The Roman Catholic Church accepts the Theory Of Evolution as fact. Are all Catholics therefore atheists? Kinda winnows down the number of believers, if you follow that logic, no?
You have enough evidence for God in His Word, His Creation, yet you are confortable in your sin and that alone will keep you from truth. On the day of Judgment there will be no excuses for your disbelief sir, one only to blame; yourself, i trully hope you repent before is too late.
@Roj899 All of them can be exposed easily, even the religious doctrine of evolution that atheists use in their religious doctrines. So if you want to validate (i´m supposing that you are an atheist naturalist) your religion you must expose all religions as false by your own admition to assume such absolute negative.
Well, the second part of your comment is pure and simple ignorant conjecture, denying the truth as harsh is it is will not make it disapear, wishful thinking does not work pal.
@Roj899 All of them can be exposed easily, even the religious doctrine of evolution that atheists use in their religious doctrines. So if you want to validate (i´m supposing that you are an atheist naturalist) your religion you must expose all religions as false by your own admition to assume such absolute negative.
Well, the second part of your comment is pure and simple ignorant conjecture, denying the truth as harsh is it is will not make it disapear, wishful thinking does not work pal.
@MagnusShaman "religious doctrine of evolution"? 1) Evolution is a scientific theory, i.e. analytically structured to explain a set of empirical observations. Science & its theories rest on methodological naturalism (note: not metaphysical naturalism), meaning they can't comment on the supernatural; they remain neutral. Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena, ergo evolution =/= religion. 2) "that atheists use"? Are you aware that millions of theists accept evolution?
@MagnusShaman "religious doctrine of evolution"? 1) Evolution is a scientific theory, i.e. analytically structured to explain a set of empirical observations. Science & its theories rest on methodological naturalism (note: not metaphysical naturalism), meaning they can't comment on the supernatural; they remain neutral. Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena, ergo evolution =/= religion. 2) "that atheists use"? Millions of theists accept evolution.
@gmn545 Evolution is an absolute silly fairytale either you are an atheist, a theist, a deist or any "eist". If you are speaking about "christians" (doubt) that believe on evolution, they are a walking inconsistency because they reject the very foundation for their faith, the Bible. Either you believe in the Bible or in evolution, you can´t have both, both are contradictory. Evolution excuses sin, the Word of God don´t, do you see why so many choose evolution? (Even if is absurd)
@MagnusShaman How is evolution a fairytale when it's been observed? It's simply changes in allelic frequencies within a population via differential success in reproduction (i.e. natural selection). And since when does accepting evolution = rejecting the bible? You are aware that Genesis' early chapters are read as an allegory by the majority of christians, right? Dr. Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome Project is a devout evangelical protestant; he accepts evolution.
@gmn545 Oh, has been observed? 1- Give me one observation of a kind "evolving" into another entirely different, give me living examples of that. Give me examples of non life creating life without any intelligent designer input, give one exaple of nothing creating something, more, and an example of a simple genetic mutation that can be seen without a doubt to develop the usability, and the genetic info of the genome.
@gmn545 Oh, has been observed? 1- Give me one observation of a kind "evolving" into another entirely different, give me living examples of that. Give me examples of non life creating life without any intelligent designer input, give one exaple of nothing creating something, more, and an example of a simple genetic mutation that can be seen without a doubt to develop the usability, and the genetic info of the genome.
@MagnusShaman Sure. "of a kind" The word 'kind' is not a scientific term; it's a vague title creationists use to shift goalposts with when an example of evolution is provided. Observed allopatric and sympatric speciation, i.e. evolution occuring at the species level due to geologic & reproductive isolation, is a fact. "non life creating life without any intelligent designer" Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. "nothing creating something" Evolution is biodiversity, not creation ex nihilo.
@gmn545 No problem with the word "kind" but if you prefer for the sake or argument i´ll mention "species". Species can adapt and undergo changes within species, yet there are limits to "changes" within species. One kind of living have never been observed to become another living thing. DNA coding prohibits one "family" to cross or become another entirelly different. So, the conclusion is simple; 1- micro e., observed, occurs, reproduceable. 2- macro religious, assumption, never observed
@gmn545 2- Give me any (non conjectural) example of macro evolution, and please use the scientific method; observation, testing, reproduction, not mere regorgitation or assumptions ;) Natural selection doesn´t create a thing, SELECTS :p Selection indicates choice-> design-> intelligence. No, the character of the God of the Bible is totally incompatible with such concept, read the first verses, they are literal, not "alegory". If evolution was true the attributes of God were wrong, it totally ...
@MagnusShaman "any (non conjectural) example of macro evolution and please use the scientific method" Here are a few documented studies which provide examples of macroevolution:
evolutionlist. blogspot. com / 2009 / 02 / macroevolution-examples-and-evidence. html
(remove spaces)
"Natural selection doesn't create a thing SELECTS :p" It's natural selection acting on mutation. "Selection indicates choice" NO. Maybe this will help you:
evolution. berkeley. edu / evolibrary / article / evo_32
@gmn545 Don´t skip the question please, Abiogenesis is the foundation for the doctrine of evolution. Evolutionists conviniently skip the answer saying that evolution (macro evo.) does not equal abiogenesis. That argument is fflawed since abiogenesis is the very foundation for the faith in evolution, is as oxymoronic as a christian denying the Bible, the very foundation for the faith.
1- the examples you gave are simple speculations, not sustained, even if there were true, they require faith ;)
@MagnusShaman It's an irrelevant one outside the scope of evolution. Evolution solely deals with how life diversifies, NOT how it began. That's why Charles Darwin himself (Origin of Species) said it was possible that life "ha[d] been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one", and the process of evolution takes hold afterward. However, if you want the facts on abiogenesis, here you go (thanks to Dr. Jack Szostak of Harvard)
@gmn545 First of all i must apologize for my quick answers, i have noticed that some sentenses aren´t finished or that by error some words weren´t put, but lets move on.
The entire process of evolution does not simply deal with the macro evolution stage, it deals with all the stages required to the macro evo. to hipotetically "occur". So by denying or avoiding answers about previous stages you are simply skiping the foundations for the macro e. stage, and if they have inconsistencies how can...
@MagnusShaman "all the stages" This is your problem. You don't seem to understand that a scientific theory deals with a particular *set* of empirical observations for one topic. The theory of evolution by natural selection is one scientific theory which explains how life diversifies through time. Other topics like how the universe began or how life began are SEPARATE theories. We're talking about evolution here. And ignored nothing; I cited how abiogenesis works via a YT vid link. Watch it.
@gmn545 *all stages*, no it is not my problem it is the evolutionist problem, if he tries to skip the answers to previous stages that macro evo. can occur , again, is as silly as a christian don´t believing in the Bible, it is the very foundation for the faith. If you want to do "intelligible" dodges go ahead, yet i think the reason is quite obvious. You regorgitate assumptions, actually you nor anyone don´t have a irrefutable clue to demonstrate that macro evo. has occured, only assumptions.
@MagnusShaman No it's your problem, because you think one theory should explain others, which is silly. Theories (again) explain a *set* of empirical observations. How life diversifies is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE to how life began & they both have ENTIRELY SEPARATE THEORIES.
"it is the very foundation for the faith" No, Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of the faith. Paul makes that clear in his epistle, which was just that - an epistle - for a long time before xians made them scripture.
@gmn545 the next stage occur? I think that this time you have no excuse to dodge the anser sir.
Charlie Dawin stole the idea from his grandpa Erasmus Darwin and his book Zoonomia, and priviously borrowed by Jean Baptiste Lamack and so on to the babylonian pagan myths with some sort of "evolution" in it, so, evolution is an old pagan myth. Charlie Darwin in his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." was refuted by
@MagnusShaman It's an irrelevant one outside the scope of evolution. Evolution solely deals with how life diversifies, NOT how it began. That's why Charles Darwin himself (Origin of Species) said it was possible that life "ha[d] been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one", and the process of evolution takes hold afterward. However, if you want the facts on abiogenesis, here you go (thanks to Dr. Jack Szostak of Harvard)
@MagnusShaman "the examples you gave are simple speculations" So you're appealing to personal incredulity now? Because those examples, if you bothered to actually READ them, are referenced to the scientific papers which have the full details on the study conducted for each of them. Dismiss it in the way you did is both dishonest and, frankly, pathetic.
Speciation divides a parent population by geologic and reproductive isolation. Or do you think it means a dog gave birth to a cat? lol
@gmn I can reformulate the question; give observable examples (not assumptions) of a "specie" turning into a transactions specie and then turned into another entirely different. Don´t skip the question again pal ;)
You use all kinds of "dodges" to skip the term of "natural selection" but you must go to the etimology of the word, selection implies. Thanks, i know the "evolutionist" defenition of what natural selection is, yet that process does not create, it selects, again, etimology of the word
@gmn I can reformulate the question; give observable examples (not assumptions) of a "specie" turning into a transactions specie and then turned into another entirely different. Don´t skip the question again pal ;)
You use all kinds of "dodges" to skip the term of "natural selection" but you must go to the etimology of the word, selection implies. Thanks, i know the "evolutionist" defenition of what natural selection is, yet that process does not create, it selects, again, etimology of the word
@MagnusShaman "the etimology of the word" You do know words used in different contexts (this one being science) have different meanings, right? Natural selection is a mechanistic filtering process, not a mindful "selection". And again, the genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random, but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
@gmn545 Pasteur among others. During the XX century he complexity of living organisms has revealed to be far more complex than Darwin ever imagined. Don´t play with words, selection implies choices and implies a process of intelligence to choose. I don´t have to subit my intelligence to the scientism, i can question, and quite franqly if evolution is quite easily proved then you would not have to dodge objective answers ;)
You can give the names you want the point is it will boil into: ...
@MagnusShaman To claim that Pasteur disproved Darwin is utter nonsense. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, i.e. an entire complex organism arriving from nonlife (which btw is not the same thing as abiogenesis, but that's another topic). "Don't play with words" You can't be this dense. Understand that words have DIFFERENT meanings when the CONTEXT is different. I've defined natural selection already and it simply is not a "choices" process in any type of mindful sense. Quit strawmanning.
@gmn If you rely on empiricism then you must dismiss all non empirically proved stages, what lefts only the micro evolution stage aka adaptation, all the rest as religious assumptions, that aren´t even scientific and break the most basic logic (philosophically speaking). And your avoid to provide to me a straight answer to: observations of macro evo occuring, quite revealing.
@MagnusShaman "what lefts only the micro evolution stage" What's wrong with you?! Macroevolution is evolution occuring in isolated gene pools. That means when there's no gene flow, it's considered "macro". In an evolutionary context, species are delimited through independent lineages (i.e. no gene flow). So contrary to what you think it is, speciation (observed!) IS macroevolution. I've provided the evidence, e.g. the published studies on observed instances of speciation. READ THEM.
@gmn545 You provide to me a link to how "abiogenesis works" and i provide to you a link to say how impossible it is:trueorigin (dot) org/abio.asp " Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible" by , Ph.D. Jerry Bergman.
So please, this time don´t go to the degrees, they can´t measure intelligence nor his honesty ;)
Well, isn´t spontaneous generation an idea defended by Darwin as a foundation for evolution? Yes, and it breaks the Law of Biogenetics, so stop playing with words in circles, Pasteur was against
@MagnusShaman "Ph.D. Jerry Bergman" I read that article. Now I'm going to debunk it:) He claims complex organic molecules, such as the bases in RNA, are very fragile and unstable (except at low temperatures) and they would not hold together long enough to serve as the first self-replicating proto-life. The source Bergman cites for the fragility of RNA bases (Levy and Miller 1998) disputes abiogenesis only at high temperatures, around 100 degrees Celsius. Continued...
@MagnusShaman They also say that cytosine is unstable enough at 0 degrees Celsius (half life of 17,000 years) that it may not have been involved in the first genetic material. The discovery of a ribozyme without C-G bases shows that genetic material without cytosine IS plausible.
Source: Reader, J. S. and G. F. Joyce. 2002. A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides. Nature 420: 841-844
@MagnusShaman If synthesis of nucleo-bases is catalyzed and hydrolysis is not, we expect the nucleo-bases to accumulate. Formamide, which can form under prebiotic conditions, has been found to catalyze the formation of nucleo-bases.
Saladino, R., C. Crestini, G. Costanzo, R. Negri and E. Di Mauro. 2001. A possible prebiotic synthesis of purine, adenine, cytosine, and 4(3H)-pyrimidinone from formamide: Implications for the origin of life. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry 9(5): 1249-1253.
