point he was trying to make (even if he didn't make it clearly).

>>6333117
>tfw bill will die in my lifetime ;_;

>>6334666
>>6334667
No, I understand. He was trying to discredit their validity, I'm just saying that despite any inconsistencies, there is absofuckinglutely no way to justify the claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Like, seriously, he at that point has to make the claim that basic math is faulty. There are plenty of rational explanations as to why there'd be disparity, and him bringing all those methods we use to infer the past really can only discredit him, because even extreme examples will fall far far far short of his claim that the Earth is 6000. That's my point

Ham is the only person that made me not like the Aussie accent.

>>6334688
Yeah, he's dumb and presents his arguments poorly, we're aware of this. I was just making sure you understood the point he was attempting to make.

>>6334688
A friend of my stepbrother was actually there when the earth began. Its around tree fiddy.

>>6334694
what about this guy?
http://youtu.be/0RjC-vh06_c

>>6334660
Where do people get this 6000 year old number from?

>>6334697
Haha I guess my first post made it seem like I had missed his point. I definitely didn't. I just thought that that inconsistency in his argument was pretty funny

>>6334710
Bible

>>6334710
I think the Jewish calendar puts it somewhere around 5500.

>>6331747
if anyone wants to watch
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-nye-the-science-guy-set-to-debate-creationist-ken-ham-tonight-at-7pm/

>>6334710
Literally adding up the ages of people in the bible

>>6334710
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

>>6334710
They take the idea that "god created the world in 6 days" and then take the word for 6 in hibrew (IIRC), and then take the ages of people said to live in the bible and figure out what their "true age would be", and then add them all up to get about 6000. It's the most hoops I've ever seen anyone jump through to make a point.

>>6334720
Oh shit, this link is 700something MB. I'm downloading it now and will report back if it's legit.

>>6334722
so let's think about that for a second. People actually use that as an argument, ON BOTH SIDES, from adding ages of the bible?

If you have ever used muh 6k years as an argument, you're a dumbass and need to take a trip to /lit/ and let anyone you know who has made the same mistake to take a trip over there as well.

>>6334713
ok, you haven't read it. pls go.

>>6334718
based on...?

>>6334731
You're preaching to the chior.

>>6334421
http://you-werent-there-you-dont-know.ytmnd.com/

Bill Nye got BTFO

Ken Ham presented his arguments well. He was articulate, organized, and spoke with conviction

Bill, while not doing terribly, didn't seem nearly as organizedd, was less articulate, and stuttered too much to sound like he was certain of what he was saying (even though he is). He seemed off the cuff, and his obvious general knowledge was impressive.

All that said, Bill fucking destroyed Ken. While not being able to address everything, I loved that he demanded evidence for Ken's claims, not just defending his position like scientists tend to do in these things, but actually attacking this idiocy

>>6334737
I don't pay attention when my parents talk about Jew shit. I'm sure it's just something they're repeating, heard at synagogue.

>>6334742
0/10

mutha fuckin boats

>>6334746

Well, it's true.

>How do you explain consciousness?
>u-uh I don't know

>How do you explain the horizon problem?
>u-uh I don't know

>>6334737
>ok, you haven't read it. pls go.
It's what they use as a resource to come to a conclusion.

>>6334751
>We don't currently understand it well enough to explain it
and
>u-uh I don't know

are two very different things anon. Please learn the difference.

>>6334751
>>How do you explain consciousness?
>>u-uh I don't know
>>How do you explain the horizon problem?
>>u-uh I don't know
Why would he attempt to explain something that science has yet to explain? It's not unwise to admit you don't know something yet.

>>6334751

"I don't know" Is the correct response to a scientific question.

How do you explain consciousness? You don't know? Well I have a book that says my body is just a shell and that I am really a spirit being. So I know something. You don't know it so I must be right.

That is pseudoscience.

>>6334757

Means the same thing: he has no idea and starts talking about psychic-ly knowing a dog's feelings

>>6334762
>>6334759

>mfw science has zero answers for the number one question of the human species

>>6334744
I don't pay attention when my teachers talk about science shit. I'm sure it's just something they're repeating, heard at some outdated classroom.

You're the problem with progress. You just follow whoever "seems" to have power at the time.

MAN, if only you could live to next big thing that will trump science, since science is being used as a religion and not the tool that it is

>>6334763
I sincerely hope you enjoy being retarded, and don't vote in local or national elections.

