Alex O’Connor CALLS OUT Ken Ham, Ken Responds

[@amaizenblue44]

Alex: the serpent was an example of evil in the world before the sin of man. Ken: the serpent wasnt evil, satan was just using the serpent. Me: how does that rebut Alex's point? Whether the serpent or satan were evil, either one is an example of evil in the world before the sin of man.

[@Darkpill-2]

Exactly. If a human built a garden, and they saw an invasive species invade the garden, they would try to remove it immediately - so perhaps we are not in gods image since we generally care about what we create.

[@Taygon094]

Evil being in the world before sin of man does not prove atheists right in one way or another, though. The bible maintains its credibility and is the utmost best explanation for why evil is so pervasive in the world (due to humans, that explanation still remain because humans disobeyed God's wisdom in thinking we could be our own gods), and Christ offers the best solution to evil. Atheism offers nothing in terms of hope, faith, meaning, etc. Atheism encourage people to just look at each other as random animals, some who are lucky to live healthy and rich while others die in the gutter, poor and disabled. But that's just how it is. Atheism upholds science with a firm hand, yet science can not explain everything. Science does not explain reasoning, love, Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

[@amaizenblue44]

@@Taygon094 the Biblical explanation for why evil is pervasive is not the "utmost best." Frankly, it's nonsensical; god creates everything according to his plan, then blames others for the bad parts. The desire for some cosmic meaning to life is the whole reason religion exists. But, if there is no cosmic meaning, then theists derive their hope and meaning the same way atheists do: they create it themselves. If you believe that life without a god results in callous disregard for the well-being of others, that says more about you than atheists. If you need god to keep you from being a predator, let's hope you never lose your faith. I'm ok with science not being able to explain everything. I'd rather say I don't know something than make up an answer based on what I imagine god's answer would be.

[@ashayarifai6819]

It's funny that you can't think about things as whole when Satan temps people you think he is just standing in front of them waving his hands in there faces no he sends his demons to do it hence the snake

[@Darkpill-2]

@@ashayarifai6819 That’s not the point. Doesn’t matter if it’s the snake or satan manipulating the snake, evil already existed in the garden.

[@realgwilly]

This was the worst response video I’ve seen

[@switchie1987]

Nah, I'd say the Colleen Ballinger response video was worse than this. Though, Ken's video here *is* laughable at its best, and disappointing at its worst.

[@davidwitt2416]

Interesting responses. I was just thinking how much I enjoyed hearing each person’s ideas without being interrupted by their “opponent” or a moderator.

[@ThinkAboutIt-xr1le]

The TLDR is Ham falls back on finite human understanding whenever contradictions arise or questions get difficult. So what's the point of responding at all?

[@Razorwind7]

Lol it's true!

[@simonrudduck8726]

Honestly? I’m watching this as an agnostic wondering how you lot think these are good rebuttals…

[@redpen01]

If you're genuinely wondering how Ham's response means anything, the truth is that as people we struggle to see beyond our own viewpoints, outside the sphere of our own experience, beneath what we suppose to be our own moral foundation. What Ham is trying to do is explain how the Bible shows us that our perspective is limited, while God's is not. Starting with the assumption that God created everything we understand to exist and that He is good as defined in the Bible, Ham's answers make sense. But if you are unwilling to accept those two assumptions, it all just sounds senseless. Basically, we humans have to admit that we're so messed up that we don't know which way is up, and that only God can set us straight. The entire Gospel of John is Jesus showing us how He is the way for us to have the life that Adam lost when he ate the fruit in the garden. God is not some robot in the sky, benevolent or otherwise. He's the most personal Person you could ever meet. The Bible is God speaking to us, but we have to be willing to listen and learn about Him before we can relate to Him.

[@arpacolypse8055]

​@@redpen01​Its not from a frame of ignorance, in all arguments its normal for people to argue their pisition as if it was true to show why incosistencies dont work. That part is very comprehendible, but when ken ham twice gives to idks to complete contradictions to the worldview and claims hes making 1:45 10:15 you dont have tk believe in god to know that this is a non answer. There WAS evil before the fall as accepted by ken with the devil and theres no difference between originial sin and normal sin that ken ham brings up that makes it acceptable to punish us for it. These are just undeniably bad reponses

[@Johnathan1800]

There not.

[@clmkc5393]

The rebuttals leave much to be desired. Rather than tackle the hard questions, Mr. Ham often chooses to use circular logic to give a traditional Christian response. Mr. Ham - it's OK to say " I don't know the answer to that" - you dig yourself into so many holes because of your desire to be an apologist for the faith.

[@redpen01]

​@@clmkc5393 Ham is saying that we have to trust God in matters beyond our understanding. This is thinking outside the box of our own brains, not circular reasoning. The entire problem of evil comes down to this. Evil defined Biblically is not an active force of its own but simply disobedience to God. Satan is a force for evil by his own choice to rebel against God. This is why I said before that we must be willing to listen to God, or we will not be able to relate to Him. Everyone who refuses to accept what God says on His own terms cannot understand Him. If the God of the Bible is real, He literally made us, owns us, and it's beyond ridiculous to reject Him based on any criteria other than His own. If a person chooses not to make a genuine effort to understand God's definitions, there can be no valid discussion of the Biblical account. This is the operative problem in this discussion. Alex O'Connor and many of the snipers in the comments here are either willfully ignorant of how God defines reality or are actively deceptive in their arguments. The amount of trouble O'Connor takes to disprove the Bible makes me wonder. I assume that you care whether God is real or not since you are watching videos arguing that topic. Why not take a serious look at what He says in the Bible for yourself? You don't have to take anyone else's word for what it says or means. Don't like what Ham says? Check the source instead.

[@TommyLohman]

It is difficult to watch someone (Alex) attempt to handle the Bible as if he understands what is in there.

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

If the bible says it in black and white, what is left to understand? Okay, the bible does have contradictions, so you could look elsewhere in the bible for it to also say the opposite.

[@elimcgamerguy]

@@JustaNaughtyBoy > "the bible does have contradictions" You don't watch this channel much, huh?

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

@@elimcgamerguy Nope I don't watch this channel much.

[@deepwaters2334]

I can't take someone with a nose that crooked seriously anyway!

[@mikebuchanan3018]

1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” King James Version (KJV)

[@jenkinsbrigade9862]

Every generation of atheists thinks that they've managed to paint Christianity into a corner -- as if their tiresome arguments haven't been rebutted again and again. Thanks, Ken, for gently challenging this misguided individual.

[@reijishian2593]

Every generation of Christians thinks the same, but most of us have never even read the Bible.

[@InMemphisJohn]

@@reijishian2593 God willing, I will have read it from cover to cover for the 30th time at the end of this year, and I hope to read it another 30 times before God's reward. How I pray that all may come to love God's wonderful Word!

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

Ih the ideas and contents of the book has been painted into a corner, whilst ever there are credulous and gullible Christians believing this stuff there will always be Christians, the same can be said for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Janists, Sikhs, Pagans, and a host of other religions that are headed up by mythical creatures. Christianity is certainly in decline in the US and has now dropped below 50% here in the UK, and unlike the US the UK is supposedly a Christian country with the king being the head of the Church of England. The church receives funding by the UK government. I'm paying for this stuff, thank Christ it is in decline.

[@ClementGreen]

@@InMemphisJohn Have you read the Book of Hosea?

[@razorbeard6970]

@@InMemphisJohn Reading the complete Bible is the #1 reason people aren't believers. The commenter was speaking of believers who follow without reading and knowing what the Bible actually says. When they know what it actually says they abandon it because it is not what it purports to be.

[@ImHeadshotSniper]

all of Ken's beliefs are founded in the faithful presupposition that his culturally biased story is true, and that nothing else is possible. Alex merely withholds his belief in that which he doesn't know.

[@misterdoctor9693]

Oh thank goodness. There is a person who has common sense. Looking through the comments I was beginning to doubt.

[@tbj4855]

I see Alex’s cult is in the comment section

[@ImHeadshotSniper]

@@tbj4855 you see one opposing opinion and suddenly that's a cult? you don't have to like Alex at all to understand that he is more reasonable in withholding belief in that which he doesn't know than faithfully believing one of many cultural speculative fantasy stories as Ken does.

[@Reform_Earth]

@Cantstanya the earth isn’t millions of years old. Sorry.

[@Alien_civilizations]

True and I'm a Christian but I expect a better rebuttal from anywhere to atleast bordering objectivity and taking into account communicating with a non-believer

[@drewg3669]

Rebuttals to major points: 1. If logic evolved by chance, how can we be confident in it? - through our logic, we are able to make observably true predictions on the world around us - we have evidence for other traits evolving through random selection (camouflage, for example), and intelligence is also a trait that has been shown to evolve through modern generations of species (dolphins, whales, some birds) 2. God didn’t make an evil snake, he made angels, one of which became evil and then turned into a snake. - do I need to respond to this? - ultimately, god made something with the propensity to become evil, thus he introduced evil into the world 3. Alex is entering this argument with a bias against Christianity, thus his points are less valid - Alex was once a devout Christian, he studied religion, he understands the faith well and through his own reasoning has arrived at this conclusion starting from a point of bias in the opposite direction - any argument is subject to objections and analysis, whether or not these arguments are able to overcome and disprove these objections determines their strength 4. You ignore and eventually agree with his point that pain already existed, thus suffering already was existing and it was not introduced by sin. 5. Die vs surely die - if this translation issue is true, then this point is valid 6. Potential vs propensity - they had the potential to sin, and when Adam disobeys, he shows that he has the propensity to disobey God. If the act of disobeying results in Adam taking on a sinful nature, and Adam has a propensity to disobey, than he had a propensity to sin. Classic Hypothetical Syllogism. This is 1/3 through the video, to not make this comment to long I will stop here. Edit: I was going to stop here, but that point on clothing and how we are essentially mammals was so stupid to me that I feel the need to respond. We wear clothes because thousands of years ago, cavemen humans found that wearing animal skins was actually really warm, and thus we evolved a habit of feeling “normal” while wearing clothes. to me, it feels like he doesn’t even think about the arguments from the other perspective, and is solely trying to come up with the most absurd questions about evolution.

[@drewg3669]

Furthermore, on the point of punishing descendants: He states that original sin is different from specific sins, so the greater breadth of the punishment is justified. By its name, original sin is the first sin. It is no different from any other sin, it just happens to be the first disobedience from god. This in no way justifies its punishment extending beyond the scope of the one who committed this sin. To write it off as “special, therefore it deserves more people to be punished” directly contradicts what was said in the part of the Bible cited by Alex and is logically inconsistent. Furthermore, we are not the same as Adam. By saying we are the same species, we deserve the same punishment is completely absurd. It is essentially the same as saying if one man commits murder, his entire family deserves life in prison because they are essentially the same person.