@MagnusShaman RNA degrades quickly today because there are enzymes (RNAses) to chew it up. Those enzymes would not have evolved if RNA degraded quickly on its own. If complex organic molecules were so fragile, life itself would be impossible. In fact, life exists even in boiling temperatures or at very high acidity. Life need not have begun with highly stable molecules. Eigen and Schuster developed a notion of chemical hypercycles, in which many chemical components coexist; each component....
of the reaction leads to other components, which eventually reform the original one.
(Source: Eigen, M. and P. Schuster. 1977. The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Part A: Emergence of the hypercycle. Naturwissenschaften 64(11): 541-565.).
Chemicals involved in such a cycle need not persist longer than the duration of the hypercycle itself. So now that I've just destroyed that silly article on abiogenesis you linked, WATCH THE VIDEO I CITED on Szostak's work.
@gmn545 forbiden to have wifes yet God says the opposite in the epistles of the apostle Paul. John 10:9, Jesus is the only way, not through works as all religions including the catholicism teach but by grace, a free gift lest any man would boast, no one has the power to fogive sins, only God, yet see the Vatican corruption, the Pope (vicar of Christ)- in place of Christ. antikhristos -> agains or another christ (greek), the Bible is full of warnings concerning false christs ...
@gmn545 yet the Vatican promotes all kind of graven images as pagan eligions, Mar. 6:6-9, Jesus disciples were comanded to go and preach without making riches for themselves, look at the Vatican, Mar. 7:6-8, traditions of men (religion) does noe equal with christianity- relashionship with the LORD, Mat. 23:9, Jesus says to never call anyone Father unless to God which is in Heaven, priests are called fathers as the pontifex maximus, the pope, the caesar, Mat. 8:14, Peter has a wife, priests are
@MagnusShaman As to the Catholic Church, again your version of Christianity (I assume you're protestant) is simply a daughter to the RCC. You go to church on Sunday because that's what the Roman Church started doing to ecumenically worship alongside other religions of Rome. (google Constantine Day of the Sun). That's just one example. The irony is while you claim Catholics are against the bible, most bible translations trace back to the first ecumenical bible, commissioned by Constantine.
@g light and darkness, the pattern for day/night was already created. Consider the following articles: [answersingenesis (dot)org/articles/2006/04/04/order-of-events-matters] and
[answersingenesis(dot)org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days], read the answers to the obections 1,2 and 6.
About Roman catholicism there are so many heresies and abominations that is difficult to show them all here,lets see; Deu. 5:8-9, no bowing to graven images, idols, an abomination to God ..
@MagnusShaman "pattner for day/night was already created" Except that the sun and moon determines the duration of day, seasons, and years. They didn't exist until day 4, but plants were made on day 3. So what gave plants energy for an entire day when there was no sun in existence? The problems still remains so I'm waiting on a thorough explanation. And Answers in Genesis? Seriously? Your sources on science-related topics are hilarious.
@gmn545 So and to finish, since you can´t even see the obvious about catholicism being totally opposed to the Bible by doctrine, symbology, rituals, background, etc i can´t help you my deluded friend.
I will however challege you to the these vids ( i´m glad you´ve mentioned Plato);
-Know Your Enemy 45- Plato Republic´s ; watch?v=PB4bHN_9m34&feature=related
-Know Your Enemy 46 Science Dictatorships- watch?v=G4Ntxf6wdlE&feature=related
- Know your enemy 47- Evolution- watch?v=BOTlNNsBqbA ...
@MagnusShaman "catholicism being totally opposed to the Bible"
*facepalm* In one ear and out the other for you, I guess. You want me to watch videos when you haven't bothered to watch the two videos that prove my point: the one on endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) and abiogenesis. Sorry but it won't work like that. Until I know you've watched them and you bring me scientific, peer-reviewed journals with information that falsifies what's presented in those vids, evolution stands and you lose.
@gmn545 So as i said; Mat. 7:"6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
@MagnusShaman You didn't cast any pearls; you (similar to Hovind) were trying to sell me fake pearls and unfortunately for you, I can tell the difference. And thanks for pointing out that I trampled your arguments :-)
@gmn545 Why all cells did not just stay self replicating cells?
Why such single cell organism *evolved* into multi cell organisms? How complex systems (digestive...) originated? How such systems learned to *interact*? If you permit i would like to provide some interesting links: -watch?v=wmpGUPz5TZU (The Devastation of Evolution - Chirality), watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU
(Evolution And The Fabled Mutations). Sir, your objection is silly since in the first day (Gen 1:3-5) God had created ...
@gmn545 I must conclude; either you are dodging my point continuously OR you are being intellectually dishonest. If you want to validate the stage of macro you must therefore explain all the previous stages, as a christian has to rest his faith uppon his foundation, the Old Testament and the New Testament.i will not repeat again sir. You pressupose that the "theory" has occured based on pressupositions yet you fail to see
that you had long ago steped off the empirical and step on the religious.
@MagnusShaman How am I dodging? I've addressed this nonsensical "explain all the previous stages" claim and it's bogus. You just don't understand how science works...at all. One theory explains one set of empirical observations and separate theories explain others. The theory of relativity isn't wrong just because it doesn't explain where gravity came from; that's a separate issue. I've explained and cited evidence for evolution, which solely deals with how lifes diversifies.
@MagnusShaman "You presuppose that the "theory" has occured" What? LOL! Here you go mixing up definitions of terms again. A theory is science isn't the colloquial term 'theory' (i.e. conjecture). It's analytically structured to *explain* a set of empirical observations (facts). In other words, science is about following the evidence where it points. A theory is discarded when evidence points away from it (see the Steady State theory). Nothing points away from evolution so it's considered valid.
@gmn545 No, this time i will not adress the same questions again. I only want to make reference to one aspect, you are correct, i haven´t write properly, the church of Rome does not have the same origin as the gnostic "gospels" even if the Vatican is absolutely connected with freemasonry, but that is another issue, for the same of origins, the had distinct places, even if catholic pictures will tell you otherwise :p
@gmn545 I don´t have any problem with faith since empiricism cannot explain what is beyond the material as logic, aesthtics, morality etc, yet atheism naturalism bashes creationism for being based on "faith" when evolution requires much more faith into the illogical. Yes Christ ressurrection is the foundation ou christianity yet without the Word of God you have no christianity. Christ is the Word made flesh, Christ and the Word are inseparable. That is false, Paul wrote the epistle a few years
@MagnusShaman "without the Word of God you have no christianity" There was christianity in Paul's day and then, there was no NT canon at all. That alone proves you wrong. "Christ and the Word are inseparable" Weren't you just babbling about how you can't trust Maimonides because of Neo-Platonic thinking? You do realize that calling Jesus the "Word" (greek "Logos") is DIRECTLY relating him to the Platonic concept of Logos? Nice way to contradict yourself buddy :-) Hahaha!
@gmn545 after Christ´s death and ressurrection. Try not to compare the true Word of God from the church of Antioch with the gnostic texts of the pagan roman Council of Nicea centuries after lest ye be like Satan, pure ignorant conjecture. Again you push the premisse of changes within species (occured, observed) to a giant leap of faith which is macro evolution, never observed. For such *debunk* i will ask simple questions if you don´t mind;- How RNA originated? Why? When?
@MagnusShaman "Paul wrote the epistles a few years after Christ's death" Try decades later. Jesus died circa 30 AD. Paul's first extant epistle (1 Thessalonians) was written in 51 AD. "gnostic text of pagan roman council of nicea" LOL! Firstly, the gnostics are a separate sect from the church of rome. Secondly, the NT canon you currently have is derived from the list of St. Irenaeus, who was early church father that lived WAY BEFORE the Council of Nicea. You ought to educate yourself more.
@MagnusShaman Btw, I like how you have 0 response to my debunking of your abiogenesis article. Notice how I did it with scientific journals/studies to back it up the entire way (something you haven't done once). That tells me a lot. Your questions related to abiogenesis:
@gmn545 Pasteur among others. During the XX century he complexity of living organisms has revealed to be far more complex than Darwin ever imagined. Don´t play with words, selection implies choices and implies a process of intelligence to choose. I don´t have to subit my intelligence to the scientism, i can question, and quite franqly if evolution is quite easily proved then you would not have to dodge objective answers ;)
You can give the names you want the point is it will boil into: ...
you defend that one specie can develop itself into another entirely different and without resolute observations. I will ask again; give me a tangible irrefutable observation of a specie evolving into another entirely different; and irrefutable proof of the transactionary characteristics. You can dodge and hide behind papers and assumptions and hypothesis, i want solid evidence.
Mutations are degenerative not evolutionary, sometimes evolutionists thing that a desactivation of genes is a "proof"
@MagnusShaman "without resolute observations" I cited the examples on the page that gives the studies recording observed speciation (complete with references to the journals). You simply appealed to handwaving, not even reading it in depth, and still spout off the same nonsense. You're being intellectually dishonest. "Hide behind papers" You keep asking for evidence & I've provided it. Real scientists do the hard work in the lab, record their results and publish their findings for us to read.
@gmn545 such concept, a basic foundation for the premisse of even equating evolution. Well, you are the one continuously using No True Scotsmen since you havent till this moment provided any true observation (only concerning macro evo.). The word natural selection implies a choise (selection) even if you equate that is a natural process possessing certain genotipic characteristics to make it better "adjusted" to the environment? What kind of intelligence is behind such *selection*? An ...
@gmn545 unpurposed unlogic random process? Again, a circular reasoning, a choice implies intelligence.
You can believe on men in labs as infalible, without agendas behind (owners), without financeers who will determine what projects will be investigated, pressures or even human falability to assume a non observed illogical process as evolution. As i had provided to you, there are proffessionals in science who disagree categorically with evolution, there is not any consensus.
@gmn545 bashes God character. AND CALLS Him ignorant or an idiot since He can´t do it right at one time.. The Bible is quite clear, the Bible would not make any sense if the gap theory was added and that would create unnecessary inconsistencies, the point is, evolution is a fairytale and inconrporating that in the Bible is a delusion on fitting for those "christians" desperate to agree with the world, clear as water. Guess what, the majority of "christians" in this Laodicean "church" aren´t even
@MagnusShaman "since He can't do it right at one time" The question isn't 'what can He do?" but rather "what did he choose to do?" Again, Genesis' early chapters are more of an allegory. Maimonides, regarded by Jews to be the greatest mind when it came to expounding on the Torah, strongly criticized the literalist interpretation of scripture. "incorporating that into the bible is a delusion" No need to, since Genesis wasn't trying to give a literal history of the early world. Again, allegory.
@gmn545 biblical, most call themselves "christians" yet they reject the Bible and live like the world. So, numbers don´t mean a thing, and i could give to you many names of people in science who are young Earth creationists as the Bible defends ;). He is a devout "christian" you say, yet he bashes God´s Word and attributes, how oxymoronic.
No, outside of micro evo there are no observations, testings, reproductions, it bashes scientiffic principles, bashes logic and is based on wishful thinking
@MagnusShaman "reject the Bible and live like the world"? You're asserting a whole lot without knowing anything about these people. "many names of people in science who are YEC" Give me names of biologists, specifically. And how does Francis Collins "bash God's Word"? You're arguing under a logical fallacy of No True Scotsman. The literalist view of scripture and/or YEC simply is not a requirement for being a legitimate christian.
@MagnusShaman And "evolution excuses sin"? In what way, considering (again) most christians (and theists altogether) accept evolution? And the reason they do so is because of the overwhelming evidence for it, e.g. endogenous retroviruses, chromosomal fusion, atavistic traits, mtDNA of neanderthals, observed speciation, fossil remains, etc. When all the facts point towards evolution & none point away from it, the only honest thing to do is accept it as a valid scientific theory on biodiversity.
@gmn545 It is impossible that evolution and the Bible are compatible. In the Bible sin creates death, death is the consequence of sin, in evolution death is necessary, is a "natural" element as the western pagan religions teach, reincarnation, so stop making that silly assumption when evolution is completely contradictory to the Bible. Go to the churchianity and see how many are living happy in sin, evolution simply excuses sin.
Well all you had asseted are mere regorgitations without true solid
@MagnusShaman "In the Bible sin creates death" It's responsible of human death, and a spiritual one at that. Things dying naturally was always part of the order of things; it's why there was a "Tree of Life" from which man was kept away from after sinning so that he could die and not live forever (Gen.3:22) Death and carnivores are necessary, mainly to prevent overpopulation and the using up of every natural resource.