>>6334764

I vote in every election. Feels good man!

>>6334762
that circular logic.

>>6334769
Than the Atheists have already won.

>>6334768
I don't pay attention to a religion I don't believe in, I'm just giving you a number I vaguely remember because it is relevant.

>>6334765

MFW I understand that Science concerns itself with the how of things and not the why of things and that when it comes to how things work the bible is wrong about absolutely every claim.

>>6334771
I think that's the point; He was being intentionally facetious

>>6334771

"I am that I am." is circular logic.

>>6334744
are you a jew?

>>6334765
>>6334777

/thread

How do you explain the horizon problem?
How do you explain human consciousness, and why do no other animals have it?
What happened to our fur? It would never cease to be a survival advantage.
What happened to our tails? It would never cease to be a survival advantage?

>>6334777

Well then how do we have consciousness and not a single other animal evolved into consciousness?

Also, see: >>6334784

>>6333155
>mfw I actually went there a few years ago

>mfw I called the outcome weeks ago
>Ham gave Bill the old Gish Gallop for an hour and Bill was forced to backtrack for the remaining time
>every fucking time

The answer is fucking simple

>>6334741
See there's lots of assumptions in regard to radioactive dating.

Number one, for instance, the amounts of the parent and daughter isotopes at beginning when the rock formed. You Have To Know them, But You Weren't There.

See that's Historical Science.

Assumption two, that all daughter atoms measured today must have only been derived in situe radioactive decay of parent atoms, in other words it's closed system,

But You Don't Know That, and there's a lot of evidence that's not so. Ah.

Well I managed to download the video, but no audio from >>6334720 so if someone other than me wants to try this site let me rip it with download helper in .FLV format.

>>6334789
How do you know we are the only animal with consciousness?

>>6334784
And what would no other animal having it have to do with anything? And whats to explain? It arose because it was the most valuable characteristic out of those that appeared in the time frame that it did, and so it was naturally "selected" for.

based nye laying the smack down on creationists everywhere

>>6334789
>not a single other animal evolved into consciousness?

What is consciousness? How are you defining it because we have an overwhelming amount of evidence that dolphins, pigs, dogs, cats, horses birds and primates experience some level of intelligent consciousness, right down to language comprehension. So I have no idea where your claim of humans being the only conscious species comes from.

>>6334727
it should just be a youtube video when you visit the link.

>>6334780

Look at her butt.

>nye is a mac fag
it's like he wants Ham to win

>>6334803
>>6334805

>atheists are now arguing that animals are conscious

Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

>>6334807
It takes you to a site that presents a youtube video.

>>6334789

Oh, you probably mean "A spirit" Well, we have no proof that a spirit exists or if we did that the spirit of a human is in some way different from the spirit of animals, or that animals lack a spirit.

This is the problem of meandering down paths of pseudoscience.

>>6334810
Ham had a mac too didn't he?

>>6334826

Proof is a loaded word. Evidence is what you meant.

>>6334814
Ok, so some animals have consciousness. Where are you going with this?

>>6334814

Humans are animals m8

>>6334825
yea doesnt the youtube video work?

>>6334814

Well, we have evidence that many animals experience that. Here's a wonderful video of Chimps demonstrating memory, logic, abstract thought and mathematics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAIGVT3N7B0

So faced with this I ask you how can you say that humans have consciousness and chimps do not?

>>6334840

becausemuh gawd and jeezuz

>>6334837
It does, but ever time I attempt to download it I get a .FLV file with no audio, or a .MP4 that's 0 bytes. :/

>>6334840
sure you can teach math to a monkey but that doesnt mean they have a soul

You know, with Bill taking all those notes during Ken's answers and rebuttals, I think it's possible that Bill might end up doing a follow-up video to the debate and really slam him.

>>6334834
>>6334832

Where are the other animals who have developed to our level? Why haven't they? Where are our tails? I don't see why they would hurt survival chances. Where is our fur? I don't see why it would hurt survival chances?

Why don't other animals have opposable thumbs?

Why are some mammals in the water?

How does an animal "evolve" lungs from gills, two completely different systems?

>>6334849
oh,I don't know what to do there sorry...

>>6334850

Demonstrate and define "soul".

>>6334840

Computers can do math too but they aren't conscious.

>>6334853
Go take a Bio 1 class kid.
This is the equivalent of asking "2+2" in a math thread.

>>6334856

>>6334858
Don't talk shit bout my waifu

>>6334859

Then answer the question, please.