[@drewg3669]

Why do we oppose this, and really you do believe in god. What? At least for myself, I oppose religions such as Christianity because Christians claim a sense of a moral high ground over the rest of humanity. By claiming that everything in the Bible is justified, from the rape to prosecution of homosexuals to all the other horrendous acts declared moral by the Bible, Christians are spreading a disgusting sense of morals to the world. To make matters worse, this is entering the legal system as well. Morality as defined by Christianity is causing certain individuals to edit laws as they deem more Christian, at least in the US- note the removal of freedom over their body from women mainly because the lawmakers believe the single called organism inside of that woman is actually a fully formed spiritual being. On a different note, yes, I personally do not believe in objective morality. I base morality on what I believe would be most beneficial for others and cause the least suffering. In conclusion, our viewpoints are not baseless and unjustified without a god and a holy text to back us up, and in certain ways, they are an even stronger moral basis, as they are improbable and adaptable to changing societies. A set in stone Bible, however, will not change, and homosexuality will always be purely evil, no matter how society changes, according to this basis.

[@drewg3669]

It’s our fault that evil is in this world, death point: What Alex is talking about is death here, not evil. Disregarding that god introduced evil into the world, god did without a doubt introduce death by cursing Adam to certainly die. This clever switching of the words to avoid this argument shows just how strong this argument made by Alex is.

[@drewg3669]

Final point: I just want to point out how stupid it is to say, yea, you really do believe in god. You know he exists, and are just trying to be your own god in opposition to him. First of all, this argument is entirely circular. This relies on accepting that god does exist and everything in the Bible is true to accept that man moving away from god is an inherited aspect of original sin. Secondly, it’s incredibly arrogant and patronizing. Not that that weakens this already feeble point, but do you really expect to achieve any positive progression if you are telling people how they really feel? Third, it is the basis of all acceptable theories to hold under scrutiny. By creating circular references and telling Alex how he really feels, you are demonstrating how feeble your theory truly is, and how you need to justify your theory through things that can only ever be true if that theory is true. There are certain arguments that have some level of validity for the existence of a creator. This most certainly is not one of them.

[@isaacthegoat1432]

You don't understand the origin of evil or the consequences of sin.

[@JesseDriftwood]

It worries me that people listen to this and think “Yup, Ken is a very smart and honest man”. Logic and Math are languages we use to describe reality. Alex didn’t have logic evolve inside of him that might have evolved incorrectly, if he did we would find him saying things like “I exist and don’t exist at the same time”.

[@wencesarboleda5516]

Hello, just food for thought. In a way logic and math to a certain degree evolved in the sense that the human brain would have evolved in order to recognize, utilize and apply logic and math to explain the world.

[@JesseDriftwood]

@@wencesarboleda5516 I’m not sure I see the point here. In my view the ability to describe reality using math and logic is a biproduct of biological and sociological evolution. The primary factor is our increased large scale socializing leading to the development of larger and more complex language. We then use that language to pass down information to the next generation. This has compounding effects that seem to outpace our brains biological changes. So reality is however reality is, logic and math are just languages we’ve developed to help us best describe our experience of reality.

[@wencesarboleda5516]

@@JesseDriftwood The issue is reality exists apart from us. So logic and math existed apart from us because if we can describe how something was made or built we didn't create it. The only thing we did was explain what was already there. So the language we use only points to the fact that something was not random.

[@JesseDriftwood]

@@wencesarboleda5516 That’s not correct. Logic and Math don’t exist outside of human heads, they are just languages we used to describe the way reality operates. Just like how English doesn’t exist outside of our heads, neither does math and logic. Trees existed before there were humans to say the word tree. Planets couldn’t exist and not exist at the same time before humans described the law of non-contradiction. Yes patterns existed in nature, but that isn’t the same thing as math existing in nature. Math is a human language used to describe the patterns we see in nature. I also don’t think nature is random, if it were then we couldn’t describe it using math and logic.

[@georgedoyle2487]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@JesseDriftwood “Don’t exist outside our human heads” Is that universally, objectively “TRUE” or does it just exist inside your head? By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself!! Sorry but the evidence clearly demonstrates that mathematics is not just a human construct. It didn’t just come from the mind of fallible human beings. It was discovered. Equally, modal logic can be formalised using mathematical principles and is not descriptive but prescriptive. That is it is clearly not just a human construct. The prescriptive laws of logic described in mathematical formulas are metaphysical presuppositions that can not be proven, justified or grounded using a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Furthermore, (Mandelbrot sets) which were only quite recently discovered in mathematics clearly demonstrated that there is a absolute innate symmetry, universality and beauty to the abstract world of the mathematical universe. Prominent mathematicians have described the (Mandelbrot set) as the thumb print of God. What the (Mandelbrot Set) demonstrates is that mathematics is a landscape of discovery not just the product of things that exist inside our fallible finite brain. It clearly gives an insight into something that exists infinitely, a metaphysical reality of abstract objects existing in another realm beyond our physical brain. It points to an absolute ontological ground of reality and existence. A strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities is philosophically incoherent at the fundamental level. Because “truth” is a philosophical position, that is a metaphysical presupposition plagiarised from monotheism. “Truth”, that is the idea of the absolute, including the prescriptive laws of logic, empirical data (sensory data), conscious observers, a unified self, including morals and ethics are metaphysical presuppositions that can not be proven, justified or grounded using a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” are nothing more substantive than brain chemicals. “You” are nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over!! Logic and maths, that is Truth itself is just a phantasm and nothing more substantive than epiphenomina under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction!! Does the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubble over bravely when it uses prevarication (clever lies) including equivocation and fallacies of false equivalence to claim that mathematics is not discovered it’s just a useful language. The fact is that mathematical truths exist and the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences remains a mystery. Not to mention the fact that many mathematical truths have no existing physical analogues. Similarly, the source of phenomenal consciousness is mysterious because like the laws of mathematics, consciousness has no physical presence in the world and the images and thoughts and experiences that are a property of our consciousness have no measurable dimensions. Which is why atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett recognising that you could not possibly reconcile consciousness with a strict scientific materialism made the radical and self refuting claim that “we” or the “self” does not even exist as consciousness is just an “ILLUSION”. “We” are In effect an illusion of an illusion of an illusion and an infinite regress. Realising this was circular and absurd, the prominent philosopher Thomas Nagel argued that given the evidence of the inexplicable nature of consciousness it is time to leave scientific materialism behind as a complete basis for explaining human existence and experience. The fact is Humans value reason and truth, not to mention duty, honour, dignity, love and purpose above physical circumstances or comforts, which is why the monastic orders promoted both scientific and philosophical endeavour so the mystery of how our minds make contact with both rational realm and the “physical” realm can’t possibly be explained by appealing to the heuristic “purposes” of survival of the fittest. Unless you are in denial and are irrational you must conclude that something someday will succeed contemporary science. A paradigm shift is inevitable. The materialist assumptions that define the basis of the scientific project and the current extrapolations from evolutionary theory are beginning to show cracks simply because science, logic, reason and philosophy are achieving their purpose and are doing the job they were intended for.

[@CharlesRenders]

I just love this back and forth and I hope you do more than just this one.

[@JesseDriftwood]

The amount of projection Ken has on display here is incredible. Claims that the reason Alex doesn’t understand is that he is presupposing the bible isn’t true, not that Ken himself is presupposing it *is* true. He then goes on to both misunderstand and misrepresent Alex’s questions so that he can give answers his audiences is comfortable with. *Alex:* “the doctrine of original sin usually contains some idea that *human beings today* inherit a sinful state, or something like a propensity towards sinning.” *Ken:* Alex claims that Adam and Eve had the propensity to sin but that is not correct. Adam and Eve had the potential to sin but not the propensity. I don’t need to refute Ken’s lacklustre response since it didn’t address Alex’s comment. But hey why not? 1. How can Adam and Eve sin *before* gaining the knowledge of good and evil? In order for their disobedience to be sinful they would have to understand that disobedience is wrong. 2. What is the difference between a propensity to sin and a potential to sin, when Adam and Eve fell into sin with the very first command. Was it bad luck? Or bad design?

[@switzerlandful]

1:14 Is Alex O'Connor aware that even Lucifer (who may have been the spirit being who took some sort of serpentine form in the Garden of Eden) is described as a created being (Ezekiel 28 verse 15)? It appears that Lucifer had some level of free will. Therefore it would reason that God didn't actually create evil but rather created beings that were capable of obeying and disobeying.

[@amaizenblue44]

And if he knew ahead of time how those beings would use that ability, and created them that way, anyway, then god is responsible for evil.

[@Elzzaw]

If Adam and Eve spent all their time in paradise getting everything they wanted and needed, wouldn't the very concept of paradise be destroyed just by the existence of the fruit? You're now in a place where you can't have everything you want. God destroyed paradise before any sin was ever committed.

[@waxworse]

We have what's called "The blessed hope". It's bizarre that the blessed hope for the atheist is nothing, with exception to the warning of judgement which causes a lifelong pursuit to continually convince yourself that you have nothing to worry about.

[@Alien1375]

That's the tactic of all cultists, isn't it? Fearmongering to ensnare new members for the cult.

[@tonyfrederickson6692]

@@Alien1375 you dont know what a cult is do you?

[@Legend-mg2ry]

You always are worrying about the “after life” grow up

[@Billy1690-ws8jz]

@@Legend-mg2ry it's eternal, definitely worth thinking about.

[@cassiebennet4262]

Right! If Christians are wrong about Christ's salvation, and we just cease to exist, no harm no foul. If the atheist is wrong they're in big trouble.

[@gknight4719]

How can you reject something that has never been proven to exist??

[@Golfinthefamily]

you aren't proven to exist. (am I in a simulation?)

[@gknight4719]

@@Golfinthefamily The problem I have with being placed in a simulation, is the ones that are running it are total psychopaths! look at what they have manipulated some of us to do, like rape little children to death? Some humans believe that a loving god lets Satin do this, what's the difference?

[@briannewton3535]

One can reject a concept, which the many proposed gods are merely concepts. I do agree, I find it amusing when theists tell atheists, or believers of a different god, that their particular god is being rejected, or as they often like to assert "hated".

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@briannewton3535 without God, there wouldn't be atheists ;) It is abundantly clear and consistent with everything we have observed that we have a creator. Certainly not everyone who is atheist has a walking anger against God when discussing him. However, often you run into three different scenarios as to why they reject God. 1. They want to be God themselves. 2. They love their sin. 3. They have either done something terrible to someone or had something terribly done to them that has made them feel like it is impossible to be restored, forgiven or accepted.

[@gknight4719]

@@Golfinthefamily Without some superstitious humans dreaming up the concept of god/gods, THEN THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY ATHEISTS, IN THAT SENARIO. The comment, "We have observed a creator" only in your dreams I would say. Just be honest we do not know how this universe came into being. So your claim "there is a god" now the burden of proof is on you, good luck, god has never been proven, so you use the faith system. The three examples you give of why atheists exist are a resounding "NO" it's purely that I have not seen one bit of evidence of a "god", period.