@gmn545 Before man had sinned against God probably there would be no carnivores nor sicknesses, nor corruption, nor death, on the other hand when men sinned, men brought to creation such plages, the consequence of sin. No, in the Bible death is unnatural and God haven´t made His Creation to die, that is quite easily seen in the Bible. Implying evolution in the Bible you are slaying God´s attributes, calling God incompetent and bringing the concept of reicarnation as another pagan beliefs.
@MagnusShaman That's simply not possible. Plant death had to have occured since man was eating (includes digestion). Other animals produce sooo much offspring in only one generation that should nothing die, overpopulation and consumption of all natural resources would have occured quickly. "in the Bible God haven't made His Creation to die" Chapter and verse please. Without the "Tree of Life", man couldn't live forever (Gen.3:22). That implies that he of his own nature is MORTAL. Get it?
@MagnusShaman That's simply not possible. Plant death had to have occured since man was eating (includes digestion). Other animals produce sooo much offspring in only one generation that should nothing die, overpopulation and consumption of all natural resources would have occured quickly. "in the Bible God haven't made His Creation to die" Chapter and verse please. Without the "Tree of Life", man couldn't live forever (Gen.3:22). That implies that he of his own nature is MORTAL. Get it?
@MagnusShaman "all you had asseted are mere regorgitations without true solid irrefutable evidence"
Think again. I can tell you just don't know anything about them. Let's start with endogenous retroviruses. You can watch & learn about it here:
youtube. com / watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
(remove spaces)
Did you just say Neanderthals are a hoax??? Forgive me but such an astoundingly ignorant statement is shocking. Their mtDNA has been sequenced; it's divergent enough to show they weren't humans.
@gmn545 Yes, read Revelation chpt. 22 to adress that "Tree issue". No, the world even today isn´t overpopulated, far from it, so again, review your obections.
About the Neanderthal hoax: drdino.com/neanderthals-ape-men-or-humans/
A few hoaxes? lol. Were those "few hoaxes" that heavily contributed that evolution was regarded as a "science" among scientific circles ;) So do not say "few" :p
@MagnusShaman "the world today isn't overpopulated" Because people and animals die, that's why. If we didn't, overpopulation would occur rather quickly. And your source on Neanderthal is Kent Hovind? *facepalm* This is a joke, right? How about point me to scientifc journals (like the ones I've cited) that say Neanderthal is a hoax? And those aforementioned hoaxes didn't "heavily contribute" to evolution, as evolution is affirmed mainly from the molecular, genetic evidence. Don't be so silly :-P
@MagnusShaman "the world today isn't overpopulated" Because people and animals die, that's why. If we didn't, overpopulation would occur rather quickly. And your source on Neanderthal is Kent Hovind? *facepalm* This is a joke, right? How about point me to scientifc journals (like the ones I've cited) that say Neanderthal is a hoax? And those aforementioned hoaxes didn't "heavily contribute" to evolution, as evolution is affirmed mainly from the molecular, genetic evidence. Don't be so silly :-P
@MagnusShaman "the world today isn't overpopulated" Because people and animals die, that's why. If we didn't, overpopulation would occur rather quickly. And your source on Neanderthal is Kent Hovind? *facepalm* This is a joke, right? How about point me to scientifc journals (like the ones I've cited) that say Neanderthal is a hoax? And those aforementioned hoaxes didn't "heavily contribute" to evolution, as evolution is affirmed mainly from the molecular, genetic evidence. Don't be so silly :-P
@gmn545 irrefutable evidence, again, only wishful thinking. Neanderthals as many other were exposed as frauds, yet evolutionists hide all the frauds; Lucy, Piltdow, Nebraska, Java, Ramapithecus, Neandertal, til this day no missing link was found, only desperate evolutionists trying hardly to claim everything as a missing link lol. Lets see fossils; fossils can´t prove a thing, nor that the animal had offspring, only that his remains are there, yet the clever evolutionist makes a circular ...
@MagnusShaman "Piltdown, Nebraska, Java" 1) it was scientists who discovered they were frauds. 2) A few hoaxes cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real.
@gmn545 reasoning; strata is identified by the fossils it contains, and the fossils are classified by the strata they are found in- this is not science. No one can create an order for the fossils, that is the result of the imagination of the evolutionist. Evolution is only still holded because the pressure it makes and the big agenda behind it, evolution has been debunked several times yet you will never lister on the mainstream any inconsistency nor lie and then you are brainwashed since a kid.
@MagnusShaman "No one can create an order for the fossils, that is the result of the imagination of the evolutionist" Errr..what? There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia and the Williston Basin of North Dakota.
Sources: Morton, Glenn, 2001. The geologic column and its implications to the Flood.
Trendall, et al. 1990. Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3.
@MagnusShaman "religious doctrine of evolution"? 1) Evolution is a scientific theory, i.e. analytically structured to explain a set of empirical observations. Science & its theories rest on methodological naturalism (note: not metaphysical naturalism), meaning they can't comment on the supernatural; they remain neutral. Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena, ergo evolution =/= religion. 2) "that atheists use"? Millions of theists accept evolution.
@gmn545 1) No, actually is anti-science and can´t even pressupose the principle of induction behind science. Sir Fred Hoyle would reveal that "claiming to be proved" doesn´t equal to be proved indeed. Outside of micro evo. aka adaptation everything concerning the evolution doctrine is regorgitation, illogical, non observed and above all, a huge leap of faith, therefore religious. Lol, evolution is full of "supernatural" "phenomena". 2) Does the majority determine truth? :p
@MagnusShaman ) How is it anti-science when it's founded on the scientific method and doesn't violate the foundation (methodological naturalism)? Fred Hoyle? LOL! He was wrong about a lot of things e.g. he believed in Steady-State theory - that the universe was static/eternal - when all the evidence points to expansion. You're wrong about "outside micro", since "macro" (aka speciation) has been observed as well. Do name one "supernatural phenomena" in evolution. 2) The minority sure doesn't :-P
@gmn545 and assumptions. All this way to excuse sin, how silly. Again and even philosophicaly you can´t even relly on science with your atheistic naturalistic perspective, you assume pressupositions that you can´t even accept. No, the Universe as the 2º Law of Thermodinamics reveals (and do not be unimaginative to say that it only applies to our system) that everything tents towards decay, thats why you don´t see supernovas being formed, only vanishing ;) Sir i have a new for you, you have long
@MagnusShaman "2nd Law of Thermodynamics reveals that everything tents towards decay" Wrong. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy in a closed system will not decrease. This doesn't prevent increasing order because earth is NOT a closed system. Sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
@gmn545 Kinda funny, a non believer saying that Genesis is not literal, you can keep your false conception, yet the rest of the Bible comproves a literal Genesis.No if Maimonides was truly a jew he would had turned into christianity since through out the Torah there are procefies concerning the Messiah Jesus Christ. Maimonides was a supporter of mysticism, an occultust, therefore not a jew of the Sinagogue of Satan. There are more questions concerning him; was he a Tamud (babylonian perverted
@gmn545 Torah), a gnostic or even a kabbalist and occultist? If so he was a worshiper of the mysteries and not a jew. Your argument about Maimonides was easily refuted. A christian (as the jews before their Messiah Jesus Christ appeared) trust in God, not in men contradicting His Word.
Ok i can give a few names: Michael G. Behe, Waster Veith, Kent Hoving, Dr. Russel Humphrey, I.L. Cohen, R. Fix, Macbeth, Francis Hitching, Lovtrup, Michael Pitman etc etc
@MagnusShaman What is your source on these claims about Maimonides? This is a man whosaid men should believe only what can be supported either by rational proof, by the evidence of the senses, or by trustworthy authority. He affirms that he had studied astrology, and that it does not deserve to be described as a science. The supposition that the fate of a man could be dependent upon the constellations is ridiculed by him. He may have studied Kabbalah but that wouldn't mean he's not a Jew lol
@MagnusShaman Maimonides was a scholastic and Torah scholar (arguably the greatest). He said what a man cannot establish rationally, by evidence of the senses, or from a trustworthy authority, shouldn't be believed. So I highly doubt he was an occultist.
As to the names, all I can do is laugh. Michael Behe accepts common ancestry! Or didn't you know that? His credibility is shot too after the Dover Trial. Kent Hovind is not a biologist or even a scientist. His degree is in Christian Education.
@gmn545 Sir don´t you know that you lack of belief in God will not be an excuse on the day of Judgment?
Well, sir, i have many doubs about that character Maimonides, i cannot develop much since i haven´t studied him, yet in the article of wikipedia it says that he was an admirer of the neo platonic thinking. Plato was an occultist, as Pithagoras as many philosophers. If he was ties with the Talmud (many indicators towards that) then he disqualifies himself of being a Torah schollar
@MagnusShaman "you lack of belief in God will not be an excuse" What are you talking about? My point is that you're appealing to a logical fallacy (No True Scotsman) by claiming that anyone who isn't an literalist is "bashing God's Word", which is laughable.
You can have your doubts about Maimonides; the entire scholarly community (both jewish and christian) agrees with me on his views. "Platonic thinking", i.e. there exists a higher realm of truth & a supreme being. You shouldn't be bothered.
@gmn545 Well, what is laughable is you implying that evolution don´t contradict God´s Word, read the scriptures then talk ;) No compatibility, stop pushing the false premisse of gap theroy, but if you aren´t even a believer what credibility should i place uppon your observation of the scriptures?
You are resolute to say all the "scholarly community" agrees, i doubt. I´m bothered in many positions of Plato.
No, pick a King James Bible and start reading it ;) The scriptures must be interpreted
@gmn545 You can see here a few number of believers in biblical creation even if numbers don´t mean a thing;
creation.com/creation-scientists
I refered to the Universe as a close system, not to Earth. The 2L.T.D. says that nothing can be in the process of "evolving" unless it is worked by an outside force, so what we see; dissipation, decay, degeneration actually refutes evolution totally (the total opposite). Energy is slowing down, never increasing. :)
@MagnusShaman "degeneration actually refutes evolutiont totally" No. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.
Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16.
@gmn545 Your assumption of not being an occultist based on the statues gaved to him as a "philosopher" is fallacious and History will easily disprove you, but this is not the point. I don´t rely on men who contradict the Word of God, when there isn´t harmony among the scriptures.
Mentioning names does not equal to agree with every position taken by the author, perhaprs you should read Michael´s Behe Darwins Black Box ;)
@MagnusShaman "I don't rely on men who contradict the Word of God" Here we go again. You equating any position other than literalist/YEC with contradicting scripture is silly of you. Genesis has serious problems if you try to take it all literally. Like how can plants come before a sun even exists? lol
I've read Behe's work; it's been thoroughly refuted at Dover by none other than Dr. Kenneth Miller (evo biologist at Brown U) who btw is a believer ;-) Behe was practically laughed out of court.
@gmn545 in the proper context, being symbolical in symbolical parts (ex- when the LORD Jesus Christ says to pluck out the eye to not go to the fire, that was not an endorsing to self mutilation but to use all drastic measures to take sin out of your life) Genesis don´t have any problem, it makes perfect sense taken literally, it mankes no sense taken non literally. Give me the verses of Genesis you are refering to ;)
No, Keneth Miller is a roman catholic, he is not a believer in the same God
@MagnusShaman "Genesis don't have any problem, it makes perfect sense taken literally" LOL! Ok look: Plants are created (day 3) before the sun, moon & stars even exist (day 4). Problem: plants can't exist for a whole day (or minute) without the heat & energy of the sun! And don't say something stupid like "what about night time?" because the sun exists and STILL powers the earth with heat. And if you really think that plants are older than stars, then you have to deny astronomy, cosmology, etc.
@gmn545 Isaiah 42:"8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. ", The glory is given to men (pope- wicked sinner) and to Mary (Queen of Heaven- not the Biblical Mary). See in the Old Testament what God said about those who worshiped the pagan Queen of Heaven. 1 Tim. 2:"5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" Catholics worship idols (saints) when the Bible says that all true born again
@MagnusShaman "the pagan Queen of Heaven" You mean Ishtar, who is indirectly acknowledged every "Easter" time, since the name derives from her. Catholics don't "worship" Mary; they venerate her, which isn't the same thing. Prayers that you hear that appear to be directed to her, are (for RCC) made under the idea of intercessory prayer (when one asks someone to pray to God for them). As to "co-redemptrix", it's because Mary could have said "No!" to bringing the savior into the world. That's all.