>>6334850

Oh. So we are not talking about Consciousness which is a measurable, comprehensive and scientific definition. We are talking about a soul; a metaphysical, pseudo scientific and unproved idea handed down from ancient legend.

Congratulations. You have no proof and this debate is over. Checkmate, atheists.

>>6334856
I think it's spelled

R. E. S. P. E. C. T.

I'm going to have to ask you to tell me what it means to me.

>>6334856

>>6334853

>Where are the other animals who have developed to our level?

There are no levels. We have (relatively) good brains, fish have good bodies for swimming, quadrupeds have good legs for short distance running, birds have good wings for flying, etc. Being different =/= being magically special because we can make a car or computer.

>Why don't other animals have opposable thumbs?

Opposable thumbs aren't always good and don't just spring up in every species because a different species of animal develops them. Evolution is blind and unguided.

>Why are some mammals in the water?

Because 65% of the planet's surface is covered in it.

>How does an animal "evolve" lungs from gills, two completely different systems?

Read up on the evolution of aquatic vertebrates.

>>6334856

Morality, consciousness, self-perception, etc

>>6334856

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ubM5ricQn8

>>6334858

Computers are logical machines that sort information. They do not think any more than a telephone can talk. That is unless a computer is programmed to extrapolate data in an abstract manner to interact, which itself has proven a tricky and gray area of what might be called consciousness, but I don't see how that is relevant to the idea of a soul.

First order of business: (To you or whoever typed the word soul) Provide overwhelming evidence that a soul exists in a metaphysical form. Then we can debate the nature of a soul.

Barring that, stop with this line of inquiry.

>>6334864
Animals don't just wake up one day and say "wow wings sure would be cool, I'll just evolve some out of my ass real quick"
They adapt to their circumstances.
We didn't need fur or tails and they were probably a hindrance, so the proto humans that had less fur/tail (better adaptation) lived on to breed, etc etc.

If you actually want to learn go watch a lecture on youtube or something.

>>6334871

Right, but how the fuck can a mammal evolve from a fish, survive on land, jump back into the water, and turn into a dolphin?

Do you guys even think about your theories?

>>6334883

How could a tail EVER be a hinderance? Same with fur? (protip: humans started WEARING animal fur to survive)

>>6334874
but we DO observe animals with some level of this, especially primates

>>6334884
>Right, but how the fuck can a mammal evolve from a fish, survive on land, jump back into the water, and turn into a dolphin?

Do you actually believe that's what happened? If you do you're a terrible person who needs to take high school biology again.

>>6334887
The dinosaurs grabbed the humans' tails and naturally selected them to die. Therefore the ones without tails survived and breeded tailless little africans.

>>6334793
Thats honestly how you saw things?

Fuck you're retarded. This country is so fucking backwards

>>6334884

>>6334884

Absolutely. Selective pressures lead to slight variations in species over time. Over millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years these slight variations lead to branching off of separate species that were at one time in a common mating group.

A great example of this is Donkeys and Horses. Clearly related as shown by their physical features. Now when Donkeys and Horses are bred they give birth to young. Mules. However, these mules cannot reproduce. This is because Donkeys and Horses may be related, but not closely enough to produce fertile offspring. Their breeding pools are now separate, and they can only diverge as two different species that were at one time the same species.

>>6334884

Slowly. A fish didn't turn into a dog and then suddenly into a dolphin, you seem to have a poor understanding of the time scale that evolution works on and how subtle the changes are over time. There was not a single animal that "became" a fish or one that "became" a mammal. It was a gradual change over hundreds of millions of years and billions of generations.

You've got the "Monkey gives birth to the first human" absurdity in your head and no amount of 4chan posts can correct this misunderstanding. I recommend reading a book on biology sometime or stopping by a museum.

>>6334864
You're honestly asking questions that should be taught when you're 13.

This is the entire reason for this debate. Science classes are severely lacking in this country. You are the proof.

>>6334908
>>6334906

In the history of humans, is there any actual knowledge of macroevolution?

>>6334913
Fucking stop. Modern humans have been around for 100,000 - 200,000 years as best we can tell. Evolution happens on a much larger time scale than that. Not to even mention that written languages have only been around for a few thousand years.