[@randystegnersr.5478]

Listening to Alex, cannot help but think of Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. He is professing himself wise on these matters and yet is a fool. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Thanks for the video Ken. Good stuff!

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

A fool, kinda like the emperors new clothes?

[@stevenhenry1625]

​@@JustaNaughtyBoyits funny i was thinking along similar lines the other day. The world is constantly exposing itself and then gets mad when we offer clothes, insisting it isnt naked.

[@wurzelbert84wucher5]

@@stevenhenry1625 What else do you expect? Some of them saw the Son of Man do miracles before their own eyes and yet they didn't believe and rejected him. People chose to be blind and it needs certain triggers to take the veil from them, triggers only God knows though, because each human is different.

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

@@stevenhenry1625 I was thinking more on the lines of the emperor being like the Christians, having been told that what they were getting was lovely and wonderful, then simply accepting it on 'faith' as only fools would not see the clothes. Not wishing to be a fool, the emperor believed, as the emperor had 'faith' they were telling 'the truth', despite him having no good evidence that would support their claims. Having faith can make folk happy, even if it isn't true, just like the emperor and his new clothes. Who is the fool, someone who simply accepts what is demonstrably true like the child who saw no evidence of any clothes, or the one accepting what was told to them without having good evidence?

[@stevenhenry1625]

@@JustaNaughtyBoy evidence like a reliable collection of historical documents that was written in the lifetime of eyewitnesses that could have been debunked by other eyewitnesses but was not? Or perhaps evidence like its functionality: a world that follows the ten commandments is a far better world. Or how about archaeology. Every time they dig 1, they use the bible to tell them where to dig, and 2. The bible has only been corroborated and not contradicted. In fact the only archaeological arguments against scripture are largely based on timing, which is highly subjective and in many cases come to by circular argument. The bible says jericho fell, it fell. The bible says the hittites existed, they existed. The bible says that pontius pilate was the governor in judea in the early first century, guess what. he was. I mean we even now have the bones of Joseph Bar Caiaphas, the very high priest who presided over the crucifixion of Jesus. Or how about scientific evidence, DNA is a more complex program than even used by quantum computers, containing both hardware and software. Yet they say there is no programmer? Or how about the fact that almost all cultures have a memory of the flood, and many still a recollection of the tower of babel? I could go on and on.

[@jerrymyahzcat]

The issue Alex has is he says Evil. Evil DIDN’T exist in the pre-fallen world. But free choice did and the use of free choice was able to introduce Evil that Wasn’t there prior. Sin only arrived when free will was exercised to disobey.

[@somerandom3247]

So Satan wasn't evil until Adam ate the apple?

[@lightninja4795]

@@somerandom3247 This is what happens when you don’t understand the Bible and attack people for it. He was Lucifer and he was perfect in heaven but just like Adam and Eve because of his free will and pride he tried to overthrow God and sinned. Then Adam and Eve happened and now satan tricked Eve into sinning with her free will. Did you want God to make us robots with no free will. Free will opens the possibility of evil and

[@viccigates3756]

​@@somerandom3247 Satan fell in heaven. He is a fallen heavenly being, but in the earth there was nothing made that was evil.

[@Froggo9000]

@@viccigates3756 Satan didn't go down to heaven in some form to make the serpent deceive Eve?

[@bmjw18]

@@Froggo9000 logic doesn't work on these folks. don't waste your time.

[@helbitkelbit1790]

You can have "faith" in anything . However , it's very hard to defend fairy tales .

[@briannewton3535]

I don't have 'faith' in anything at all. There are things I believe, and things that I don't. Do you have 'faith' in anything? Maybe research the word 'faith'. I think the word 'trust' can be better used. I 'trust' the sun will rise in the morning, I have evidence that it has risen every morning for quite a few years now, I trust it will also do so tomorrow. 'Faith' is a word one uses when one does not have a good reason for believing something.

[@JesseDriftwood]

“Why are you wearing clothes?” Because it’s cold and we are tool building apes that like to solve environmental problems with our intelligence and opposable thumbs. Here’s a better question, why did god make nudity something inherently sinful and that we should be ashamed of?

[@JesseDriftwood]

@@Sammyxxoo Lots of animals have evolved to shed their fur, lots of animals use tools to solve problems in their environment.

[@JesseDriftwood]

@@Sammyxxoo Too many to list any? Seems sus. Seriously though I’m not going to get into an evolution debate with you. It is the consensus position among all relevant fields of research. If you want actual answers than ask honest questions rather than assume you’ve got some smack down argument against a field you don’t I undetstand.

[@JesseDriftwood]

@@Sammyxxoo Nor should you. But you should care about what you believe, and whether or not those beliefs correspond with reality. If that’s important to you anyway, if not then cool.

[@JesseDriftwood]

@@Sammyxxoo Ok great 👍

[@oldol12]

Interesting. Every animal is perfectly equipet for the climate they live in and no animal needs to wear the skin of another animal to survive in a harsh environment( and don't need sunscreen). Animals only eat and hunt what they have available, again in their own area. Humans are the only species, which needs to wear the fur of other species to survive and we are good at destroying the environment and other species. And we have the nerve to call ourselves intelligent. The evolution theory doesn't make any sense when looking at the entire history of humanity.

[@Lowpressure29]

Man's problem when it comes to God is that we try to solve every "problem" or "issue" that arises when it comes to a perfect creator/being. We want to make sense of everything, which is our HUMAN nature. Once we realize that God's ways, thoughts and actions are not like ours and not all of our questions will be answered nor will everything in God's word be completely understood due to our humanity and limitations, we will at the very least be able to acknowledge God's sovereignty over all things! Yes God, you have your secret things and I'm glad you do because men would pollute them if they weren't secret!

[@1WhoConquers]

Precisely. Great observation. These scriptures came to mind while watching... For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9 ESV) Then again, God actually WANTS us to seek Him out and know Him better... It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. (Proverbs 25:2 ESV) As to some of the points discussed in the video... Moses, the same dude who God inspired to write Genesis, also wrote this... For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. (Psalm 90:4 ESV) In other words, when Peter wrote the words that we are more familiar with, he's actually quoting Moses... Dear friends, don’t overlook this one fact: With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. (2 Peter 3:8 CSB) How long did Adam live? So Adam’s life lasted 930 years; then he died. (Genesis 5:5 CSB) Just under a thousand years, one MILLENNIAL day. Is this a play with words to try and justify what seems to be an error? No, the opposite. It's something God put in His word intentionally as a discrepancy that those seeking with intent can use to unlock a deeper truth. That thousand years equals one day formula is actually ALL OVER scripture for those who would seek the deeper meaning. All of recorded human history is right there in Genesis 1. As to evil (Satan) being in the Garden of Eden before sin, who do we think PUT Satan there? God's intent for the entire human race goes WAY deeper than just creating creatures to worship Him because He was... what? Lonely? Hollywood is fond of Armageddon/End-of-Days movies where some hero tries to prevent all hell from breaking loose and demons invading earth. Nope. The fallen angels and demons have been here all along. To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of _the mystery hidden for ages_ in God, who created all things, so that through the church the manifold _wisdom of God_ might now _be made known to the rulers and authorities_ in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 3:8-10 ESV) What "rulers and authorities"? These... For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the _spiritual forces of evil_ in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12 ESV) Why would God be using _us_ to teach a lesson to fallen angels? Because the whole point of this creation is to fix what happened during the rebellion in Heaven. It's why God favors the humble over the proud, the weak over the strong, those who recognize their own ignorance over those pumped up by their own supposed intelligence. He's teaching a lesson to creatures who thought themselves strong and proud and smart. So why would God put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden _knowing_ that Adam and Eve would fail and disobey? Free will? A test? Of course not, God already knew what would happen. That's kind of the whole point. Or let's consider the oldest book in the Bible, Job. Why in the world did God brag on Job to the devil of all people, and then pretty much dare him to test Job with all those trials and suffering? Was it to teach Job a lesson? No, Job was the teaching tool for the _fallen angels_ watching all this unfold. Of course Job got compensated for being part of all this in the end. But God didn't even bother explaining to Job why it all happened.

[@wurzelbert84wucher5]

They would kill us all, if it wasn't for God's secrets. Just 2 years ago we had a major trial for them and the big majority failed miserably.

[@baonemogomotsi7138]

@@1WhoConquersThat's you USING God to make sense of your daily reality.

[@ashlynnshoolroy28]

I often find that a great way to acknowledge this truth it acknowledging that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-knowing and will have thoughts and understanding that is beyond our comprehension. You can't put God in a box and equate His understanding with human understanding because God knows everything that is, was, and will be; and He knows the thoughts and actions of every person in this world and will know of our total deprevaity and flaws as Human beings.

[@blackdynamite3288]

Well how do we come to conclusion that Christianity is true if we don’t use our human reasoning? Human reasoning is all we have to determine what’s true/false about our reality. When you read the Bible, you had to use your human reasoning to come to the conclusion that it’s the word of God

[@VictorKowalski-cw4sp]

always comforting when the best answer people listening to an omni-benevolent, omni-potent, omniscient god can give on suffering is: "eh, I don't really know"

[@dominicweaver2901]

tbh I think that’s the best answer they can give, any attempt at logical explanation always seems to have issues with it. So it would make sense for them to be like “I don’t know, I’m not god and I don’t understand the way he thinks”.

[@jojogo22]

@@VictorKowalski-cw4sp There is suffering because sin has entered the world. These are basic concepts that you really should be able to figure out yourself.

[@greatfulchristian4314]

how many agnostics or atheists can answer the one question everyone asks, why is there suffering ?

[@LawrenceCaldwellAuthor]

You have to ask, why? Why does it matter so much to these atheists that the bible be wrong? We know why it matters to Christians. We want others to be saved, we want a better world. What do they want? Seems they're fighting for their own religion.

[@soostoons1826]

Because you guys use the bible to prove the bible is true, it's circular logic.

[@mustachemac5229]

Think of it like this. You believe that there is going to be an afterlife and that people need to believe in Jesus and ask for repentance in order to enter the kingdom of God. You believe that sharing this information will help the other person. Well from a non-believer's perspective they act the same way. They want to help you let go of these superstitions and irrational beliefs.

[@idi8874]

not necessarily@@soostoons1826

[@marthaj67]

@@soostoons1826 Well, if it's the word of God, and if it was supernaturally authored, it IS true. If it contains hundreds of FULFILLED prophecies, it IS true. If it has changed the lives of MORE people than ANY other book, EVER, it IS true. The Bible is the best-selling book _of all time!_ Jesus Christ is the most famous, influential person ever to have existed. So much so that we mark time by His birth! Our week is seven days BECAUSE God set it that way. Atheists simply refuse to believe THE truth.

[@HS-zk5nn]

indeed atheism offers nothing of value. even they know

[@mildredmartinez8843]

Thanks Ken. Your arguments have reaffirmed my atheism.

[@michaelmcgee335]

Why? These seemed like fair answers?