@gmn545 If you think that a theory based on the process of increasing and "evolution" doesn´t contradict the observable 2 Law of T.D. that states that everything tents towards decay, dissipation and that nothing can be improved unless it is worked by an outside force yet you defend that an ameba evolved into a man i can´t help you sir.
The problem is that the evolutionist assumes premisses that he can´t sustain as granted and makes pressupositions about everything pointing to evo., fallacious.
@MagnusShaman If you wish to continue to strawman the 2nd Law of T.D., then I can't help you. I've cited a scientific study which thoroughly analyzed the 2nd law in relation to evolution, and nothing was to the detriment of evolution. Then again, I know you didn't read it or watched any vid I've cited. You creationists do this all the time: Shout "give me evidence", we provide it, you close your eyes to it and continue to shout the same thing. Try WATCHING the vid on ERV's and abiogenesis.
@gmn545 that christians worship, btw, Michael Behe is also a roman catholic. Note one important aspec, roman catholicism isn´t christianity, it is anti biblical btw, the Vatican is called in the Bible as the Whore of Babylon, so please do not correlate christianity with catholicism. No wonder, even the Stephen Hawking (not a biologist has ties with the Vatican) as the great promotor of evolution Pirre Teilhard de Chardin etc. Vatican pushed evolution (macro evo and so on), the Bible don´t ;)
@MagnusShaman "roman catholicism isn't christianity" No True Scotsman. Of course it is. Just not the particular branch that you're part of. There are 30,000+ denominations that all think they're closest to what "true" christianity is. But guess what? Much of what you have now (e.g. going to church on Sunday, the NT canon (say thanks to St. Irenaeus!), christmas, etc.) all comes from the Catholic Church. LOL!
@gmn545 christians are saints and worst; they Worship Mary as the Co-Redemtrix, the Mediatrix. The wafle is a sun symbol, and the liturgy a cerimony uterly against the Bible, and saying that Christ sacrifice wasn´t enough, they must continue as they claim repeat his sacrifice in all liturgies. John. 14:6- Jesus is the way, truth and life. Jesus rebukes the nicoliaitans (go see the etymolgy of the word) = catholicism. More, read the prophecies of Daniel and in Revelation to see if the ...
@gmn545 role of Whore of Babylon isn´t perfect for the Vatican, actually it cannot be placed uppon any other institution or organization. The Vatican has as the Whore of Babylon persecuted millions of christians who rejected their heretical doctrines.If you like i can provide material. No, when the council of Nicea was held (300 a.C.) the Bible was already closed centuries ago, do your research. The Bible does not mention denominations, a born again christian Bible believer is a born again
@gmn545 Bible beliver, there is no need for labels, and denominations had all of them been influenced by false doctrine. A Christian follows the Word of God, if any denomination refutes the Word of God, God says in His Word to depart, simple isn´t it?
Christmas is actually a pagan date for the worship in the Winter Equinox, the Saturnalia, and the Bible never mentions about Christ being born in such date, actually if was in December pastors could have not been with their flocks at night, the ...
trueorigin( dot) org/steiger.asp "Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism"
So mr evolutionist i hope that the last one wasn´t the same thing as you has accused me, a straw men fallacy.
And to finish sir, your disbelief will not be an excuse on the day of judgment, you are a sinner and only the blood of the LORD Jesus Christ can save you from the righterous punishment in Hell, all mankind have sinned against a Holy and perfect God, without Jesus we are lost.
@MagnusShaman Your source on thermodynamics vs evolution is a joke lol. 0 scientific journal references, and it doesn't even address the study which I cited. Here it is again:
Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16
Notice it's in a REAL science journal. If you can find me another one of those that contradicts what's presented here, I'll concede.
And to finish sir, don't bring up hell or judgment if you have no evidence of either. :-)
@gmn545 Winter in Judea would made quite impossible such state, Jesus born at least before October, not in 25th of December, the day when pagans celebrated their sun worship. Catholicism is just Constantine atempt to avoid the rise of christianity and actually continuing practicing paganism with a christian cover.I guess that your "No True Scotsman" mantra was reduced to absurdity.
You can call all day long "jokes" yet having a certificate of "peer reviewed" will not determine what truth is
@MagnusShaman No you're still appealing to No True Scotsman, by continuing to say that only Protestants who are literalists are "real" christians. That's the absurdity and its insulting to the rest of the christian majority that hold to the key precepts that ARE necessary to qualify a person as a christian.
Your articles are jokes because they don't come from any scientist who's published through peer-review. Non-peer reviewed articles are not scholarly; they're like unaccredited universities.
@MagnusShaman Since thus far you've failed to address my objections with any real science or bothered to watch the videos that present the irrefutable evidence for evolution, I unfortunately have to conclude that you are delusional. Crying for evidence and handwaving once it's in front of your face, because you hold on desperately to your argument from personal incredulity. You don't reject evolution for factual reasons but religious ones.
@gmn545 This is an issue of faith vs faith, you hold your pressupositions on falible men without even equating the background, on the doctrines of atheism, evolution and what will culminate in scientism, i hold mine uppon the Word of God. I provided means to understand a bit of the ambiguous environment of evolution by the horses mouths.
So sir, as Jesus said to His disciples, when they are not welcome, let the shake of the dust of the feet be a testimony against them.
@MagnusShaman No this is an issue of faith vs reality. I can't condemn all christians because a lot of them don't have the problems that you do (e.g. personal incredulity, handwaving, spouting off platitudes, etc). I don't rely on men but on the evidence that's been gathered and valid theories that have withstood testing. You hold yours on a literalist view (not taken seriously by most xians) of a bronze age creation myth. I refuted every point of yours and you have 0 legitimate response.
@MagnusShaman And attempting to sell me fake "pearls" and trying to pass them off as real ones is very unchristian of you. And you did it with a silly, childish arrogance as well; that's the funny thing. You deem yourself a follower of Christ, yet I never got even the slightest hint that you were anything like him, in terms of conduct. Think about that next time, 'lest that testimony stand against you on judgment day' :-P
@gmn545 crossed the scientifical and the empirical to enter in the religious reals, yet you don´t even notice. If it makes you happy call that science XD. No, mascro has neven been observed only in the imagination of evolutionists. Well if you will bash sir Fred Hoyle with some of his positions make sure that your evolutionists don´t present flaws, don´t worship humans, don´t believe on the evolutionary priesthood aka Scientism :p
You know what? This was a really informative documentary in the sense that I learned a lot about the History of Philosophy, which I think was its intent. I didn't know that atheists used to believe that the world had always existed. Thanks!
This is utterly fucking painful to watch. Never before have I seen so many fallacies grouped up into a video that doesn't do anything to prove there is a god.
Atheism is simply believing that Christians or any other religious dogma have not even come close to meeting their burden of proof so there is no true reason to believe in god. A disbelief.
As far as the big bang goes, Christians really like to stereotype this as a dogma for the "atheist" religion which is utterly nonsensical.
LOL I loved how it says the big bang theory is a scientific fact but evolution was an atheist lie. Both are widely accepted scientific theorys with evidence to support them and require faith or a lack of faith in god. However according to this video whether something is fact or fiction is whether it disagrees with the bible. In the same way modern medicine is a lie because it doesn't use animal sacrifice in any of its procedures like it says you should in the bible.
Good video, but I strongly disagree with the flames that surround the word "Atheism" at the beginning of the video. This suggests to some that Atheists automatically burn in hell. I believe that to be morally wrong.
@ConspiracyOrchestra Atheists make wars? Uhm would you please look at your history book for a second? And the theory of evolution is stupidity? Just cause you're an uneducated twat who can't even grasp the theory doesn't mean it's stupid, it is a fact and the basis for our modern biology.
I set out to critique this, but this video is just atrocious. There are far too many errors for me to address; assertion without evidence, strawmanning, ignorance of Occam's Razor, Ad hominem attacks, not-so-subtle musical manipulation, ignorance of refutations to presented arguments, ignorance of the fine points of the Big Bang, ignorance of evolution and abiogensis, generalization of atheists, ignorance of what atheism actually means and what it entails, etc. This video truly is atrocious.
saying that the universe had a beginning does not mean that it was created. it is simply an inaccurate statement to make. it is as if you look at the sun rising and say "so the day has begun, thus it was created". It doesn't even make any damn sense! This Christian propaganda is even worse than the "Bloody History of Communism". Another religious propaganda movie. You guys suck!
I love how balanced this show is, "many beliving the deception of evolution" really goes to show that this is made by an independant part with an open min to the subjecy :P
Religion is a superstition that requires complete suspension of logic. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god as it can not be ever proven by science. Hence atheism can not and will not collapse. You do not have to believe in the big bang or evolution to be a atheist you simply believe that no magic sky daddy created it.
yay atheism defined as denial of god what a surprise. as if we KNOW god exists and we deny him. yeah thatd be smart huh? piss off an all powerful being that holds your fate in his hand. atheists do not accept the claim that there is a god. change your definition you have it wrong. first everyone was an atheist then came the claim of a god, then came the nonbelievers, and THEN came the word "atheist" or whatever it was referred to at the time. noone was born believing in god.
I'm so confused. So the "Big Bang" supports Christianity for some strange reason? Maybe Brahma did it - I wouldn't rule it out. Maybe Aten did it. Or maybe it was the separation between the yin and yang that caused that Big Bang.
@Admonishmints You say "your high minded all knowingness", but it is directly because of the "knowingness" that killed my faith in any mythical being.
For every single "good" thing religion has done in this world I can show you 10 other instances where they created "evil" through pain, death, and fear.
Ultimately, education and rational knowledge is what kills religion.
Did you know that 92% of American scientists don't believe in a god? Something to think about while you type on your computer.
@Admonishmints What about the mass acts of terrorism from Christianity alone:
The Sons of Freedom in Canada, National Liberation Front of Tripura in India (directly terrorizes Hindus and Muslims), Lebanese Phalangists, Padraic Pearse of the IRA in Ireland, Orthodox Church movements in Romania, Russian National Unity (a Russian Orthodox militia group), Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, ect.
It seems that the most war torn countries are the most religious, and the most peaceful are secular.
@Admonishmints How easily religious people forget the millions of deaths that they are directly (and sometimes proudly) responsible for in the world. Saint Augustine’s cognite intrare, The Crusades, Europe's Reformation and Counter Reformation, Spanish Inquisition, Massacre of the Latins, Salem witch trials, The African slave trade, The Colonial Conquests of the American Indian, The Holocaust, The Christian Identity Movement (neo-naziism and the KKK), Rawanda, Bosnia, ect...
@Admonishmints Those people were Communists and wanted a religion that worshiped the state and the leader viewed as a type of god. Those were NOT atheistic movements that turned bad, they were communistic dictators that wanted to control people through force.
I don't think you want to get in to a listing of supposed atheist leaders (which none of those truly are) compared to leaders throughout the world that believe in your god and could be considered "evil" through their actions and atrocities.
We don't want to "rid the world of believers in the God of the Bible." We want to rid the world ignorance, whether willful or otherwise.
Science denial is the true danger in the world and it is religion that is the forefront of that denial.
Science denial kills people and rapes the mind.
We can only hope that the human race wakes up to this and discards such backwards tribal mythology. Let us be something more than a primate with a capability for language.
The Roman Catholic Church accepts the Theory Of Evolution as fact. Are all Catholics therefore atheists? Kinda winnows down the number of believers, if you follow that logic, no?
rohanwotan2 2 months ago
Atheism hasn't been able to evolve since the times of Romans and Greek!
motowa01 3 months ago
excellent satire, excellent.
leptismagna10 4 months ago
That is the same principle that the Vatican used for centuries, now its called scientism.
Thermodynamics; christiananswers (net) net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
You have enough evidence for God in His Word, His Creation, yet you are confortable in your sin and that alone will keep you from truth. On the day of Judgment there will be no excuses for your disbelief sir, one only to blame; yourself, i trully hope you repent before is too late.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
Erratum: Winter solstice not Winter Equinox.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roj899 All of them can be exposed easily, even the religious doctrine of evolution that atheists use in their religious doctrines. So if you want to validate (i´m supposing that you are an atheist naturalist) your religion you must expose all religions as false by your own admition to assume such absolute negative.
Well, the second part of your comment is pure and simple ignorant conjecture, denying the truth as harsh is it is will not make it disapear, wishful thinking does not work pal.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@Roj899 All of them can be exposed easily, even the religious doctrine of evolution that atheists use in their religious doctrines. So if you want to validate (i´m supposing that you are an atheist naturalist) your religion you must expose all religions as false by your own admition to assume such absolute negative.