>>6334913
If you have proof for micro-evolution(we do) you have proof for macro-evolution. Otherwise it's like saying "Weeeellll, I'll agree that 1+1 = 2, but that doesn't prove that adding one 42 times equals 42"

>>6334913

The fact that we cannot inter breed with Gorillas, our close cousins and produce fertile offspring, with whom me share the vast majority of our genetic and mitochondrial information is evidence that macro-evolution has occurred in the past between our two different species.

>hur dur there's a book
He's very articulate otherwise, wrong but well-spoken

>>6334913

Micro evolution + time = Macro evolution.

>>6334913
>macro-evolution
There's that word...
"Macro" evolution is just micro evolution on a large time scale (billions of years)

>>6334920
>The fact that we cannot inter breed with Gorillas
How do you know? Have you tried it? Then how can you know? YOU WEREN'T EVEN THERE

>>6334913

Koala bears and Kangaroos
Fire ants and army ants
Cheetahs and tigers
killer whales and porpoises
sparrows and eagles
Gray wolves and Boston terriers.

All are absolutely evidence that macro-evolution definitely happens. Any two species diverged enough to no longer breed with one another and produce fertile offspring are proof that macro-evolution happens.

>>6334913
macroevolution IS microevolution

And >nohomosapiens havent been around long enough, though there are a few adaptations present like skin color, nose shape and the ability to breath at high altitudes

>>6334935

I was there.

I FUCKED A GORILLA!

Thanks, Bruno Mars.

>>6334913

Numerous examples of speciation have been recorded to occur under laboratory conditions.

Next you'll say : "But those don't count because they are still the same KIND of animal! Those flies didn't become zebra therefore evolution is wrong!"

>>6334853
>Where is our fur? I don't see why it would hurt survival chances?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

>Where are the other animals who have developed to our level? Why haven't they?

They're extinct, because we beat them in the survival game (see Homo Neanderthalensis).

>Why don't other animals have opposable thumbs?

...Some of them do.

>Why are some mammals in the water?

Because it was beneficial to them at some point in the past to hang around an aquatic environment.

>How does an animal "evolve" lungs from gills, two completely different systems?

The same way any other organ develops into another one. Gradual change over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

>>6334952

Neanderthals don't really count though, because we bred with them, so they may not have technically been a different species.

>>6334952

Just a heads up, aquatic ape is pretty much bunk. Not a very good example.

>>6334955
Pretty sure there were a different species, we just shared DNA that was close enough to produce fertile offspring.

>>6334887
Spoiler: central Africa tends to get pretty hot. People only started wearing fur when they moved to colder climates.

>>6334913
here you have everything creationists say doesn't happen, happenning

http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html#speciation

>>6334959

Yeah...That means we weren't.

Neanderthals were just as human as we were. If we could breed with them.

This is the big problem with Taxonomy, isn't it?

Anyone got the link to download the video yet?

>>6334968

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

You can rip it from here.

>>6334973
cheers big ears

>>6334967
What I'm saying is that they very well could be considered a different species if their DNA was only similar to 99.99% of ours. If that .01% was non human, they would be close enough to interbreed, but still be a different species.

I won't claim to be a qualified professional who can make this distinction, but as I understand it, humans and Neanderthals are considered different species.

Ken Ham.

I did not want to yell at my computer tonight

Suck a Jesus dick.

>>6334967
the problem is that there are three different ways to do taxonomy, two of them being argued right and the third, outdated one still being everywhere we haven't checked the genetic evidence in.

>>6334973
Awesome. I'm getting a 1GB+ file from here in .mp4. Hopefully this one has audio this time.

>>6334957
How else would you explain the fact that we're the only primates that don't drown instantly in water?

>>6334853
>Where are the other animals who have developed to our level?
I assume you mean intellectually and the answer to that is that we out-competed other early hominids which either became extinct or evolved into modern humans. Other animals didn't evolve an intellect on our level because it wasn't necessary as a part of their evolutionary fitness. A shark doesn't need complex reasoning skills to thrive.

>Where are our tails?
You still have a tail it's just severely atrophied and basically welded to your pelvic girdle. It still has uses but because we don't spend time leaping through trees and more we don't need a long tail to balance with so it's mostly gone.

>Why don't we have fur.
We don't fully know but there are a variety of theories including that we lost most of our fur to avoid having to deal with ticks and other parasites or that we passed through a semi-aquatic stage (the "aquatic ape" theory)

>Why don't other animals have opposable thumbs?
Lots of other animals do have opposable thumbs and opposable digits including lots of primates, opossums, raccoons and some birds (opposable talons before you want to make some smart ass comment about birds not having fingers).