[@mildredmartinez8843]

Ken Ham's answers don't convince me. I find Alex's answers reasonable, thought out and convincing. I stopped believing a long time ago. Not because I wanted. I fought long and hard to believe the religious arguments I'd been taught. I wanted to keep believing because a world without God was freightening. I wound my mind into pretzels trying to think of excuses, rationalizations, "explanations" to justify a belief that was slowly slipping away. I found I could not deal with such an awful dilemma. So I just pushed aside the whole thing and went on with my life. Later I found someone who helped me answer my questions. One of the things I most dislike about apologists like Ken Ham is that they presuppose that we are an evil and rebellious lot who hate God and want to become God's ourselves. Why they think this, I don't know. We are just a bunch of good, normal human beings who are faced with a dilemma and we want the truth. For us the truth is not found in religious books of any kind nor have the words of apologists convinced us. In Ken Ham's opinion that makes us evil. I know I am a good human being. I just don't believe. Thanks for your question. I know it was posed in good faith.

[@kellinwitte7343]

​@@mildredmartinez8843Let me ask you, did anyone teach you to lie, or did you just start doing it? Did you ever sign up for a course in how to steal, or did you just swipe something one day because you wanted it? Jesus taught that if you look with lust, you commit adultery in your heart. How many times have you done that? Jesus also taught that if you're angry with your brother without a cause, or if you hate, it's judged as seriously as murder. How many times have you hated? How often have you taken God's Name in vain, used it like a cuss word, when you wouldn't insult anyone else in that way? You and I broke God's Law by wronging God directly and wronging our neighbors, our fellow human beings. Because God is holy and just, He must punish lawbreakers with death and hell. The Bible says, "the wages of sin is death." If we expect a human judge to sentence heinous criminals that hurt people with impunity, and give them justice even if they insist what they did wasn't that bad, how much more so with the holy God who created us? But God did something for us so we wouldn't have to face what we deserve for what we've done. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for us. You and I broke the Law, but Jesus paid the fine for us. If you're in court with a stack of fines you can't pay, you're in trouble, but if someone comes in and pays for you, then the judge can legally let you go because the law has been satisfied. That's what Jesus did for us. Then after Jesus was buried, He rose from the dead on the third day, defeating death and proving what He claimed about Himself. So if you turn from your sins and trust in Jesus alone to save you, like you'd trust a parachute, then God promises to give you a clean,new heart with new desires, you'll be saved and have everlasting life. You don't get saved because you're good, but because God is good and rich in mercy. I pray that you think about these things. Come to God with a humble, open heart and He will greet you with open arms. God bless you.

[@watchandjewelryloft4713]

It's hilarious how the theists just gobble up Ken's mental gymnastics. 😂

[@zackv7663]

@@mildredmartinez8843 How do you know you're a good person, by what standard etc... I'm sure you been asked this before, Just found Ken today so can't speak on what he thinks, but generally Christians who try and practice the faith don't think anyone is "Good" (Good defined as without sin) Christians view is all humans are with sin based off what the bible states. And according to the Bible God will not allow sin in his presence so it must be forgiven etc... as to the why it's gotta be that way is another topic, but if your reasoning for not believing is that your not evil, then I gotta ask you, you never lied, steal, looked at another with lust in your life? Heck i know I have. But christians aren't supposed to be okay with that and should strive to be better. Anyway there is alot of evidence for creation by intelligent design, (look at recent discoveries on the human cells and how much they resemble a machine that is enigneered) As for the (want to become god ourselves) is probably suggesting that by not believing in God won't change anything if there is a God. "If Christianity is true, would you become a Christian" - Turek or someone else, if your answer is No, then why? You don't have to respond, but thank you for reading and good luck!

[@canderson1955]

Ham is without doubt, one of the greatest exponents of the ‘word salad’ of our times. And nothing more.

[@LittleMAC78]

8:20 "Alex, why are you wearing clothes?" I dunno what the climate is like in the part of Australia you're in mate but England is cold! Clothes are a practical necessity in many parts of the world. I'm sure if Alex went to a beach somewhere where there was warmer weather, there would be few clothes worn. EDIT: I came back to this point because it also completely undermines the idea of the planet being 'Finely tuned' with us specifically in mind.

[@bartbannister394]

Ken Ham obviously is filled with self loathing. How else can you explain his lack of shame?

[@tonymaselli2083]

All glory and praise to Jesus for your work Ken Ham. Ty for being the best creation apologist in our current generation. ❤🙏🏼

[@Dangerman5]

I used to be an angry atheist in the 2000s. I’m still an atheist but my views on how to address the question drastically changed after i saw a BBC documentary called “god on the brain”. Religious feeling isn’t just like any type of idea or ideology, it’s a powerful universal feeling felt fundamentally in the front temporal lobes and overwhelms people with a sense of something greater than themselves. People with front temporal lobe epilepsy even have powerful religious visions which are like an extreme form of the religious feelings many people sense. You can’t really argue with religious feelings, no more than you can make a drunk person not drunk with words. Religion does serve a number of important key evolutionary roles too - it’s there for a reason to give people purpose and meaning and value community. Religious people tend to be happier and less depressed, less cynical about the world. Yeah it’s not actually real but it’s here to stay and as atheists we need to recognise this and feel some sense of ease with it, not try to fight against it..

[@zackv7663]

Actually really interesting subject, never heard of that before, is religion or the practice of spirtuality in any form a way to activate that part of the brain or can something unrelated to a belief system stir it up? If it's strictly tied to spirtuality then I wonder how that effects theory of evolution in terms of why the brain would evolve in a way directly tied to a possiblity of an afterlife.

[@georgedoyle2487]

⁠​⁠@@zackv7663 “Religious people tend to be less depressed and less cynical about the world” Yep!! Exactly!! Fair point but strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists won’t accept this despite the scientific evidence because atheism is a religion that has its extremists and fanatics just like any other religion…. Einstein wrote after escaping from Nazi Germany.... “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” (Albert Einstein). The scientific evidence and multiple studies actually demonstrates that in fact religious expression and meditation/prayer is really good for you and helps a lot of people to deal with horrific loss and bereavement and to find some kind of closure that no amount of money can buy. The fact is that money and materialism can’t bring much consolation after the loss of a loved one and neither does militant atheism as it inevitably leads to fatalism and epistemological nihilism and suicidal ideation. Especially if you are “logically” consistent and intellectually honest enough to live it out consistently!! Equally, according to Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Leeds.... “Over the years, some 3,000 studies have compared people who have a religious belief with those who have none. They are published in The Handbook of Religion and Health, by Harold Koenig, Dana King and Verna Carson. The overriding finding is, in fact, that people with religious belief have better mental - and physical - health than those who have no faith. The fact that having a religious faith is good for you is psychiatry’s best-kept secret.” (Professor Andrew Sims). In contrast a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is nothing more substantive than a culture of death and meaninglessness if you think about it rationally!! Atheism basically says that…. “Birth is an accident, life is ultimately meaningless, ultimately purposeless and absurd and death simply ends the absurdity and illusion that birth began” [Atheism]. Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! Furthermore, according to Dr Andrew Sims….. “I have looked particularly at the relationship between faith and depression. One can definitely say that for people with depression, having a Christian faith rather than other faith or no faith shows better mental health outcomes.” (Dr Andrew Sims: Former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists).

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@zackv7663 “Actually really interesting subject, never heard of that before, is religion or the practice of spirtuality in any form a way to activate that part of the brain or can something unrelated to a belief system stir it up? If it's strictly tied to spirtuality then I wonder how that affects theory of evolution in terms of why the brain would evolve in a way directly tied to a possiblity of of an afterlife.?” Interesting question!! Why would our brain evolve in a way directly tied to the possibility of transcendence. It’s only a matter of time before we find a way of prolonging life indefinitely but would we want to live indefinitely in this dimension? Your logical observation reminded me of a quote from the Oxford professor C.S. Lewis who wrote the Chronicles of Narnia… “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.” [C.S. Lewis].

[@crystalgrazier8160]

Mind blown! 😂 Now I have to look up "God on the brain" KZbin rabbit hole here I come.

[@nickt463]

It's brainwashed people. Plain and simple.

[@retepyelmorb9705]

We don’t know that it was a serpent. The root word in Hebrew means shining one. Lucifer must have been amazing to look at when described in the Bible.

[@mustachemac5229]

Well, if you actually look at a lot of the ancient artwork done by the Hebrew people you will notice that the serpent was typically portrayed as a beast with a long body such as that like a snake. That's because snakes were already a part of many traditions within those cultures and typically played rolls as the "bad guy". So while I agree that we don't know for sure what the creature was...the most accepted translation is a serpent.

[@AtamMardes]

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." Voltaire

[@koscark]

No Ken. Speaking as a Christian, I don’t think you’ve given the answers needed or all the answers needed. And the talk about we can’t trust Alex’s rationality because… leave it aside, for now. The focus should be on answering the questions he poses, what if you’re preaching the Gospel to someone and they ask such questions, what are you going to say, ‘Who cares what you think about what we believe!’ 🤷🏽‍♂️🙆🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️

[@thomasashley-smith245]

Ken is either the most deceptive human or the most deluded. The mental contortions he has to go through to bend these ancient myths to anything historically accurate is almost as amazing as the fact he got so many idiots to invest in his arc! There is no point refuting all the garbage claims Ken makes, it would take too long. Nevertheless it’s been done time and time again by many people and others still fund him. Bizarre. If you hit the delete the button on all of modern religious texts and all of their pre-cursors and the various stories that were contorted into what we now have AND all the scientific journals and evidence gathered to date… religious beliefs would die and scientifically proven facts would return because one is make believe and one is our literal and proven understanding of the universe.

[@Codfish215]

As a Christian who loves acknowledging the holes in everyone's confidence in their own epistemology, I'd just like to say that the idea of deleting everything we know might not necessarily rebuild science, since the founders of the scientific method were theists who thought that since the world was intelligently built, it would be able to be understood intelligently. That's logical. If humans lost everything and viewed the world, and maybe built the theory that the universe and life is completely random and absurd, I'm not sure they would bother studying it.

[@amaizenblue44]

​@@Codfish215sure, that is absurd. Good thing no scientist claims it.

[@balding_guy2]

Non religious atheist ponders religiously exterminating opposing views by citing divine texts (he calls them soyentific journals)

[@Froggo9000]

@@Codfish215 But getting rid of the scientific journals and evidence is all the commenter specified. They didn't say to get rid of the scientific method and the ideological framework.

[@Elzzaw]

@@Codfish215 Theism controlled the world at the time. Scientists were ostracised, burnt at the stake and exiled for their views. Don't try to pretend that religion facilitated science, it held science back for centuries.

[@bigdavexx1]

Accepting for a moment that "on the day" means "in the time", if Adam were still alive today, would you say that God was telling the truth? How far into the future could "in the time" stretch? Does "in the time" mean anything in this context? What if we take that phrase out? Does the meaning change?