Well, the second part of your comment is pure and simple ignorant conjecture, denying the truth as harsh is it is will not make it disapear, wishful thinking does not work pal.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "religious doctrine of evolution"? 1) Evolution is a scientific theory, i.e. analytically structured to explain a set of empirical observations. Science & its theories rest on methodological naturalism (note: not metaphysical naturalism), meaning they can't comment on the supernatural; they remain neutral. Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena, ergo evolution =/= religion. 2) "that atheists use"? Are you aware that millions of theists accept evolution?
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "religious doctrine of evolution"? 1) Evolution is a scientific theory, i.e. analytically structured to explain a set of empirical observations. Science & its theories rest on methodological naturalism (note: not metaphysical naturalism), meaning they can't comment on the supernatural; they remain neutral. Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena, ergo evolution =/= religion. 2) "that atheists use"? Millions of theists accept evolution.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Evolution is an absolute silly fairytale either you are an atheist, a theist, a deist or any "eist". If you are speaking about "christians" (doubt) that believe on evolution, they are a walking inconsistency because they reject the very foundation for their faith, the Bible. Either you believe in the Bible or in evolution, you can´t have both, both are contradictory. Evolution excuses sin, the Word of God don´t, do you see why so many choose evolution? (Even if is absurd)
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman How is evolution a fairytale when it's been observed? It's simply changes in allelic frequencies within a population via differential success in reproduction (i.e. natural selection). And since when does accepting evolution = rejecting the bible? You are aware that Genesis' early chapters are read as an allegory by the majority of christians, right? Dr. Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome Project is a devout evangelical protestant; he accepts evolution.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Oh, has been observed? 1- Give me one observation of a kind "evolving" into another entirely different, give me living examples of that. Give me examples of non life creating life without any intelligent designer input, give one exaple of nothing creating something, more, and an example of a simple genetic mutation that can be seen without a doubt to develop the usability, and the genetic info of the genome.
Please don´t dodge ;)
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 Oh, has been observed? 1- Give me one observation of a kind "evolving" into another entirely different, give me living examples of that. Give me examples of non life creating life without any intelligent designer input, give one exaple of nothing creating something, more, and an example of a simple genetic mutation that can be seen without a doubt to develop the usability, and the genetic info of the genome.
Please don´t dodge ;)
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman Sure. "of a kind" The word 'kind' is not a scientific term; it's a vague title creationists use to shift goalposts with when an example of evolution is provided. Observed allopatric and sympatric speciation, i.e. evolution occuring at the species level due to geologic & reproductive isolation, is a fact. "non life creating life without any intelligent designer" Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. "nothing creating something" Evolution is biodiversity, not creation ex nihilo.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 No problem with the word "kind" but if you prefer for the sake or argument i´ll mention "species". Species can adapt and undergo changes within species, yet there are limits to "changes" within species. One kind of living have never been observed to become another living thing. DNA coding prohibits one "family" to cross or become another entirelly different. So, the conclusion is simple; 1- micro e., observed, occurs, reproduceable. 2- macro religious, assumption, never observed
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 2- Give me any (non conjectural) example of macro evolution, and please use the scientific method; observation, testing, reproduction, not mere regorgitation or assumptions ;) Natural selection doesn´t create a thing, SELECTS :p Selection indicates choice-> design-> intelligence. No, the character of the God of the Bible is totally incompatible with such concept, read the first verses, they are literal, not "alegory". If evolution was true the attributes of God were wrong, it totally ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "any (non conjectural) example of macro evolution and please use the scientific method" Here are a few documented studies which provide examples of macroevolution:
evolutionlist. blogspot. com / 2009 / 02 / macroevolution-examples-and-evidence. html
(remove spaces)
"Natural selection doesn't create a thing SELECTS :p" It's natural selection acting on mutation. "Selection indicates choice" NO. Maybe this will help you:
evolution. berkeley. edu / evolibrary / article / evo_32
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Don´t skip the question please, Abiogenesis is the foundation for the doctrine of evolution. Evolutionists conviniently skip the answer saying that evolution (macro evo.) does not equal abiogenesis. That argument is fflawed since abiogenesis is the very foundation for the faith in evolution, is as oxymoronic as a christian denying the Bible, the very foundation for the faith.
1- the examples you gave are simple speculations, not sustained, even if there were true, they require faith ;)
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman It's an irrelevant one outside the scope of evolution. Evolution solely deals with how life diversifies, NOT how it began. That's why Charles Darwin himself (Origin of Species) said it was possible that life "ha[d] been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one", and the process of evolution takes hold afterward. However, if you want the facts on abiogenesis, here you go (thanks to Dr. Jack Szostak of Harvard)
youtube. com / watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 First of all i must apologize for my quick answers, i have noticed that some sentenses aren´t finished or that by error some words weren´t put, but lets move on.
The entire process of evolution does not simply deal with the macro evolution stage, it deals with all the stages required to the macro evo. to hipotetically "occur". So by denying or avoiding answers about previous stages you are simply skiping the foundations for the macro e. stage, and if they have inconsistencies how can...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "all the stages" This is your problem. You don't seem to understand that a scientific theory deals with a particular *set* of empirical observations for one topic. The theory of evolution by natural selection is one scientific theory which explains how life diversifies through time. Other topics like how the universe began or how life began are SEPARATE theories. We're talking about evolution here. And ignored nothing; I cited how abiogenesis works via a YT vid link. Watch it.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 *all stages*, no it is not my problem it is the evolutionist problem, if he tries to skip the answers to previous stages that macro evo. can occur , again, is as silly as a christian don´t believing in the Bible, it is the very foundation for the faith. If you want to do "intelligible" dodges go ahead, yet i think the reason is quite obvious. You regorgitate assumptions, actually you nor anyone don´t have a irrefutable clue to demonstrate that macro evo. has occured, only assumptions.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman No it's your problem, because you think one theory should explain others, which is silly. Theories (again) explain a *set* of empirical observations. How life diversifies is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE to how life began & they both have ENTIRELY SEPARATE THEORIES.
"it is the very foundation for the faith" No, Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of the faith. Paul makes that clear in his epistle, which was just that - an epistle - for a long time before xians made them scripture.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 the next stage occur? I think that this time you have no excuse to dodge the anser sir.
Charlie Dawin stole the idea from his grandpa Erasmus Darwin and his book Zoonomia, and priviously borrowed by Jean Baptiste Lamack and so on to the babylonian pagan myths with some sort of "evolution" in it, so, evolution is an old pagan myth. Charlie Darwin in his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." was refuted by
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
Comment removed
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusShaman It's an irrelevant one outside the scope of evolution. Evolution solely deals with how life diversifies, NOT how it began. That's why Charles Darwin himself (Origin of Species) said it was possible that life "ha[d] been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one", and the process of evolution takes hold afterward. However, if you want the facts on abiogenesis, here you go (thanks to Dr. Jack Szostak of Harvard)
youtube . com / watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "the examples you gave are simple speculations" So you're appealing to personal incredulity now? Because those examples, if you bothered to actually READ them, are referenced to the scientific papers which have the full details on the study conducted for each of them. Dismiss it in the way you did is both dishonest and, frankly, pathetic.
Speciation divides a parent population by geologic and reproductive isolation. Or do you think it means a dog gave birth to a cat? lol
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn I can reformulate the question; give observable examples (not assumptions) of a "specie" turning into a transactions specie and then turned into another entirely different. Don´t skip the question again pal ;)
You use all kinds of "dodges" to skip the term of "natural selection" but you must go to the etimology of the word, selection implies. Thanks, i know the "evolutionist" defenition of what natural selection is, yet that process does not create, it selects, again, etimology of the word
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn I can reformulate the question; give observable examples (not assumptions) of a "specie" turning into a transactions specie and then turned into another entirely different. Don´t skip the question again pal ;)
You use all kinds of "dodges" to skip the term of "natural selection" but you must go to the etimology of the word, selection implies. Thanks, i know the "evolutionist" defenition of what natural selection is, yet that process does not create, it selects, again, etimology of the word
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "the etimology of the word" You do know words used in different contexts (this one being science) have different meanings, right? Natural selection is a mechanistic filtering process, not a mindful "selection". And again, the genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random, but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Pasteur among others. During the XX century he complexity of living organisms has revealed to be far more complex than Darwin ever imagined. Don´t play with words, selection implies choices and implies a process of intelligence to choose. I don´t have to subit my intelligence to the scientism, i can question, and quite franqly if evolution is quite easily proved then you would not have to dodge objective answers ;)
You can give the names you want the point is it will boil into: ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman To claim that Pasteur disproved Darwin is utter nonsense. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, i.e. an entire complex organism arriving from nonlife (which btw is not the same thing as abiogenesis, but that's another topic). "Don't play with words" You can't be this dense. Understand that words have DIFFERENT meanings when the CONTEXT is different. I've defined natural selection already and it simply is not a "choices" process in any type of mindful sense. Quit strawmanning.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn If you rely on empiricism then you must dismiss all non empirically proved stages, what lefts only the micro evolution stage aka adaptation, all the rest as religious assumptions, that aren´t even scientific and break the most basic logic (philosophically speaking). And your avoid to provide to me a straight answer to: observations of macro evo occuring, quite revealing.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "what lefts only the micro evolution stage" What's wrong with you?! Macroevolution is evolution occuring in isolated gene pools. That means when there's no gene flow, it's considered "macro". In an evolutionary context, species are delimited through independent lineages (i.e. no gene flow). So contrary to what you think it is, speciation (observed!) IS macroevolution. I've provided the evidence, e.g. the published studies on observed instances of speciation. READ THEM.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 You provide to me a link to how "abiogenesis works" and i provide to you a link to say how impossible it is:trueorigin (dot) org/abio.asp " Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible" by , Ph.D. Jerry Bergman.
So please, this time don´t go to the degrees, they can´t measure intelligence nor his honesty ;)
Well, isn´t spontaneous generation an idea defended by Darwin as a foundation for evolution? Yes, and it breaks the Law of Biogenetics, so stop playing with words in circles, Pasteur was against
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "Ph.D. Jerry Bergman" I read that article. Now I'm going to debunk it:) He claims complex organic molecules, such as the bases in RNA, are very fragile and unstable (except at low temperatures) and they would not hold together long enough to serve as the first self-replicating proto-life. The source Bergman cites for the fragility of RNA bases (Levy and Miller 1998) disputes abiogenesis only at high temperatures, around 100 degrees Celsius. Continued...
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman They also say that cytosine is unstable enough at 0 degrees Celsius (half life of 17,000 years) that it may not have been involved in the first genetic material. The discovery of a ribozyme without C-G bases shows that genetic material without cytosine IS plausible.
Source: Reader, J. S. and G. F. Joyce. 2002. A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides. Nature 420: 841-844
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman If synthesis of nucleo-bases is catalyzed and hydrolysis is not, we expect the nucleo-bases to accumulate. Formamide, which can form under prebiotic conditions, has been found to catalyze the formation of nucleo-bases.
Saladino, R., C. Crestini, G. Costanzo, R. Negri and E. Di Mauro. 2001. A possible prebiotic synthesis of purine, adenine, cytosine, and 4(3H)-pyrimidinone from formamide: Implications for the origin of life. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry 9(5): 1249-1253.
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman RNA degrades quickly today because there are enzymes (RNAses) to chew it up. Those enzymes would not have evolved if RNA degraded quickly on its own. If complex organic molecules were so fragile, life itself would be impossible. In fact, life exists even in boiling temperatures or at very high acidity. Life need not have begun with highly stable molecules. Eigen and Schuster developed a notion of chemical hypercycles, in which many chemical components coexist; each component....
gmn545 5 months ago
of the reaction leads to other components, which eventually reform the original one.
(Source: Eigen, M. and P. Schuster. 1977. The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Part A: Emergence of the hypercycle. Naturwissenschaften 64(11): 541-565.).
