If anyone is watching this video then ask yourself this. We sent men to the moon, we have cracked the dna code and we have invented high speed computer,s high speed cars, instant entertainment and we can fly around the world. But amongst all this with over 140 years of theory and all the tools at their disposal, not one single example of a real evolution has been demonstrated, just one mutation after another stinking entropic monstrosity! Failure after failure! Because its all just BULLSHIT!
@888WulfDog888 Concerning your disbelief in evolutionary theory....organisms can be grouped by sequence similarity via DNA sequence comparison and the resulting phylogenetic trees are consistent with taxonomy. Scientists had envisioned the paleontological tree of life long before it was CONFIRMED by DNA sequence analysis. Consequently, evolution is one of the most validated theories in all of science.
@CynicalSkeptic1 here's one for you! Cancer is nothing more than the build up of acid mainly folic from the sick and nutritionless food which contains heavy traces of super phosphates and now some even have genetic modifications including removal of the plants ability to reproduce, this has added even more acidic compounds. Cancer can be cured quite simply through saturating the body with alkalinity and raising the internal Ph level to the point of folic acid neutrality.
@888WulfDog888 Your last comment was truly ridiculous. If your hypothesis about curing cancer is actually valid...please present this for the peer-review process and you will become incredibly wealthy....since cancer is so easily curable then you should be able to save millions of lives.
By the way, you are a minority in your own religion. The majority of religious believers worldwide accept evolution due to the overwhelming evidence.
@888WulfDog888 Excerpt: James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Scientists win prizes for all sorts of reasons. Most of the world believe cancer to be some mystical disease because just like evolution their are those who stand to make gain and profit for keeping the wool pulled. Its sick, I watched a 33 year old mothers hair turn grey within a month because she was told she had inoperable cancer. Just as disgusting as evolutionary theory. Once they lie is set in and profit making becomes key, the truth is hard to find
@888WulfDog888 I'm sorry Sir, but you are in denial. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
Ray doesn't understand that evolution works at the population level. He's always saying "if you one species evolved, now it needs another one...", but he forgets that evolution works at population level. Not to mention, each parent usually give rise to multiple offsprings carrying that mutation.
@Casshyr mutation? haven't you heard that darwinian evolution is soon to be revised? in the face of quantum mechanics it has failed. The snow flake model is being made into hypothesis as we speak
@888WulfDog888 If you can find me even at least 1 scientific article saying evolution is wrong, i will be glad to read into it. Keep in mind anything published by creationists are not scientific articles, nor is quoting anything from creationists website count as legit scientific sources.
@Casshyr You are naive to somehow believe that creationist's can't refute the error that has perpetuated: Open systems are equally subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as demonstrated by the decomposition effects of solar radiation, snow flakes reflect movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function whatsoever. Evolution is impossible, empirical FACT!
@888WulfDog888 i didn't ask you to quote me more sentences that are dubious to begin with. I ask you to find me 1 scientific article that goes against evolution. Or do you not understand what a scientific article looks like?
@Casshyr "there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.The second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems,..there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
@888WulfDog888 What's the title of the article called? I went on the C&EN website, searched John Ross among archives dating back up to 1970s, and nothing relevant came up.
@888WulfDog888 this link debunks your statement: digisys .net/ users / hoppnrmt / miscthermo .htm. The error that Ross was correctly pointing out was that by requiring a continual supply of energy, the systems do follow the second law. and btw, John Ross isn't a creationist. Ross agrees with Steiger who says that evolution does not violate the second law, because it receives a continuous input of energy by the sun. That is why there are no known violations.
@Casshyr No those are just postulations in the face of the law, the only other conclusions are that apparent "evolution" is in fact "devolution" (this has much scientific merit given the distribution of genome accross the different species from single cell upward) or that life on earth is a static state , but in either case the 2nd law creates problems with the first law when applied to the earth as being "open system" and cosmic evolution via the big bang
@Casshyr Should have said by static state I mean the necessary anti entropy mechanisms are build in as a feature of design, such as photosynthesis etc..
@888WulfDog888 I'm a theistic evolutionist, so I have no problem saying maybe evolution has a God component in it. And we do have a pretty good idea how photosynthesis was evolved, see paper "Molecular Evidence for the Early Evolution of Photosynthesis" in Science published in 2002.
@Casshyr Hi, I'm a creationist and I believe that evolution as purported by modern science is highly unlikely at best, it has I believe become a concept that was build off the back of a mans wondering at certain natural aspects of this creation. Because it was an attractive creation story alternative to the science minded atheist. It has grown on atheistic interpretation of data such as broken dna proteins which are evidence of the fall and nothing more.