[@bettytigers]

Well argued Ken, I hope your kind words hit home. (May God save the atheists!) 🙂

[@cardcounter21]

_(May God save the atheists!)_ Don't worry, I'm sure Odin's hard at work on it!

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

@@cardcounter21 I'm only one minute in, and Ken has it nailed already, I think I'm gonna witness some real stupid here, as there is another fifteen minutes to go.

[@Tweeza57]

Amen

[@kyloooooo]

@@JustaNaughtyBoyI see you comment on most comments. Are you wanting us to help confirm your unbelief? You sure care a lot for someone who supposedly doesn’t believe in a God ( spoiler alert, you know there is a God and insist on lying).

[@kyloooooo]

@@davidpiot8098 I am.

[@donnavillanueva102]

So sad. So young. So wrong.😢

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

Ken ain't young any more, but deffo sooo wrong 😂

[@somerandom3247]

Ken old AF, but definitely wrong. It's sad that he has dedicated his life to making others wrong as well. Sad old man.

[@JuanManuel-ep8do]

Ken has the mind of a 8 year old but that doesn't mean he is young

[@DrigoTheMadHater]

@ around 6:40 Ken says God gave Adam instructions in order to test his obedience. Implying that god did not know to what extent Adam was obedient. Imagine that! God needed to test his creation because he wasnt sure about Adams ability to mitigate free will. Thus admiting that God is NOT all knowing. In an earlier part of the Video Ken completely dismisses the problem of evil by stating the serpent in the garden was actually Satan, he catches himself up on that then completely disregards the origin of evil dilema by attacking O'connors character. Typical disengenuous theist behavior!

[@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

He didn't answer the problem of evil before sin. He just went off on a tangent to try and sidestep it entirely.

[@SumithMathew]

The question of nakedness is an important one. The reason to wear clothes should be either, “to protect from the elements” or “for comfort”, if our starting point is a monkey. Shame should never have the reason to cover our bodies, yet one of the main reason we wear clothes is to cover ourselves out of shame (elements and comfort almost seems to be secondary). I have always believed this covering of nakedness is one more reason proving the Genesis account.

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

Wow, your ignorance is as bad as Ken Ham's. Go and say what you just wrote to the Zo'e or Sanuma tribes of Brazil or the Dani Tribe of New Guinea, or any of the nudist colonies around the world, especially in Germany, then come back and tell me you still actually believe what you wrote. This is just one reason why you should never blindly trust in one person like Ken, but instead be humble, honest and trust in the weight of verified evidence.

[@WobblyWhale]

There are other cultures that don't/didn't wear clothes though, or at least wore very few clothes compared to the norm in most places today. That some people cover themselves out of shame is probably just due to the culture they were raised in. Also, I'm not sure where you got "our starting point is a monkey" from. I don't see anyone claiming that.

[@SumithMathew]

@@WobblyWhale : 1. ... probably just due to the culture they were raised in: You and I might disagree on this point. Shame is not a cultural thing; it's more intrinsic than culture. But for the sake of our conversation let's assume it started in culture. From an atheist perspective, where did shame come from? How did it become part of our collective thought process? 2. ... our starting point is a monkey: I stated that sarcastically, but it was made in relation to clothing. Of course, I know the monkey is not the starting point. The point I was trying to make was that if our nearest cousin is a monkey, and the monkeys are not clothed, then we can't get shame from them otherwise you would see monkeys walking around in designer clothes (jk).

[@WobblyWhale]

​@@SumithMathew 1. When I said, "That some people cover themselves out of shame is probably just due to the culture they were raised in, "I was talking about shame from being naked, specifically. This was in response to you saying that the fact that we cover ourselves out of shame supports the Genesis account. As for the origins of the emotion shame in general, the most popular explanation given by atheists (and many non-atheists) is that emotions emerged through evolution, the current scientific consensus. 2. Even if human shame for being naked wasn't culturally caused, that wouldn't mean that monkeys not possessing this trait somehow supports the Genesis account. That humans and monkeys are close cousins doesn't mean they share all of the same traits. Their close relationship does mean that they are very similar, but not in all aspects. 3. Our most closely related extant species is not a monkey, it is the chimpanzee. We don't descend from any living primate today. I am not an expert on the subject of evolution, but I think everything said above was correct. Reading over your comment again, it seems that you may disagree with me on whether shame of *nudity specifically* is culturally caused. There are many cultures that are completely unashamed to be nude, as a quick Wikipedia read demonstrates (see History of nudity article). To me, this strongly suggests humans don't have an innate propensity to feel ashamed for their nakedness; rather this feeling is bestowed by the culture they are raised in.

[@SumithMathew]

@@WobblyWhale 1. Evolution is the answer: When everything is explained away with evolution it is hard to have any conversation with atheists (and many non-atheists). I understand the general answer to all things (including nakedness) is evolution. But it does not answer why we developed shame as an emotion. Of course, we can broadly say it was evolution, but nowhere have I read why we developed that emotion. 2. It's the culture: If you say, we developed shame as part of our culture, I disagree. The first time I felt shame because of my nakedness was not because my parents or my culture told me, but because I deeply felt it inside of me and it was devoid of any external considerations like culture or parents. I was still a small child, and I still could have been naked around my parents, but I did not even want to be naked around them anymore. This is not something that evolution or culture have sufficiently answered. 3. Naked tribes: The naked tribes are a very small fraction in comparison to the entire population of the world. So, I would not use them as a standard to say, "Look shame is cultural." Even if I were to regard them in my analysis, I have not seen any documentary or study claiming they have no shame. Most of these tribes are only half naked and not fully naked. They have some sort of a clothing covering their groin area. It may not cover everything but the fact they have some sort of a covering tells me that even they have shame. 4. Nudist colony: Even in those clubs it takes people some time to abandon clothing unless you are total pervert. Nudist colonies to me are almost like a habitual liar. Let me explain. The first time we lie, we all feel that inward guilt. But if we keep persisting in lying eventually it becomes second nature and we overcome that guilt to the point that we are entirely unconscious of our lying nature. Even when we know we are lying it does not bother us because we have built up enough momentum to overcome any guilt feeling we might have. So, to me a nudist colony is not something that disproves shame as a cultural phenomenon, but rather it informs me that people have to work at abandoning the deeply felt shame.

[@anormal9.h]

After reading the Christians in this comment section, i lost some brain cells 😭🤣.

[@xenozombie6200]

The bulk of comments here seem unaware that Alex graduated with degrees in philosophy and theology, specifically to give theistic arguments their proper due. He had an "edgy" phase (considering he started on YT as a teenager), but has in recent years mellowed into what he calls "nonresistant atheism." While I won't claim he always draws correct conclusions, you're unlikely to find a prominent atheist who gives religious arguments a fairer shake.

[@dontaylor1701]

The answers to his questions were answered long ago. If he encountered them through his studies, then what was the point of asking them again? Odd behavior.

[@xenozombie6200]

​@@dontaylor1701 Maybe the answers were unsatisfactory.

[@dontaylor1701]

@@xenozombie6200 If he knew the answers and was unsatisfied, asking a question about the unsatisfactory answer would have made more sense. Asking questions that are already answered is oddly unsatisfying.

[@xenozombie6200]

@@dontaylor1701 Discussing and debating theistic arguments is a major component of Alex's job. If you're convinced he's missed some string of obvious truths despite his thousands of hours devoted to the subject, then you're wasting your time telling me. He's got a YT channel, a website and social media. Go tell him.

[@dontaylor1701]

⁠@@xenozombie6200 I simply responded to your message informing us that he was an unimpeachable expert who knows all of the answers and is a very nice guy.

[@DrPhilGoode]

“The Bible claims to be the word of God, Alex rejects that, therefore he is going to reject what Gods word says to us. We are not going to understand everything, we are only finite beings. He (Alex) is not going to accept the answers…..” If Alex is only a finite being like the rest of us, how then can he be expected to believe in something that he wasn’t created to understand in the first place? Saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is hardly an argument.

[@IgnoranceBegetsConfidence]

And yet when I love one dies you feel sorrow. But it's the single most wonderful. Great incredible thing that can ever happen to a human being. According to Christianity is going up to heaven and meeting god. You say with your mouth you believe something but you actions betray you. So before you point the finger at somebody else not really believing it's you that doesn't believe. Truly that's all of you

[@EitherSpark]

7:34 Why should the serpent be punished for the actions of the devil?

[@bjteacher3721]

12:28 Such a great point. God gave Adam (mankind) one command. Just one. It would have been different if Adam and Eve had nothing to eat, but they had a garden FULL of food to eat. Clearly, it's our fault, and I thank God for His sacrifice, His mercy.

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

Beverly-----YES! It was MAN'S ( and Woman's) Rebellion, that caused the "FALL." And it wasn't about....."FRUIT." AND....It wasn't about One Little Act of Rebellion. The event that took place, was representative of the "NATURE" of mankind. It wasn't Just Adam, or, Eve, that caused the Fall of Mankind------ANYone would have Failed! BETTY and JOE; HARRY and JOAN-----It would NOT have mattered! We were ALL "Fallen" even before our BIRTH! And THAT is why GOD provided a....."LAMB!" AMEN!

[@benapeh854]

"WE" didn't do anything. Your god applied the choices of two people that he set up to everybody else.

[@aj225]

Thanks Ken, good to hear a voice that is straight forward and not offering up salvation or a cure for what ails the afflicted, for a cash donation! Well tempered and to the point is what I need to hear more of.

[@Tweeza57]

Beautiful gracious presentation of the truth - thank you Ken and I hope that Alex has the courage to listen - amen praise God

[@gknight4719]

Just say Alex never changes his mind, will this loving god put him in hell for eternity? according to Revelation ch 20 vs 15, god will. NOT SO LOVING IS IT.

[@aigkenham]

Would He Condemn People to Eternal Torment? - Answers in Genesis answersingenesis.org/eternal-torment/

[@aigkenham]

Posted by moderator

[@LilySage-mf7uf]

@@aigkenham Why doesn't Ham go on Alex's show and debate him ? 🤷‍♀

[@torreyintahoe]

Not the truth.

[@kennethleeds8503]

Ken doesn't actually address Alex's arguments, because Alex is right. Even if Satan is using the serpent, Satan is effectively holding sway over what happens in the Garden of Eden. How is creation "good" in that regard? Ken never answers that question. Ken doesn't address Alex's argument that pain existed before the fall. Therefore, suffering existed before the fall. Instead of answering the question, he simply comments about how Adam and Eve felt shame after the fall. That's not an answer. Alex doesn't mock the bible. He simply points out where it is wrong.

[@kyloooooo]

Simply pointing out Bible is wrong is not actually a thing.

[@TruthRevealed982]

Why would he know what's wrong? What gives him and you authority to decide what is right or wrong? The serpent/ satan didn't have any authority on earth before the fall but was trying to lure Eve to go against God's command. She had a choice, a free will, but she disobeyed God. So did Adam. Adam and Eve were created to be immortal so they couldn't get sick and weren't depressed or similar things. But they were probably capable of feeling physical pain, for example when they hit something. Childbirth maybe would have hurt very little and there would be no risk of miscarriage or disease. But now there is so much pain and risk in pregnancy and disease because of the original sin.