Chemicals involved in such a cycle need not persist longer than the duration of the hypercycle itself. So now that I've just destroyed that silly article on abiogenesis you linked, WATCH THE VIDEO I CITED on Szostak's work.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 forbiden to have wifes yet God says the opposite in the epistles of the apostle Paul. John 10:9, Jesus is the only way, not through works as all religions including the catholicism teach but by grace, a free gift lest any man would boast, no one has the power to fogive sins, only God, yet see the Vatican corruption, the Pope (vicar of Christ)- in place of Christ. antikhristos -> agains or another christ (greek), the Bible is full of warnings concerning false christs ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 yet the Vatican promotes all kind of graven images as pagan eligions, Mar. 6:6-9, Jesus disciples were comanded to go and preach without making riches for themselves, look at the Vatican, Mar. 7:6-8, traditions of men (religion) does noe equal with christianity- relashionship with the LORD, Mat. 23:9, Jesus says to never call anyone Father unless to God which is in Heaven, priests are called fathers as the pontifex maximus, the pope, the caesar, Mat. 8:14, Peter has a wife, priests are
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman As to the Catholic Church, again your version of Christianity (I assume you're protestant) is simply a daughter to the RCC. You go to church on Sunday because that's what the Roman Church started doing to ecumenically worship alongside other religions of Rome. (google Constantine Day of the Sun). That's just one example. The irony is while you claim Catholics are against the bible, most bible translations trace back to the first ecumenical bible, commissioned by Constantine.
gmn545 5 months ago
@g light and darkness, the pattern for day/night was already created. Consider the following articles: [answersingenesis (dot)org/articles/2006/04/04/order-of-events-matters] and
[answersingenesis(dot)org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days], read the answers to the obections 1,2 and 6.
About Roman catholicism there are so many heresies and abominations that is difficult to show them all here,lets see; Deu. 5:8-9, no bowing to graven images, idols, an abomination to God ..
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "pattner for day/night was already created" Except that the sun and moon determines the duration of day, seasons, and years. They didn't exist until day 4, but plants were made on day 3. So what gave plants energy for an entire day when there was no sun in existence? The problems still remains so I'm waiting on a thorough explanation. And Answers in Genesis? Seriously? Your sources on science-related topics are hilarious.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 So and to finish, since you can´t even see the obvious about catholicism being totally opposed to the Bible by doctrine, symbology, rituals, background, etc i can´t help you my deluded friend.
I will however challege you to the these vids ( i´m glad you´ve mentioned Plato);
-Know Your Enemy 45- Plato Republic´s ; watch?v=PB4bHN_9m34&feature=related
-Know Your Enemy 46 Science Dictatorships- watch?v=G4Ntxf6wdlE&feature=related
- Know your enemy 47- Evolution- watch?v=BOTlNNsBqbA ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "catholicism being totally opposed to the Bible"
*facepalm* In one ear and out the other for you, I guess. You want me to watch videos when you haven't bothered to watch the two videos that prove my point: the one on endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) and abiogenesis. Sorry but it won't work like that. Until I know you've watched them and you bring me scientific, peer-reviewed journals with information that falsifies what's presented in those vids, evolution stands and you lose.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 So as i said; Mat. 7:"6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Have a nice day sir!
[shake off the dust]
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman You didn't cast any pearls; you (similar to Hovind) were trying to sell me fake pearls and unfortunately for you, I can tell the difference. And thanks for pointing out that I trampled your arguments :-)
Have a nice day sir!
[laughs hysterically at you]
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Why all cells did not just stay self replicating cells?
Why such single cell organism *evolved* into multi cell organisms? How complex systems (digestive...) originated? How such systems learned to *interact*? If you permit i would like to provide some interesting links: -watch?v=wmpGUPz5TZU (The Devastation of Evolution - Chirality), watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU
(Evolution And The Fabled Mutations). Sir, your objection is silly since in the first day (Gen 1:3-5) God had created ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 I must conclude; either you are dodging my point continuously OR you are being intellectually dishonest. If you want to validate the stage of macro you must therefore explain all the previous stages, as a christian has to rest his faith uppon his foundation, the Old Testament and the New Testament.i will not repeat again sir. You pressupose that the "theory" has occured based on pressupositions yet you fail to see
that you had long ago steped off the empirical and step on the religious.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman How am I dodging? I've addressed this nonsensical "explain all the previous stages" claim and it's bogus. You just don't understand how science works...at all. One theory explains one set of empirical observations and separate theories explain others. The theory of relativity isn't wrong just because it doesn't explain where gravity came from; that's a separate issue. I've explained and cited evidence for evolution, which solely deals with how lifes diversifies.
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "You presuppose that the "theory" has occured" What? LOL! Here you go mixing up definitions of terms again. A theory is science isn't the colloquial term 'theory' (i.e. conjecture). It's analytically structured to *explain* a set of empirical observations (facts). In other words, science is about following the evidence where it points. A theory is discarded when evidence points away from it (see the Steady State theory). Nothing points away from evolution so it's considered valid.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 No, this time i will not adress the same questions again. I only want to make reference to one aspect, you are correct, i haven´t write properly, the church of Rome does not have the same origin as the gnostic "gospels" even if the Vatican is absolutely connected with freemasonry, but that is another issue, for the same of origins, the had distinct places, even if catholic pictures will tell you otherwise :p
But i want to make this response brief ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 I don´t have any problem with faith since empiricism cannot explain what is beyond the material as logic, aesthtics, morality etc, yet atheism naturalism bashes creationism for being based on "faith" when evolution requires much more faith into the illogical. Yes Christ ressurrection is the foundation ou christianity yet without the Word of God you have no christianity. Christ is the Word made flesh, Christ and the Word are inseparable. That is false, Paul wrote the epistle a few years
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "without the Word of God you have no christianity" There was christianity in Paul's day and then, there was no NT canon at all. That alone proves you wrong. "Christ and the Word are inseparable" Weren't you just babbling about how you can't trust Maimonides because of Neo-Platonic thinking? You do realize that calling Jesus the "Word" (greek "Logos") is DIRECTLY relating him to the Platonic concept of Logos? Nice way to contradict yourself buddy :-) Hahaha!
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 after Christ´s death and ressurrection. Try not to compare the true Word of God from the church of Antioch with the gnostic texts of the pagan roman Council of Nicea centuries after lest ye be like Satan, pure ignorant conjecture. Again you push the premisse of changes within species (occured, observed) to a giant leap of faith which is macro evolution, never observed. For such *debunk* i will ask simple questions if you don´t mind;- How RNA originated? Why? When?
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "Paul wrote the epistles a few years after Christ's death" Try decades later. Jesus died circa 30 AD. Paul's first extant epistle (1 Thessalonians) was written in 51 AD. "gnostic text of pagan roman council of nicea" LOL! Firstly, the gnostics are a separate sect from the church of rome. Secondly, the NT canon you currently have is derived from the list of St. Irenaeus, who was early church father that lived WAY BEFORE the Council of Nicea. You ought to educate yourself more.
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman Btw, I like how you have 0 response to my debunking of your abiogenesis article. Notice how I did it with scientific journals/studies to back it up the entire way (something you haven't done once). That tells me a lot. Your questions related to abiogenesis:
youtube. com / watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
For the last time...WATCH THE VIDEO!!!! lol
gmn545 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gmn545 Pasteur among others. During the XX century he complexity of living organisms has revealed to be far more complex than Darwin ever imagined. Don´t play with words, selection implies choices and implies a process of intelligence to choose. I don´t have to subit my intelligence to the scientism, i can question, and quite franqly if evolution is quite easily proved then you would not have to dodge objective answers ;)
You can give the names you want the point is it will boil into: ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
you defend that one specie can develop itself into another entirely different and without resolute observations. I will ask again; give me a tangible irrefutable observation of a specie evolving into another entirely different; and irrefutable proof of the transactionary characteristics. You can dodge and hide behind papers and assumptions and hypothesis, i want solid evidence.
Mutations are degenerative not evolutionary, sometimes evolutionists thing that a desactivation of genes is a "proof"
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "without resolute observations" I cited the examples on the page that gives the studies recording observed speciation (complete with references to the journals). You simply appealed to handwaving, not even reading it in depth, and still spout off the same nonsense. You're being intellectually dishonest. "Hide behind papers" You keep asking for evidence & I've provided it. Real scientists do the hard work in the lab, record their results and publish their findings for us to read.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 such concept, a basic foundation for the premisse of even equating evolution. Well, you are the one continuously using No True Scotsmen since you havent till this moment provided any true observation (only concerning macro evo.). The word natural selection implies a choise (selection) even if you equate that is a natural process possessing certain genotipic characteristics to make it better "adjusted" to the environment? What kind of intelligence is behind such *selection*? An ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 unpurposed unlogic random process? Again, a circular reasoning, a choice implies intelligence.
You can believe on men in labs as infalible, without agendas behind (owners), without financeers who will determine what projects will be investigated, pressures or even human falability to assume a non observed illogical process as evolution. As i had provided to you, there are proffessionals in science who disagree categorically with evolution, there is not any consensus.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
Comment removed
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 bashes God character. AND CALLS Him ignorant or an idiot since He can´t do it right at one time.. The Bible is quite clear, the Bible would not make any sense if the gap theory was added and that would create unnecessary inconsistencies, the point is, evolution is a fairytale and inconrporating that in the Bible is a delusion on fitting for those "christians" desperate to agree with the world, clear as water. Guess what, the majority of "christians" in this Laodicean "church" aren´t even
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "since He can't do it right at one time" The question isn't 'what can He do?" but rather "what did he choose to do?" Again, Genesis' early chapters are more of an allegory. Maimonides, regarded by Jews to be the greatest mind when it came to expounding on the Torah, strongly criticized the literalist interpretation of scripture. "incorporating that into the bible is a delusion" No need to, since Genesis wasn't trying to give a literal history of the early world. Again, allegory.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 biblical, most call themselves "christians" yet they reject the Bible and live like the world. So, numbers don´t mean a thing, and i could give to you many names of people in science who are young Earth creationists as the Bible defends ;). He is a devout "christian" you say, yet he bashes God´s Word and attributes, how oxymoronic.
No, outside of micro evo there are no observations, testings, reproductions, it bashes scientiffic principles, bashes logic and is based on wishful thinking
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "reject the Bible and live like the world"? You're asserting a whole lot without knowing anything about these people. "many names of people in science who are YEC" Give me names of biologists, specifically. And how does Francis Collins "bash God's Word"? You're arguing under a logical fallacy of No True Scotsman. The literalist view of scripture and/or YEC simply is not a requirement for being a legitimate christian.
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman And "evolution excuses sin"? In what way, considering (again) most christians (and theists altogether) accept evolution? And the reason they do so is because of the overwhelming evidence for it, e.g. endogenous retroviruses, chromosomal fusion, atavistic traits, mtDNA of neanderthals, observed speciation, fossil remains, etc. When all the facts point towards evolution & none point away from it, the only honest thing to do is accept it as a valid scientific theory on biodiversity.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 It is impossible that evolution and the Bible are compatible. In the Bible sin creates death, death is the consequence of sin, in evolution death is necessary, is a "natural" element as the western pagan religions teach, reincarnation, so stop making that silly assumption when evolution is completely contradictory to the Bible. Go to the churchianity and see how many are living happy in sin, evolution simply excuses sin.
Well all you had asseted are mere regorgitations without true solid
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "In the Bible sin creates death" It's responsible of human death, and a spiritual one at that. Things dying naturally was always part of the order of things; it's why there was a "Tree of Life" from which man was kept away from after sinning so that he could die and not live forever (Gen.3:22) Death and carnivores are necessary, mainly to prevent overpopulation and the using up of every natural resource.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Before man had sinned against God probably there would be no carnivores nor sicknesses, nor corruption, nor death, on the other hand when men sinned, men brought to creation such plages, the consequence of sin. No, in the Bible death is unnatural and God haven´t made His Creation to die, that is quite easily seen in the Bible. Implying evolution in the Bible you are slaying God´s attributes, calling God incompetent and bringing the concept of reicarnation as another pagan beliefs.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman That's simply not possible. Plant death had to have occured since man was eating (includes digestion). Other animals produce sooo much offspring in only one generation that should nothing die, overpopulation and consumption of all natural resources would have occured quickly. "in the Bible God haven't made His Creation to die" Chapter and verse please. Without the "Tree of Life", man couldn't live forever (Gen.3:22). That implies that he of his own nature is MORTAL. Get it?
gmn545 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusShaman That's simply not possible. Plant death had to have occured since man was eating (includes digestion). Other animals produce sooo much offspring in only one generation that should nothing die, overpopulation and consumption of all natural resources would have occured quickly. "in the Bible God haven't made His Creation to die" Chapter and verse please. Without the "Tree of Life", man couldn't live forever (Gen.3:22). That implies that he of his own nature is MORTAL. Get it?