>Why are some mammals in the water?
Because they found a niche and evolved to become better suited to that environment.Originally they would have been animals that lived near the shore and slowly over generations moved further and further off shore until they became entirely aquatic. Think seals.

>How did gills evolve into lungs.
The short answer is they didn't, they're different structures, the long answer is a bit more complicated but basically some fish have primitive bladders that they can use to supplement their oxygen supply in addition to what they are able to absorb in through their gills. These are what evolved into lungs. Gills then atrophied off because they weren't needed and the energy required to develop them could be put to better use in organs that would actually be used,

How does evolution explain homosexuals?

>>6334984

By correcting your misinformation

>>6334977

It's my claim as someone who is accredited in biology (Though not Taxonomy) that a two animals must be in isolated breeding pools to be considered a different species.

However, this is still up for debate as many scientists insist that sufficient geographical barriers to breeding pools provides enough grounds to separate compatible strains are strong enough grounds to classify species.

It's also a problem with extinct species, as we don't see exactly how compatible the strains were at the time.

However, since Humans have Neanderthal DNA in them I posit the claim that both hominids were, for a time, separate strains of the same species.

>>6334996
The same way it explains any animal that does things for pleasure instead of exclusively for survival.

P.S. You're a huge faggot.

>>6334982
yep it does, just finished downloading it

>>6331747
In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its... ...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

>>6334996

Somewhere along the line when sex became a part of reproduction, it got tied to pleasure sensors to encourage sex for higher chance of reproduction success. An unintended result of this is that you don't need sex with a female to activate and stimulate said pleasure sensors, resulting in masturbation, homosexual, and other "unnatural" sexual behaviors.

>>6335004
So you are saying homosexuals are only gay for pleasure and are not born that way?

>>6335019
So why do people say they are 'born gay'?

>>6335021
I'm saying that we derive pleasure from seeking, and being with a partner in life, not exclusively physical pleasure from having sex.

You're a shitty troll.

>>6334996

The nature of what makes something fabulous is not yet fully understood.

Gettin' real sick of your shit, Ken

>>6335025
Why do some people say they were "born straight"?

You don't pick what your body finds arousing.

>>6335004
How can a homosexual survive when they cannot reproduce?

>>6335041

Because you don't have to reproduce to survive. You just have to eat.

>>6335041
The same way non-homosexuals survive.

>>6335036
Why would the body pick same sex attraction when you cannot reproduce with two of the same sex?

>>6335032
I love that his face is like that every fucking time Ham speaks.

>>6335046
Because our lives aren't all about reproducing.

How does evolution explain the increasing numbers of homosexuals?

>>6334996
You don't necessarily have to reproduce yourself to promote your genes. It's called kin selection.

>>6335046

Humans are a special case, but to keep it simple: There is no choice involved.

Your brain doesn't ask for permission to make you a certain way.

>>6335046

STOP. ASKING. WHY.

Homosexuality has been observed in every animal kingdom we check out. Turns out a diverse community of sexual identities is beneficial in some way to species. Why? Who knows. We don't worry about why. You can ask why forever.

How does evolution explain the increasing number of mouthbreathing retards in America?

Checkmate atheists

>>6335050
Evolution isn't something to explain that.

It's also becoming (in America at least) more acceptable to be gay, so more people are coming out instead of lying about it their whole lives. We're seeing more because they aren't scared about being truthful anymore.

>>6335045
They survive through reproduction. Two homosexuals cannot reproduce.
>>6335048
Life is about survival of the fittest and homosexuals are weak at reproducing.
>>6335052
Very interesting, thank you.
>>6335055
Would you call being born homosexual a weakness or a strength in terms of evolution?

>>6335064
You do not survive through your children. To think so is pure ignorance.

>>6335067
Enlighten me please

/sci/- Taking the bait

>>6335058

Correction. Every segment of the Male/female gender species we observe. There's a whole species of lizards called whip-tail lizards that are all female, all reproduce by parthenogenesis and all have copious amounts of lesbian sex.

>>6335071
An individual does not live on through their children. Yes, a society continues because there are more and more people born, but when the question "How can a homosexual survive when they cannot reproduce?" you are talking about an individual "a homosexual".

>>6335079
ok fair enough what about homosexual men as a group?

>>6335079

Why do you care so much about homosexuality? Are you desperately trying to come to grips with your own sexuality? Maybe a sexuality you were told was immoral?