[@drew93493]

That’s a great question!

[@EitherSpark]

0:55 Just because something can comes about by chance does not mean it is flawed. It is true that random mutations occur and specific mutations come about by chance, but these mutations are naturally selected for. 'Chance' is not the only component of evolution. Logic and reason may have been 'selected' for as they are beneficial - the same goes for sight and the ability to digest lactose.

[@rickardoribeiropinto]

But our perception wasn’t selected for understanding reality, only for survival. If an intelligent rat species, during its evolution, evolved an irrational fear of cats, thinking they’re actually giant venom-breathing dragons, and actually being able to smell the fictional poison, such feature would be favorably selected. But the resulting rat species would have a distorted view of reality. The same applies for the laws of logic: by evolution, we only know they apply to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the savana; not necessarily so in abstract thinking about the world. That’s the point.

[@balding_guy2]

Please explain to me the 'evolutionary benefit' of the Reimann Hypothesis

[@cvanunen]

Watching Ken logic, is like watching a dog chase its tail. What an absolute wetnap.

[@therougesage7466]

Are you using monkey logic for that one?

[@cvanunen]

@@therougesage7466 Well I prefer to say ape logic, since we never descended from monkeys; But how could you know that when everything you know about evolution is fed to you by con artists that believe in talking snakes, and you slurp it up like a pig at a buffet.

[@roysherwin9348]

​@@cvanunengood one 👍

[@cvanunen]

@lovingdutchfootball Nonsense. Imaginary friends are not a requirement for reason or logic. If it were required, however, then I need only to make up a better god than yours, and now my foundation for all reason and logic trumps yours. You see how silly that sounds now?

[@roysherwin9348]

@cvanunen except you don't have a foundation for reasoning. if your computer evolved through a series of random and unguided accidents, would you trust it to give you accurate results? What about your brain? 🧠

[@ClauseNight]

The only struggle I have with the original sin is if we are born into the Original sin (so we come into this world sinful) then those that die before they can even understand what sin is, children or even infants, have no hope to come to know jesus.

[@TheLookingGlass001]

IN John chapter 9 it speaks of a blind man who was healed by Jesus. The pharisees and Jesus' disciples believe that blindness is the man's punishment for his sin or from his ancestors sin (the blind man was blind his whole life), yet Jesus said that he was sinless. There is also the fact that Jesus was born into this world by Mary, would this mean Jesus was already a sinner to begin with? I would say no. God judges us based off of the laws He had given us and those who have called upon the name of the Lord is saved. I have faith that all infants who had sadly passed are given a place in heaven, can I give you a 100% assurance on this, no, but I have faith based on the Bible that God protects those who never sinned.

[@tymiller4689]

Sin is rebellion against God. We are cast into hell because of sin. Obviously, an infant can’t purposefully do wrong because it doesn’t have the means to.

[@easytop40fingerstyleguitar]

If I weren’t an atheist nor a christian….I would surely find Alex more credible then the fuzzy talk of Ken.

[@Mr.Bones777]

As a born and raised man of 56 years from my Blue Grass State of Kentucky, I am so glad and honored that you chose us to call your new home. Welcome Ken ❤

[@pigdog1971]

Australia says you can keep him .😅😂😂

[@briannewton3535]

@@pigdog1971 Ken is simply a grifter, and I gotta say whilst there are credulous and gullible Christians around to 'buy' this rubbish like an ark attraction, that put in an insurance claim for flood damage, for what amounted to 'an act of God' Ken will move to where the crazy is.

[@deanjacobs6693]

@@pigdog1971 thats a good one

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

Australia truly dodged a bullet there. Keep the Creationist loons in the US, they seem to have a penchant for unrealistic and irrational vievpoints when it comes to magical thinking.

[@Druid75]

“Alex just rejects there is a holy god” well until you demonstrate the existence of that god thats just a dishonest talking point. He’s not rejecting a god he’s rejecting your claim there is a god Ken, you need to have some honesty

[@joannware6228]

"The art of dying well does begin with the art of living well, but living well does not by any means guarantee that death will be easy. In fact, for many, if not most people, dying is anything but easy. It involves pain and suffering and loneliness. But as coheirs with Jesus, we are called to share in his suffering that we may also be glorified with him." -Dr. Stephen E. Doran, M.D. from his book, To Die Well

[@dustinrollings9440]

Not even 60 seconds into the video, and you insult Alex's ability to use logic and reasoning because he accepts the evidence presented for evolution? Really mature.

[@nondhimmi1]

60 seconds till the first logical fallacy

[@ravkhar927]

Actually, this wasn’t an insult at all nor is it specifically directed at Alex, his statement was based on the flawed logic of intellectuals who believe in everything evolving by random chance whereas logic is based on sound reasoning so the question posed by this is, if you are just a random collection of random proteins and chemicals, how can you then trust your logic which would also be random? Sir Isaac Newton approached science from the opposite perspective in that if there is a creator, then there must be order and harmony and design in the universe to which he uncovered all that he did.

[@TheDeadbirdy]

Ken Ham is the man!

[@timlewis9650]

It’s hypocritical to say we are finite in knowledge when it comes to understanding talking snakes used by the devil but then use that same finite knowledge to describe definitively/authoritatively Adam’s free will, where the Bible doesn’t mention anything about it. Ken only makes inferences when they’re convenient to his stance. When they’re not, it’s “we don’t understand everything”

[@RobotProctor]

Sometimes, I don't think you refuted his points, but attacked him for having "random" thoughts, even though you believe he was made by God. For example, he said the snake was evil to say that evil existed in Eden. Even if the devil is evil, and was acting through the snake, that still validates Alex's point I think. Other times, like when you called out his misunderstanding of "day", I think you had better criticisms of his ideas. Stick to attacking ideas, not the person.

[@cliveandersonjr.8758]

Thank you for your persistent defense of the Christian faith Mr. Ham. May God bless you tremendously! 🙏

[@MarilynLoveYou]

He's defending his need of a psychological comfort, so by refusing logic and reason he desperately cling to the dreamy fairy tale of God creator whose only purpose and aim is to be worshipped and in return he gives his followers this fabled eternal life in heaven

[@roberthubal6278]

"Free will" is a gift of God. Imagine how extraordinary that is

[@daviddavenport9350]

It means that Pelagius was right, and that the Augustinian concept of man is not! Which further means that the fundamentalist view of human nature is not correct either.

[@roberthubal6278]

@@daviddavenport9350 Well...from the beginning God was telling the truth. Evil tempted Eve. Adam went along knowing there would be consequences. They were concious. Free will. Choice. If it wasn't Adam and Eve. It was going to happen eventually. Satan's pride was already revealed through the serpent. He can not/will not repent. We can. That's the difference.

[@seekfirstthekingdom4388]

Then why isn’t everyone using their will to live a perfect life?

[@roberthubal6278]

@@seekfirstthekingdom4388 experience, naivety, self indulgence, ignorance, laziness, education, agenda temptation

[@DavidLi-yi1zv]

As much as we might be tempted to roll our eyes when atheists like Alex challenge us with seemingly tired arguments, I believe in God's providence, this presents an opportunity to clarify the Christian position even more and in turn strengthens our faith against the kind of subtle lies that Satan throws our way. Plus, these kinds of tired arguments/questions/objections were voiced by me before I became a Christian and even now as a Christian (due to Satan's temptations among other things) and God has answered robustly through His Word thereby strengthening my faith. I think Alex was respectful in his challenges and I think Ken responded robustly and respectfully. I commend both and I echo Ken's deep desire to see Alex in the New Heaven and New Earth where there will be no more sin, death and suffering.

[@Sola_Scriptura_1.618]

Amen! Alex is the new fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! God bless!

[@wonderlife62]

Christianity is a poor substitute for God, that’s why Alex rejects it and for good reason😃

[@Revivalism23]

​@@wonderlife62cope

[@somerandom3247]

Kens response here was neither robust, or respectful. Ken failed to address any of the points made. And he very disrespectfully claimed that Alex is lying about his disbelief.

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

​@@wonderlife62OH YEH-----He's certainly a HOLY MAN OF GOD!! ( Yeh Right!).

[@somerandom3247]

What a dishonest, avoident responce. Please keep doing these videos. Its people Like you that are helping more and more people realise how ridiculous christianity is.

[@blakebortles3805]

I agree….He’s bending what the Bible says to fit his narrative

[@kelvinkanchebele9133]

What exactly did he answer wrong on the Bible?

[@caioribeiro4689]

@@kelvinkanchebele9133 that's the problem. He didn't explain anything, everything was "god exists, the bible is right, you're wrong"

[@kelvinkanchebele9133]

@@caioribeiro4689 Could you give a specific example?

[@mryoyo1234]

​@@kelvinkanchebele9133nothing. Ken answered correctly. These guys are just bitter and suppress the truth of God

[@PmurtDlanod]

I see some of Alex's ponies may be correct. I need to research more of his videos.

[@TruthRevealed982]

If Alex put in the same effort to understand the Bible instead of trying to go against it, he would find that everything in the Bible is historically accurate.

[@agnusdei2862]

​@@Legend-mg2ryno matter how delusional " every knee WILL bow and every tongue WILL confess Jesus is Lord

[@wonderlife62]

Alex is a fine young man who doesn’t want Christians with a book dictating how he should think or live…God doesn’t need Christianity who thinks it’s God

[@libertyresearch-iu4fy]

@@wonderlife62 Maybe Alex should change his mind because he's not doing a good job of thinking on his own.

[@JoshYng]

He did a full theology degree at Oxford…..what?

[@libertyresearch-iu4fy]

@@JoshYng Even if that is true, it means nothing to actual knowledge. Theology schools are crap, yes even Oxford.

[@stiopruryd4879]

Well Alex has arguments and reason with him. Ken has a 2000 years old book that is self contradictory and makes no sense in the face of scientific progress. I m with Alex.

[@andrevisser7542]

This is what happen when someone who are still "dead", existing in satan's bondage, living in a fallen state, is trying to figure out life and our existence while rejecting the Creator, the only one who can tell us what happened in the beginning. If only he would listen a bit to what those who get delivered from bondage are telling him, he might also experience God for himself...

[@TheSaintFrenzy]

A firm, fair, loving rebuttal. Well done!

[@briannewton3535]

What was "loving" about that rebuttal?

[@nilswagner1536]

All it did was show that Ken Ham does not even understand logic at the level of a 12-year-old It hurts to listen to people like Ham here... it's clear he does not even understand basic logic even 1 min into this... it does not matter if logic evolved etc, logic is either true or false, just like mathematics is either correct or it is not. The laws of logic is a representation of reality. This man could do with some basic education.