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "all you had asseted are mere regorgitations without true solid irrefutable evidence"
Think again. I can tell you just don't know anything about them. Let's start with endogenous retroviruses. You can watch & learn about it here:
youtube. com / watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
(remove spaces)
Did you just say Neanderthals are a hoax??? Forgive me but such an astoundingly ignorant statement is shocking. Their mtDNA has been sequenced; it's divergent enough to show they weren't humans.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Yes, read Revelation chpt. 22 to adress that "Tree issue". No, the world even today isn´t overpopulated, far from it, so again, review your obections.
About the Neanderthal hoax: drdino.com/neanderthals-ape-men-or-humans/
//creation.com/national-geographic-unveils-wilma-the-neandertal-lady
A few hoaxes? lol. Were those "few hoaxes" that heavily contributed that evolution was regarded as a "science" among scientific circles ;) So do not say "few" :p
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "the world today isn't overpopulated" Because people and animals die, that's why. If we didn't, overpopulation would occur rather quickly. And your source on Neanderthal is Kent Hovind? *facepalm* This is a joke, right? How about point me to scientifc journals (like the ones I've cited) that say Neanderthal is a hoax? And those aforementioned hoaxes didn't "heavily contribute" to evolution, as evolution is affirmed mainly from the molecular, genetic evidence. Don't be so silly :-P
gmn545 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusShaman "the world today isn't overpopulated" Because people and animals die, that's why. If we didn't, overpopulation would occur rather quickly. And your source on Neanderthal is Kent Hovind? *facepalm* This is a joke, right? How about point me to scientifc journals (like the ones I've cited) that say Neanderthal is a hoax? And those aforementioned hoaxes didn't "heavily contribute" to evolution, as evolution is affirmed mainly from the molecular, genetic evidence. Don't be so silly :-P
gmn545 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnusShaman "the world today isn't overpopulated" Because people and animals die, that's why. If we didn't, overpopulation would occur rather quickly. And your source on Neanderthal is Kent Hovind? *facepalm* This is a joke, right? How about point me to scientifc journals (like the ones I've cited) that say Neanderthal is a hoax? And those aforementioned hoaxes didn't "heavily contribute" to evolution, as evolution is affirmed mainly from the molecular, genetic evidence. Don't be so silly :-P
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 irrefutable evidence, again, only wishful thinking. Neanderthals as many other were exposed as frauds, yet evolutionists hide all the frauds; Lucy, Piltdow, Nebraska, Java, Ramapithecus, Neandertal, til this day no missing link was found, only desperate evolutionists trying hardly to claim everything as a missing link lol. Lets see fossils; fossils can´t prove a thing, nor that the animal had offspring, only that his remains are there, yet the clever evolutionist makes a circular ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "Piltdown, Nebraska, Java" 1) it was scientists who discovered they were frauds. 2) A few hoaxes cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 reasoning; strata is identified by the fossils it contains, and the fossils are classified by the strata they are found in- this is not science. No one can create an order for the fossils, that is the result of the imagination of the evolutionist. Evolution is only still holded because the pressure it makes and the big agenda behind it, evolution has been debunked several times yet you will never lister on the mainstream any inconsistency nor lie and then you are brainwashed since a kid.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "No one can create an order for the fossils, that is the result of the imagination of the evolutionist" Errr..what? There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia and the Williston Basin of North Dakota.
Sources: Morton, Glenn, 2001. The geologic column and its implications to the Flood.
Trendall, et al. 1990. Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3.
gmn545 5 months ago
Comment removed
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, can´t those strata be formed in rapid succession by possibly a flood :p and not from "millions of years" (another religious belief)?
"The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?" - trueorigin (dot) org/ geocolumn
"A Brief Response to Several Anti-Creationist Books" - trueorigin (dot) org/ antibook
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 Sorry about the number os replies :p i think that the next reply if you will reply to me will not be as long as this one ;)
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "religious doctrine of evolution"? 1) Evolution is a scientific theory, i.e. analytically structured to explain a set of empirical observations. Science & its theories rest on methodological naturalism (note: not metaphysical naturalism), meaning they can't comment on the supernatural; they remain neutral. Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena, ergo evolution =/= religion. 2) "that atheists use"? Millions of theists accept evolution.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 1) No, actually is anti-science and can´t even pressupose the principle of induction behind science. Sir Fred Hoyle would reveal that "claiming to be proved" doesn´t equal to be proved indeed. Outside of micro evo. aka adaptation everything concerning the evolution doctrine is regorgitation, illogical, non observed and above all, a huge leap of faith, therefore religious. Lol, evolution is full of "supernatural" "phenomena". 2) Does the majority determine truth? :p
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman ) How is it anti-science when it's founded on the scientific method and doesn't violate the foundation (methodological naturalism)? Fred Hoyle? LOL! He was wrong about a lot of things e.g. he believed in Steady-State theory - that the universe was static/eternal - when all the evidence points to expansion. You're wrong about "outside micro", since "macro" (aka speciation) has been observed as well. Do name one "supernatural phenomena" in evolution. 2) The minority sure doesn't :-P
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 and assumptions. All this way to excuse sin, how silly. Again and even philosophicaly you can´t even relly on science with your atheistic naturalistic perspective, you assume pressupositions that you can´t even accept. No, the Universe as the 2º Law of Thermodinamics reveals (and do not be unimaginative to say that it only applies to our system) that everything tents towards decay, thats why you don´t see supernovas being formed, only vanishing ;) Sir i have a new for you, you have long
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "2nd Law of Thermodynamics reveals that everything tents towards decay" Wrong. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy in a closed system will not decrease. This doesn't prevent increasing order because earth is NOT a closed system. Sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Kinda funny, a non believer saying that Genesis is not literal, you can keep your false conception, yet the rest of the Bible comproves a literal Genesis.No if Maimonides was truly a jew he would had turned into christianity since through out the Torah there are procefies concerning the Messiah Jesus Christ. Maimonides was a supporter of mysticism, an occultust, therefore not a jew of the Sinagogue of Satan. There are more questions concerning him; was he a Tamud (babylonian perverted
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 Torah), a gnostic or even a kabbalist and occultist? If so he was a worshiper of the mysteries and not a jew. Your argument about Maimonides was easily refuted. A christian (as the jews before their Messiah Jesus Christ appeared) trust in God, not in men contradicting His Word.
Ok i can give a few names: Michael G. Behe, Waster Veith, Kent Hoving, Dr. Russel Humphrey, I.L. Cohen, R. Fix, Macbeth, Francis Hitching, Lovtrup, Michael Pitman etc etc
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman What is your source on these claims about Maimonides? This is a man whosaid men should believe only what can be supported either by rational proof, by the evidence of the senses, or by trustworthy authority. He affirms that he had studied astrology, and that it does not deserve to be described as a science. The supposition that the fate of a man could be dependent upon the constellations is ridiculed by him. He may have studied Kabbalah but that wouldn't mean he's not a Jew lol
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman Maimonides was a scholastic and Torah scholar (arguably the greatest). He said what a man cannot establish rationally, by evidence of the senses, or from a trustworthy authority, shouldn't be believed. So I highly doubt he was an occultist.
As to the names, all I can do is laugh. Michael Behe accepts common ancestry! Or didn't you know that? His credibility is shot too after the Dover Trial. Kent Hovind is not a biologist or even a scientist. His degree is in Christian Education.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Sir don´t you know that you lack of belief in God will not be an excuse on the day of Judgment?
Well, sir, i have many doubs about that character Maimonides, i cannot develop much since i haven´t studied him, yet in the article of wikipedia it says that he was an admirer of the neo platonic thinking. Plato was an occultist, as Pithagoras as many philosophers. If he was ties with the Talmud (many indicators towards that) then he disqualifies himself of being a Torah schollar
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "you lack of belief in God will not be an excuse" What are you talking about? My point is that you're appealing to a logical fallacy (No True Scotsman) by claiming that anyone who isn't an literalist is "bashing God's Word", which is laughable.
You can have your doubts about Maimonides; the entire scholarly community (both jewish and christian) agrees with me on his views. "Platonic thinking", i.e. there exists a higher realm of truth & a supreme being. You shouldn't be bothered.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Well, what is laughable is you implying that evolution don´t contradict God´s Word, read the scriptures then talk ;) No compatibility, stop pushing the false premisse of gap theroy, but if you aren´t even a believer what credibility should i place uppon your observation of the scriptures?
You are resolute to say all the "scholarly community" agrees, i doubt. I´m bothered in many positions of Plato.
No, pick a King James Bible and start reading it ;) The scriptures must be interpreted
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 You can see here a few number of believers in biblical creation even if numbers don´t mean a thing;
creation.com/creation-scientists
I refered to the Universe as a close system, not to Earth. The 2L.T.D. says that nothing can be in the process of "evolving" unless it is worked by an outside force, so what we see; dissipation, decay, degeneration actually refutes evolution totally (the total opposite). Energy is slowing down, never increasing. :)
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "degeneration actually refutes evolutiont totally" No. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.
Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Your assumption of not being an occultist based on the statues gaved to him as a "philosopher" is fallacious and History will easily disprove you, but this is not the point. I don´t rely on men who contradict the Word of God, when there isn´t harmony among the scriptures.
Mentioning names does not equal to agree with every position taken by the author, perhaprs you should read Michael´s Behe Darwins Black Box ;)
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "I don't rely on men who contradict the Word of God" Here we go again. You equating any position other than literalist/YEC with contradicting scripture is silly of you. Genesis has serious problems if you try to take it all literally. Like how can plants come before a sun even exists? lol
I've read Behe's work; it's been thoroughly refuted at Dover by none other than Dr. Kenneth Miller (evo biologist at Brown U) who btw is a believer ;-) Behe was practically laughed out of court.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 in the proper context, being symbolical in symbolical parts (ex- when the LORD Jesus Christ says to pluck out the eye to not go to the fire, that was not an endorsing to self mutilation but to use all drastic measures to take sin out of your life) Genesis don´t have any problem, it makes perfect sense taken literally, it mankes no sense taken non literally. Give me the verses of Genesis you are refering to ;)
No, Keneth Miller is a roman catholic, he is not a believer in the same God
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "Genesis don't have any problem, it makes perfect sense taken literally" LOL! Ok look: Plants are created (day 3) before the sun, moon & stars even exist (day 4). Problem: plants can't exist for a whole day (or minute) without the heat & energy of the sun! And don't say something stupid like "what about night time?" because the sun exists and STILL powers the earth with heat. And if you really think that plants are older than stars, then you have to deny astronomy, cosmology, etc.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Isaiah 42:"8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. ", The glory is given to men (pope- wicked sinner) and to Mary (Queen of Heaven- not the Biblical Mary). See in the Old Testament what God said about those who worshiped the pagan Queen of Heaven. 1 Tim. 2:"5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" Catholics worship idols (saints) when the Bible says that all true born again
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "the pagan Queen of Heaven" You mean Ishtar, who is indirectly acknowledged every "Easter" time, since the name derives from her. Catholics don't "worship" Mary; they venerate her, which isn't the same thing. Prayers that you hear that appear to be directed to her, are (for RCC) made under the idea of intercessory prayer (when one asks someone to pray to God for them). As to "co-redemptrix", it's because Mary could have said "No!" to bringing the savior into the world. That's all.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 If you think that a theory based on the process of increasing and "evolution" doesn´t contradict the observable 2 Law of T.D. that states that everything tents towards decay, dissipation and that nothing can be improved unless it is worked by an outside force yet you defend that an ameba evolved into a man i can´t help you sir.
The problem is that the evolutionist assumes premisses that he can´t sustain as granted and makes pressupositions about everything pointing to evo., fallacious.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman If you wish to continue to strawman the 2nd Law of T.D., then I can't help you. I've cited a scientific study which thoroughly analyzed the 2nd law in relation to evolution, and nothing was to the detriment of evolution. Then again, I know you didn't read it or watched any vid I've cited. You creationists do this all the time: Shout "give me evidence", we provide it, you close your eyes to it and continue to shout the same thing. Try WATCHING the vid on ERV's and abiogenesis.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 that christians worship, btw, Michael Behe is also a roman catholic. Note one important aspec, roman catholicism isn´t christianity, it is anti biblical btw, the Vatican is called in the Bible as the Whore of Babylon, so please do not correlate christianity with catholicism. No wonder, even the Stephen Hawking (not a biologist has ties with the Vatican) as the great promotor of evolution Pirre Teilhard de Chardin etc. Vatican pushed evolution (macro evo and so on), the Bible don´t ;)
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman "roman catholicism isn't christianity" No True Scotsman. Of course it is. Just not the particular branch that you're part of. There are 30,000+ denominations that all think they're closest to what "true" christianity is. But guess what? Much of what you have now (e.g. going to church on Sunday, the NT canon (say thanks to St. Irenaeus!), christmas, etc.) all comes from the Catholic Church. LOL!
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 christians are saints and worst; they Worship Mary as the Co-Redemtrix, the Mediatrix. The wafle is a sun symbol, and the liturgy a cerimony uterly against the Bible, and saying that Christ sacrifice wasn´t enough, they must continue as they claim repeat his sacrifice in all liturgies. John. 14:6- Jesus is the way, truth and life. Jesus rebukes the nicoliaitans (go see the etymolgy of the word) = catholicism. More, read the prophecies of Daniel and in Revelation to see if the ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 role of Whore of Babylon isn´t perfect for the Vatican, actually it cannot be placed uppon any other institution or organization. The Vatican has as the Whore of Babylon persecuted millions of christians who rejected their heretical doctrines.If you like i can provide material. No, when the council of Nicea was held (300 a.C.) the Bible was already closed centuries ago, do your research. The Bible does not mention denominations, a born again christian Bible believer is a born again
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 Bible beliver, there is no need for labels, and denominations had all of them been influenced by false doctrine. A Christian follows the Word of God, if any denomination refutes the Word of God, God says in His Word to depart, simple isn´t it?
Christmas is actually a pagan date for the worship in the Winter Equinox, the Saturnalia, and the Bible never mentions about Christ being born in such date, actually if was in December pastors could have not been with their flocks at night, the ...
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 Wll i can provide to you another link;
trueorigin( dot) org/steiger.asp "Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism"
So mr evolutionist i hope that the last one wasn´t the same thing as you has accused me, a straw men fallacy.
And to finish sir, your disbelief will not be an excuse on the day of judgment, you are a sinner and only the blood of the LORD Jesus Christ can save you from the righterous punishment in Hell, all mankind have sinned against a Holy and perfect God, without Jesus we are lost.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman Your source on thermodynamics vs evolution is a joke lol. 0 scientific journal references, and it doesn't even address the study which I cited. Here it is again:
Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16
Notice it's in a REAL science journal. If you can find me another one of those that contradicts what's presented here, I'll concede.
And to finish sir, don't bring up hell or judgment if you have no evidence of either. :-)
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Winter in Judea would made quite impossible such state, Jesus born at least before October, not in 25th of December, the day when pagans celebrated their sun worship. Catholicism is just Constantine atempt to avoid the rise of christianity and actually continuing practicing paganism with a christian cover.I guess that your "No True Scotsman" mantra was reduced to absurdity.
You can call all day long "jokes" yet having a certificate of "peer reviewed" will not determine what truth is
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman No you're still appealing to No True Scotsman, by continuing to say that only Protestants who are literalists are "real" christians. That's the absurdity and its insulting to the rest of the christian majority that hold to the key precepts that ARE necessary to qualify a person as a christian.
Your articles are jokes because they don't come from any scientist who's published through peer-review. Non-peer reviewed articles are not scholarly; they're like unaccredited universities.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Know Your Enemy -Population Control- watch?v=p2dr3zc0k5Q&feature=related
If after seeing these videos you continue willingly self deceived i unfortunately have to conclude that you are uterly blind and deceiving yourself.
To your observations about the Bible, they are kind revealing of your ignorant conjecture on the topic sir.
I hope that you will open a bit your eyes with these vids otherwise my last response will be quoting Mat 7:6.
Cheers.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman Since thus far you've failed to address my objections with any real science or bothered to watch the videos that present the irrefutable evidence for evolution, I unfortunately have to conclude that you are delusional. Crying for evidence and handwaving once it's in front of your face, because you hold on desperately to your argument from personal incredulity. You don't reject evolution for factual reasons but religious ones.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 This is an issue of faith vs faith, you hold your pressupositions on falible men without even equating the background, on the doctrines of atheism, evolution and what will culminate in scientism, i hold mine uppon the Word of God. I provided means to understand a bit of the ambiguous environment of evolution by the horses mouths.
So sir, as Jesus said to His disciples, when they are not welcome, let the shake of the dust of the feet be a testimony against them.
Have a nice day.
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman No this is an issue of faith vs reality. I can't condemn all christians because a lot of them don't have the problems that you do (e.g. personal incredulity, handwaving, spouting off platitudes, etc). I don't rely on men but on the evidence that's been gathered and valid theories that have withstood testing. You hold yours on a literalist view (not taken seriously by most xians) of a bronze age creation myth. I refuted every point of yours and you have 0 legitimate response.
gmn545 5 months ago
@MagnusShaman And attempting to sell me fake "pearls" and trying to pass them off as real ones is very unchristian of you. And you did it with a silly, childish arrogance as well; that's the funny thing. You deem yourself a follower of Christ, yet I never got even the slightest hint that you were anything like him, in terms of conduct. Think about that next time, 'lest that testimony stand against you on judgment day' :-P
gmn545 5 months ago
Comment removed
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
Comment removed
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
@gmn545 crossed the scientifical and the empirical to enter in the religious reals, yet you don´t even notice. If it makes you happy call that science XD. No, mascro has neven been observed only in the imagination of evolutionists. Well if you will bash sir Fred Hoyle with some of his positions make sure that your evolutionists don´t present flaws, don´t worship humans, don´t believe on the evolutionary priesthood aka Scientism :p
MagnusShaman 5 months ago
You know what? This was a really informative documentary in the sense that I learned a lot about the History of Philosophy, which I think was its intent. I didn't know that atheists used to believe that the world had always existed. Thanks!
jasonfkg 6 months ago
Epic Fail.
As in I failed to see either the "necessity 'or' evidence of creation".
MrTormey 6 months ago
@MrTormey Concrete evidence?!
Take such concrete around your feet my Theist friends and take a dip in the pool.
MrTormey 6 months ago
This is utterly fucking painful to watch. Never before have I seen so many fallacies grouped up into a video that doesn't do anything to prove there is a god.
Atheism is simply believing that Christians or any other religious dogma have not even come close to meeting their burden of proof so there is no true reason to believe in god. A disbelief.
As far as the big bang goes, Christians really like to stereotype this as a dogma for the "atheist" religion which is utterly nonsensical.
Georgiadogs4life 7 months ago
@Admonishmints The religion of atheism? Bwahahah
Reasonwillwin 7 months ago
@Admonishmints ''THERE IS NO SUCH AS AN ATHEIST'' Hi, I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any God, and YOU are a brainwashed moron.
Reasonwillwin 7 months ago
The first fucking sentence of this video : Atheism, in other words the denial of God... IT'S NOT A DENIAL YOU COCKSUCKER IT'S A DISBELIEF
Reasonwillwin 7 months ago
*don't require
mancno1 7 months ago
LOL I loved how it says the big bang theory is a scientific fact but evolution was an atheist lie. Both are widely accepted scientific theorys with evidence to support them and require faith or a lack of faith in god. However according to this video whether something is fact or fiction is whether it disagrees with the bible. In the same way modern medicine is a lie because it doesn't use animal sacrifice in any of its procedures like it says you should in the bible.
mancno1 7 months ago
Please give it up already, you wont win the war against Evolution simply because it is our true history
captaindisguise 8 months ago
so many bullshit all together. Incredible.
AsherUnderneth 8 months ago
Good video, but I strongly disagree with the flames that surround the word "Atheism" at the beginning of the video. This suggests to some that Atheists automatically burn in hell. I believe that to be morally wrong.
29condorito 8 months ago
Atheist, your evolution theory is an ordinary stupidity. Thanx God for life on earth!
Atheist make wars and new world order. You're busted.
ConspiracyOrchestra 8 months ago
@ConspiracyOrchestra Atheists make wars? Uhm would you please look at your history book for a second? And the theory of evolution is stupidity? Just cause you're an uneducated twat who can't even grasp the theory doesn't mean it's stupid, it is a fact and the basis for our modern biology.
Reasonwillwin 7 months ago
I set out to critique this, but this video is just atrocious. There are far too many errors for me to address; assertion without evidence, strawmanning, ignorance of Occam's Razor, Ad hominem attacks, not-so-subtle musical manipulation, ignorance of refutations to presented arguments, ignorance of the fine points of the Big Bang, ignorance of evolution and abiogensis, generalization of atheists, ignorance of what atheism actually means and what it entails, etc. This video truly is atrocious.
Legit73Resurected 10 months ago 2
LOL.
That is all.
ginagirl123123 10 months ago
saying that the universe had a beginning does not mean that it was created. it is simply an inaccurate statement to make. it is as if you look at the sun rising and say "so the day has begun, thus it was created". It doesn't even make any damn sense! This Christian propaganda is even worse than the "Bloody History of Communism". Another religious propaganda movie. You guys suck!
BuecherFuerAlle 10 months ago
@BuecherFuerAlle I found my self saying 'No, it didn't.No,they didn't.Right from the begining of this rubbish.Good comedy though
megaj1964 10 months ago
I love how balanced this show is, "many beliving the deception of evolution" really goes to show that this is made by an independant part with an open min to the subjecy :P
ebm93nor 10 months ago
GOD DAMNIT YOU CAN'T MAKE AN EXPLOSION SOUND FOR AN EXPANSION OF TIME AND SPACE
Keinlicht 11 months ago 10
Religion is a superstition that requires complete suspension of logic. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god as it can not be ever proven by science. Hence atheism can not and will not collapse. You do not have to believe in the big bang or evolution to be a atheist you simply believe that no magic sky daddy created it.
hakaboy6924 11 months ago
yay atheism defined as denial of god what a surprise. as if we KNOW god exists and we deny him. yeah thatd be smart huh? piss off an all powerful being that holds your fate in his hand. atheists do not accept the claim that there is a god. change your definition you have it wrong. first everyone was an atheist then came the claim of a god, then came the nonbelievers, and THEN came the word "atheist" or whatever it was referred to at the time. noone was born believing in god.
itsuyo211 1 year ago
I'm so confused. So the "Big Bang" supports Christianity for some strange reason? Maybe Brahma did it - I wouldn't rule it out. Maybe Aten did it. Or maybe it was the separation between the yin and yang that caused that Big Bang.
Centredge 1 year ago
@Admonishmints You say "your high minded all knowingness", but it is directly because of the "knowingness" that killed my faith in any mythical being.
For every single "good" thing religion has done in this world I can show you 10 other instances where they created "evil" through pain, death, and fear.
Ultimately, education and rational knowledge is what kills religion.
Did you know that 92% of American scientists don't believe in a god? Something to think about while you type on your computer.
XenMonkey13 1 year ago
@Admonishmints What about the mass acts of terrorism from Christianity alone:
The Sons of Freedom in Canada, National Liberation Front of Tripura in India (directly terrorizes Hindus and Muslims), Lebanese Phalangists, Padraic Pearse of the IRA in Ireland, Orthodox Church movements in Romania, Russian National Unity (a Russian Orthodox militia group), Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, ect.
It seems that the most war torn countries are the most religious, and the most peaceful are secular.
XenMonkey13 1 year ago
@Admonishmints How easily religious people forget the millions of deaths that they are directly (and sometimes proudly) responsible for in the world. Saint Augustine’s cognite intrare, The Crusades, Europe's Reformation and Counter Reformation, Spanish Inquisition, Massacre of the Latins, Salem witch trials, The African slave trade, The Colonial Conquests of the American Indian, The Holocaust, The Christian Identity Movement (neo-naziism and the KKK), Rawanda, Bosnia, ect...
XenMonkey13 1 year ago
@Admonishmints Those people were Communists and wanted a religion that worshiped the state and the leader viewed as a type of god. Those were NOT atheistic movements that turned bad, they were communistic dictators that wanted to control people through force.
I don't think you want to get in to a listing of supposed atheist leaders (which none of those truly are) compared to leaders throughout the world that believe in your god and could be considered "evil" through their actions and atrocities.
XenMonkey13 1 year ago
@Admonishmints No we don't.
We don't want to "rid the world of believers in the God of the Bible." We want to rid the world ignorance, whether willful or otherwise.
Science denial is the true danger in the world and it is religion that is the forefront of that denial.
Science denial kills people and rapes the mind.
We can only hope that the human race wakes up to this and discards such backwards tribal mythology. Let us be something more than a primate with a capability for language.
XenMonkey13 1 year ago
Atheism is just another religion
somearmyguy1 1 year ago