[@briannewton3535]

@@nilswagner1536 I always laugh when stupid assertions are made, and when challenged they do not support them. It was comical to see Christian suggest that the rebuttal was "Loving" There is no hate like Christian love, I guess we need to add there is no rebuttal like a l'oving' Christian rebuttal

[@nilswagner1536]

@@briannewton3535 Indeed, also, there is no ignorance , like the dishonest ignorance of a Christian defending is faith.

[@briannewton3535]

@@nilswagner1536 The thing I love about the Christian faith, is when the bible tells us “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1. So they are unable to *see* any evidence for their god existing, they simply *hope* that an old story book just happens to be the perfect word of the one and only 'true' god through using 'faith'. The fun thing is, other religions also have divine scripture that informs them that they also have the 'true' gods for each of their religions. How do they know that this is true? Well they use the same inerrant method the Christians use, *"faith"* I find it amusing that they seem blind to the fact that "faith" is not a reliable path to 'truth'. Theists: naive and credulous, bless their cotton socks.

[@maxipaw-dc5xj]

I love Alex O'Connor❤❤. He led me to the truth

[@anormal9.h]

W bro

[@Tomarsnback.]

He literally tells you in the beginning that you will not understand everything, but you believe in God so throw everything out the window because it's what he said and that's it. Only pay attention to the parts that align and forget the parts don't, cause thats that.

[@stephanieautry2861]

Thank you to Mr Ham and AIG crew! It's good to hear from you about how to handle these ideas from others.

[@patrickwoods2213]

All that Ken Ham says and has ever said is basically- “if you don’t believe in my book of ancient fairytales, then you’re just wrong”. That’s all he’s ever been able to come up with.

[@michaelsears6702]

@patrickwoods2213 that’s odd. I never heard him say that

[@patrickwoods2213]

@@michaelsears6702 Ever heard of paraphrasing? Ever heard of expressing an idea in your own words? Seriously? I'm basically summarizing everything Ken Ham stands for into one sentence. If you want to know his attitude - then that's it. That he thinks lesser of people who don't accept his views. It's easy to spot.

[@michaelsears6702]

@patrickwoods2213 well when u put quotes around a sentence then that means u r quoting what they said. So I said I never heard him say that. And in response u insult. And did u know that u actually do the same thing u r accusing Ken of?

[@patrickwoods2213]

@@michaelsears6702 You're telling me that you've seriously never seen quotes around a paraphrase? Happens all the time, and it's hard to believe that every time you see quotations around something, you assume it's literally a verbatim quote. I'm assuming that you've read books before and went to school, right? "And did u know that u actually do the same thing u r accusing Ken of?" How? That's complete nonsense. Because I don't believe in ancient books, I can't accuse Ken of being wrong on his interpretation- because as far as I'm concerned, any interpretation of a religious book can be the right one - because no one can prove which one is wrong. I can however say that he's completely wrong about evolution, because he has been shown by many other scientists that he's wrong - including many people who share his faith. That's what makes him an embarrassment to both America and Australia. But of course when you invest tens of millions of dollars into brainwashing young children, and being bigoted and hateful towards the LGBTQ community - then you can't backpedal. At that point, you have to keep up the charade - because to admit that you're wrong would be admitting that you've wasted your whole life. And that's an impossible thing to come to grips with for most people. So in one sense, I can't blame him for continuing his narcissistic behavior, because to face the truth would be terrifying and completely destroy him - which would probably lead to an early death. Of course if that happened, I wouldn't be too sad about it. Good day.

[@MKDietz]

How the mind can twist and turn to fit things.

[@hmsealey3243]

When I wrote "The King's Story" I tackled so many of the issues Alex raises in a great deal of depth. God did not "put an evil serpent in the garden." He created angels, but they, like us, are not robots, they had free will and one of them decided to rebel and took a third of them with him. He then inserted himself into God's creation. I have a great deal of respect for Alex, he's very intelligent, but his theological understanding is quite lacking. If you don't read things as deliberately superficially as Alex, the story of creation awesome and glorious and actually makes perfect sense. As a novelist I often speak on the Bible and one of the things I love most is that the the way the Biblical narrative actually connects together despite different writers in different historical periods is astonishing.

[@arcticpangolin3090]

I’ve never found the free will defence of things very compelling. Because to suggest that god couldn’t create morally righteous beings with free will seems to suggest a level of relative incompetence which necessarily impact the idea of god’s perfection and tri Omni traits. Because where is the contradiction in creating a morally righteous being who would freely choose good? And if this isn’t possible, does god not have free will?

[@dorian7661]

I'm an ex YEC, but I find that Ham's answer is very calm and respectful. Even though some of O'Connor's points were slightly dodged 😊

[@foxnfire6388]

That’s funny because I’ve found myself becoming an ex OEC now after listening to some of Ham and others. This guy has been demonized so much even I years ago as an OEC Christian thought he had to be some shady dude. But what I’ve come to realize is YEC’s interpretation of Genesis is indeed the most “natural” one. The ONLY reasons I had for not believing it and finding other explanations, even as a believing Christian who still thought Adam was real, was due solely to interpretations of “evidence” that have truly nothing to do with the Bible indeed like geology deposits, the speed of light and distance of stars, etc.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

All of Alex's main point were dodged

[@jameslafayette3866]

​@@celestialsatheist1535 how?

[@celestialsatheist1535]

@@jameslafayette3866 by avoiding the most of the video and ad hoc explanations with no references

[@samirpernell2136]

​@foxnfire6388 I suggest you check out inspiring philosophy and his discussion over genesis which is a series of videos. Tbh I think YEC is incredibly flawed

[@makescode]

Alex: evil must have existed in the garden before Adam & Eve sinned because the evil serpent was there to deceive Eve. Ken: actually, the devil used the serpent, so...no problem! Yeah Ken, that definitely rebuts Alex's point 🙄. Makes me think of Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun, "Alright! Nothing to see here! Move on!...". Also Ken: "...God did punish the serpent...". For? Being the unwitting tool of the devil? If we can't trust our ability to reason if we are a product of evolution, what does it say that your ability to reason has been seriously impaired by the beliefs you were doubtless indoctrinated into from a young age?

[@MrLaughingcorpse]

Satan didn't rebel until after Adam and Eve were created. On the seventh day. Before that everything was "very good". And yes the serpent was something unique in the garden but we aren't given much more details.

[@makescode]

@@MrLaughingcorpse That's unfortunate timing. Too bad God couldn't have seen that coming.

[@MrLaughingcorpse]

@@makescode God saw everything from beginning to end. All that was in his plan. You should really read the bible first before making comments about God.

[@makescode]

@@MrLaughingcorpse Do you think arrogantly assuming I haven't read the bible is in keeping with the fruits of the spirit? I don't. Also, I've read the bible entirely, more than once. Does God hate sin in your view? And if yes, yet sin was a part of his plan from the beginning? God is not willing that any should perish, but also billions of people ending up in Hell was part of the plan? I'm just trying to figure out which particular set of contradictory claims you have decided you want to try to defend.

[@SebastianRomero-fg5jh]

Ken Ham , everything you said made absolutely NO SENSE. Just accept the fact Alex made some good points and you had nothing to back it up.

[@wilfredocarpenterojr.9376]

Any system that involes threat, I don't entertain it.I used to believe these stories since I was a child not because I figured it out myself but because it was handed down to me by my parents whom I respect and admire. My curiousity did not stop me there, a few years back something caught my attention that made me so inerested in watching hundreds of hours of formal debates about this subjects. I only watched debates of experts on their respective fields, most of them with PhDs, scholars, popular authors. I approched it with open mind even if I was raised in a religious family. I wished I did it earlier in my life. One of the many important lessons I learned was you have to be comfortable in saying "I don't know" while you are still figuring it out.

[@jessewallace12able]

There is no “devout” atheism.

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

GOD IS GOOD! I Feel HIS Presence EVERY day!!

[@SamyasaSwi]

You really don't need to shout. Relax my man

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

​@@SamyasaSwi If hip hop artists get a Shout out, GOD GETS A SHOUT OUT, my man!

[@HereComesThe-Sun]

I’m actually asking because I’m curious. What does his presence feel like?

[@bobbieleland7687]

We appreciate you Ken Ham

[@Darkpill-2]

As an atheist I appreciate him as there is nothing better that a Christian apologist who literally believes the ark story to convince people to be atheist 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@r.addisonarthur9392]

"Sin becomes custom, custom becomes habit, habit becomes nature, nature becomes necessity". Bernard von Clairvaux

[@CP-012]

Interesting note that Adam lived for 930 years and scripture says that a thousand years is but a day to God. So, maybe God was literally referring to a day…from his perspective .

[@StageWatcher]

Atheists will try to nitpick accounts of complicated events or concepts and play semantic games while turning a blind eye to the elephant in the room: God has revealed Himself to mankind. Whether or not we understand His words has no effect on whether He's real or whether He's right.

[@briannewton3535]

Youi say "God has revealed Himself to mankind." Which god are you referencing, and how did the god that you are talking about reveal itself? The two most popular gods have only revealed themself to less then a quarter of mankind respectively.

[@StageWatcher]

@@briannewton3535 I'll give you one of God's revelations and you can tell me what you think. We know that the Old Testament was written prior to the time of Jesus because of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the independent preservation of the Tanakh by the Jews. Within these texts is the passage in Daniel 9:25-26: Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. The time between the command to rebuild Jerusalem and the time "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself" was to be 69 (7+62) "weeks". Historians tell us this command was given by Artaxerxes in 444BC. These "weeks" are sets of 7 years. Now, many of the ancients used a 360 day standard lunar year (adjustments were made with a leap month rather than a leap day). 7x69x360=173,880 days. Convert this to solar years by dividing by 365.25=476 years. 476-444BC+1 (adjust for no year 0)=AD33. Now read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 for more details of what is entailed by "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself." Remember, all this is verifiably from before the time of Jesus. I'm assuming that the second "god" that you are referring to is Allah. I challenge you to demonstrate that Allah has any mastery over time the way that Yahweh does.

[@tannerman46]

I stopped watching after you dodged his first question. There was evil in the garden of Eden, that's undeniable. You can't just say "I don't know". There was evil, get over it.

[@Crash_endo]

Exactly, that was an annoyance for me as well! It is important to explain these small but important things. Most Christians believe that because Satan was in the garden of Eden, there was evil but it didn't effect Adam and Eve. What I also missed from Ken's arguments was the explanation that with the opportunity to sin we would all eventually sinned. He said in one of his video's that without the opportunity we would be like robots, which makes sense and is what Christians overall believe.

[@thomastessier4529]

A verse in part about the end days..."...the wicked will act wickedly and not understand. The wise will understand".

[@Imacuser223]

I confess my response would've been more hasty and ill-tempered; like the sons of thunder. Thank you, Ken, for your patient and biblically sound teaching. God bless.

[@baonemogomotsi7138]

Because you can't handle criticism. It's nothing to be proud of, turn to God and ask Him to give you strength.

[@simonfreeman308]

Ken is not Biblically sound. Both the Old and New Testament teach that covenantal death is the price for sin not physical death.

[@TexasHoosier3118]

Where is the term covenental death found in the Bible? @@simonfreeman308

[@teejay9395]

Sin changed Adam’s very nature. He couldn’t reproduce perfect human specimens at this point. All descendants would be born with that same nature, as much as replicating the human form. We would be punished for our own sin, not his.

[@oldmanjoe6808]

The very BEST reply to one of my comments against Atheism came in a reply precisely as this... " I know God better than you do." He even capitalized the "G" in "God." Confused sorts, are they not? This is how the atheists hang themselves... by cursing God they wittingly admit He exists.

[@briannewton3535]

Who cursed the biblical god?

[@oldmanjoe6808]

@@briannewton3535 You just did curse the Biblical God by not showing even enough respect but instead, employ atheist grammar by not capitalizing His name nor the Bible.

[@briannewton3535]

@@oldmanjoe6808 I think you are getting confused with how grammar works. I have not cursed the biblical god, I do not curse the Muslim god, I do not curse the Hindu gods either, by referencing them with a lower case 'g' as this is how one references them correctly using the English language. There are so many gods out there and when I reference a god, I do like to specify which god. If the god has a name like Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, El Shaddai or whatever I may choose to capitalise the names of each of these gods. If I were to reference the Abrahamic god, I cannot simply call it God, as is this Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, or HaShem? Do you call Allah God, or is Allah simply a god, or maybe like me, you do not think that Allah exists. Before you accuse me of not giving the god that you worship 'enough respect', learn how to use the English language. You have not understood the fundamentals with regard to grammar within the English language. You do capitalise Bible, you do not capitalise biblical. I note you did capitalise it incorrectly. I see ignorance like this quite a lot in the Christian community. Have a blessed day.

[@briannewton3535]

@@oldmanjoe6808 With regard to giving the biblical god any respect, I suppose one first needs to accept that this particular god exists in the first place. I personally do not believe that Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Brahma, HaShem, Odin, Thor, or any other of the thousands of proposed gods actually exist. One then needs to consider if a misogynistic, bigoted and genocidal god is worthy of respect. I personally do not see those character traits as traits to be respected. I additionally do not think that a god that advocates for permanently owning people as property, and allowing owners of this property to beat them almost to death at will and with impunity is worthy of any respect at all. Do you respect anyone who would tell you that permanently owning people is acceptable?

[@briannewton3535]

​@@oldmanjoe6808 Re "You just did curse the Biblical God by not showing even enough respect but instead, employ atheist grammar by not capitalizing His name nor the Bible." What I find amusing is that you are suggesting that I am using atheistic grammar, this is ironic, as you are using theistic grammar when you capitalise 'he'. Let's present how Christians like yourself apply 'theistic grammar'. The word 'God' is capitalised because it generally refers to the God of the Bible, Qur'an, or the Bhagavad Gita and treats the word as a name. Let's write a sentence where we use a persons name and refer to them. A Christian may say "...by cursing *God* they wittingly admit *He* exists." as they use Christian grammar. Someone who uses normal grammar might say something like "... by insulting *Joe* they considered that that *he* was wilfully ignorant. When referring to their gender, one does not capitalise their pronoun. If one is a Christian, one may choose to ignore English grammatical convention, and go rogue so to speak.

[@VindensSaga]

It is always the same stuff over and over again. If a question gets answered they ask it again somewhere else or tweak the question. I don't engage with atheists anymore because there is really no point in doing so. I always question their intent; Are they trying to save me from what they believe or think is something malicious? or they want to see my faith collapse because it is fun for them to watch? I believe because I chose to believe in God and within it I have found peace; I do really feel sorry for people who wishes me to believe or feel otherwise.

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

I suspect you don't engage with atheists because you simply do not have a *good* reason to why you believe in this particular god. The chances are you were indoctrinated into believing in this god, before you were aware of Allah Vishnu, Odin or whichever. You question our intent? How intriguing, why would our intent be of concern? I am curious now, what do you think atheists are trying to save you from? If your faith collapses it is down to you not having a *good* reason to believe what you do. This is not down to atheism or atheists, this is down to your *good* reason to believe, when the rational and sceptical atheists cannot see any *good* reason to believe, we are simply asking theists like yourself to present the *good* reason, or reasons why you believe, and this *good* reason could be enough to convince us also. The typical response I get is along the lines of "I could tell you why I believe, but if I told you, you wouldn't believe me" When theists say this, it simply tells me that they do not have a *good* reason. I wonder if you have a *good* reason?

[@aaronadamson7463]

Proverbs 9:7 Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Proverbs 15:12 A scoffer does not love one who reproves him, He will not go to the wise. Proverbs 9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you. Proverbs 14:6 A scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none, But knowledge is easy to one who has understanding. Proverbs 19:25 Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd, But reprove one who has understanding and he will gain knowledge. Many of these atheists fit the description of a mocker or scoffer. They will not change their minds regardless of what is shown to them.

[@JustaNaughtyBoy]

@@aaronadamson7463 Re "Many of these atheists fit the description of a mocker or scoffer. They will not change their minds regardless of what is shown to them." I am an atheist. you claim *"They will not change their minds regardless of what is shown to them"* I am here to tell you that if you show me *good* evidence, that would absolutely change my mind. The ball is in your court now. Have a blessed day.

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

@@aaronadamson7463 "They will not change their minds regardless of what is shown to them." May I ask what would you need to be shown to change your mind?

[@VindensSaga]

@@JustaNaughtyBoy If you honest about your search, which means that you have actually put in the effort to read from multiple sources which means both secular and non-secular and still lacks faith or belief than there is nothing anyone here in the comment section can do for you. It is entirely up to you and God and non of our business who are baystanders. the bargaining of your soul is not ours to make.

[@Mark_Henry]

Why is Ken Ham's voice so soothing?... maybe because you can tell he's genuine, rational and kind?

[@TheodoreKlemmedson]

I love it and a great reminder to remain kind during these kind of debates/challenges because we just serve the Truth and Pray, no need to lose our peace.

[@torreyintahoe]

Is that why you believe his BS?

[@Mark_Henry]

@@torreyintahoe Do you mean believing him because he's rational, and genuine and kind? Definitely 😉

[@Mark_Henry]

@@TheodoreKlemmedson Ken Ham is a great example of that example of Christ. I have listened to an missionary from Mexico for years, and he's been beaten, stoned, shot stabbed and imprisoned for the Gospel... he's really gruff... but is a great example of Jesus too. I do see Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal, and Jesus and John the Baptist even using name (not cursing of course), but they called the self righteous of their day, snakes, vipers, white washed tombs full of death, and other things... so personally it's difficult to see that saying "everything" in a calm soothing voice isn't the only way to confront people... maybe some people are won by more aggressive confrontations and others by warmth (like Ken Ham)...I love listening to Ken confronting the atheists but I also love hearing the missionary David, confronting them with healthy aggression as well. What do you think Theodore? I never really digested that Jesus (who could go from extremely warm and tender to extremely aggressive and offensive - the disciples told Him that He had offended the Pharisees), and John the Baptist and I do love Elijah mocking things that deserve to be mocked...a.k.a. that there are other gods.

[@torreyintahoe]

@@Mark_Henry Teaching ignorance and science denial is as far from rational as you can get.

[@clmkc5393]

I am a Christian and Alex has some good points that i agree with. Allegorical references are found throughout the Bible. The Bible was written by "fallible man," and made errors, some on purpose some by mistake. At least mr. Ham believes in free will - surprised at that. These things are important because truth matters. We only have a dim view of the omnipotence of God. Science, history, archeology, psychology and other studies shed light on our dim view. Alex's comments about God establishing man on the earth with an already demonic influencer, is one i have thought about. It depends on who arrived first - the timing of Lucifers rebellion in relation to mans creation. Mr. Ham's continual use of circular logic needs to be understood from his dogmatic world view. He's likely afraid of the truth and makes a nice living at it - don't forget to buy the book!

[@wonderlife62]

Alex is brilliant…When Ken can’t rebut he resorts to “ your a sinner” what do you know

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

Alex-----guided by fallen angels.....

[@lisawesome7588]

GOD is great! Amen. Praise him ALWAYS

[@raygsbrelcik5578]

ALWAYS ❤❤❤❤!!!!

[@SamyasaSwi]

​@@raygsbrelcik5578WHY ARE WE SHOUTING???

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

@Ken Ham - How much time does it take before "observational science" becomes "historical science"? How much time does it take Ken?

[@MrTripleAgamer]

Would love to see a conversation with you 2

[@idahojoe8232]

Hope to visit Kentucky one Day…🇺🇸 Soli Deo Gloria

[@benyaeger4388]

I have so many questions regarding faith and religion. I have been getting answers more everyday with humility and humbleness. Each side of the debates we have should practice that more in their responses and life.

[@GiacomoManzella]

quite possibly the worst rebuttal of all time. Why are we wearing clothes ? are u serious ...

[@encounteringjack5699]

Few things. 1) Reasoning is not something that can just evolve. Reasoning comes from our ability to compile information in a deductive manner. If the information is only seen as information and not something to make inferences about, then that information will either be dismissed or acted on. Otherwise, it is played with which means the reasoning skills develop. Reasoning results from looking at information and piecing them together in a way. This is the key reason we can always improve our reasoning if there are faults. If a piece doesn’t fit, we can choose to either ignore it or find a way to make sense of it by rearranging the pieces. So there’s not really a, “did his reasoning evolve correctly?” Because reasoning just is. You either have the capacity, in which case you are able to make you’re own conclusions, or you don’t and you’re basically just a machine. 2) Alex has, at least once or twice, asked why he has never gotten the slightest hint of reliable evidence for God’s existence. Yet, he does not hold the belief that there is no God. Just that it doesn’t seem like there is. 3) Morality has always been a choice regardless of whether God exists. Even if it is subjective, it still matters. The question of whether it is objective is just playful thinking. An exercise in thought to discover something about the nature of morality. 4) Fourth, and lastly, your lack of acceptance with scientific evidence as well as the disrespect towards even other Christians judging by your video about William Lane Craig 4 months ago, is a prime example of why religion is, or can be, dangerous. There’s no reason why an all-good God wouldn’t allow for questions and doubt, and exploration. Not only that, you don’t actually know that the Bible is true, just what seems to be the most plausible explanation to you given the information you’ve come across.

[@steveprofiler]

I must say I smile when people claim people have so called free will. Because when we use socratic method no one seem to be able to explain what that is suppose to be. Why do chriatians ever sin if they have so called free will?

[@MarkGrago]

Dr. Bart Ehrman would have a field day in this camp! 😆😆😆

[@andrevisser7542]

Bart Err-man's spirit is still dead, the blind trying to lead the blind...

[@briannewton3535]

Bart deals with what is understood, or likely to be true, I doubt he would get involved with creationist silliness, I could be wrong though.

[@rebekahhesketh1220]

From 14:43 til the end- the entire gospel in a nutshell!! I love you, brother Ken! I hope to be at next year's Women's Retreat!!