@888WulfDog888 I'm not saying 2nd law is dubious, but i'm saying your claim that it is just as good in closed system as in open system is dubious. But I may retract that statement when I see the article.
@Casshyr I don't know the name of the article but from my quick look up at the archives it would appear to be a letter, you need membership to access.. Here is an overly simplistic synopsis of the trouble so far it is note worthy in that it quotes various sources that are available for further investigation. From the onset the author commits psychological back load and betrays bias by subversively implying life is not possible through creation this is not science, but the references are good.
@888WulfDog888 I fail to see your point. Dr. John Ross has no problem saying evolution and 2nd law of thermodynamics do not contradict each other. He is the expert in the field, and you are the one who just quoted him. You either take his expertise, or don't take it. You can't take part of his statement, and say "oh, but he is an atheist, therefore he is biased, so we can ignore the rest of his opinion, and just take whatever that supports my view"
@888WulfDog888 "Earth's biological system is open to organizing input from outside." => of course no1 is going to argue against that. I am arguing that once life is established on earth, evolution does happen. I don't care how life started, whether it's aliens, abiogenesis, or maybe even God. I don't care. I'm merely arguing that once life has somehow established itself, evolution is true, especially the whole common descent part which creationists disagree.
@Casshyr This is not strictly true, the earth is not an open system as some people misreport, even if it was the second law of thermodynamics applies equally well. The problem involved for evolution is that when the law is applied to molecular machines requiring entropic use of energy we can see that the likely hood of one species somehow organizing another species is highly unlikely at best. even over 14.5 billion years give or take
@888WulfDog888 like i've already stated earlier, there is no scientific article that says evolution is false. You have not yet provide any article saying such. You have at best only provide articles that suggest 2nd law of thermodynamics can be applied to study Earth, which i already agree, but you miss out the crucial point that the authors of those articles DO believe in evolution, which pretty much debunks your whole point of trying to use 2nd law to disprove evolution.
@Casshyr careful what you state! Where is your faith? in perpetual energy or God? They are both acts of faith. Evolution is akin to every nut case's dream of perpetual energy from the dawn of time. Your naivete is a little humorous, Do you really think journals are going to publish articles that go against the grain, the only papers I can give you are unpublished but by credible people. start here: math.utep.edu/ Faculty/ sewell/AML_3497.pdf
@888WulfDog888 Check out "How anti-evolutionists abuse mathematics" by Jason Rosenhouse, and "Does Evolution have a thermodynamics problem", and "Seawell's Thermodynamic failure" by Mark Perakh
@888WulfDog888 Disprove what? You have yet to provide a scientific article that disproves evolution! And the fact that you would even mention "quantum mechanism" suggests you don't understand evolution. I don't mean to sound rude, but seriously, what's your education background? How much biology have you taken?
@Casshyr The fundamental premise of evolution is flawed and this has been reported for decades by people who are far more advanced than you or I. It is still being reported as empirical fact to this MINUTE by seriously intelligent people. The dribble that you believe in are just fairy tales borne from postulations! Wake up.
@888WulfDog888 "give us an article" => i will when you provide me an article that claims evolution is false first! The earlier article you give doesn't sound since officially it was never published. it got retracted.
@Casshyr Whatever man! and btw I never said anything about "quantum mechanism" that's your cheap little attempt at an entropic shot into this conversation. Molecular machinery is governed by the laws of physics just like any other machine. I think your the one who's a little unclear as to what evolution states in the face of the law! Its illegal man and as such empirically nonviable, God laid down the law and now your an accomplice in the attempt to stupefy. Busted!
@888WulfDog888 Actually a quick google scholar search is able to provide me plenty of examples of scientist defending evolution against 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'll name a few:
Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics, Emory F. Bunn American Journal of Physics -- October 2009 -- Volume 77, Issue 10, pp. 922
Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Effectively Communicating to Non-technicians. Evolution: Education and Outreach Volume 3, Number 1, 99-106
@888WulfDog888 Entropy and evolution, Daniel F. Styer. American Journal of Physics -- November 2008 -- Volume 76, Issue 11, pp. 1031
Science and the Concept of Evolution: From the Big Bang to the Origin and Evolution of Life. Evolution: Education and Outreach. Volume 1, Number 1, 65-73, DOI: 10.1007/s12052-007-0008-5
@Casshyr What do you think he meant by this statement? "This creationist argument also rests upon the misconception that evolution acts always to produce more complex organisms." hmmm we shall return to that later. But he is repetitious in a 50 year old error in his reasoning and thus attempts evasion, the point: The 2nd law is a manifestation of entropy. Heat transfer entropy and information entropy are two very different phenomena. Invalid pointless argument
@888WulfDog888 there's nothing wrong with that quote. Evolution does indeed not always produce more complex organisms. A viral adaptation to antibiotics treatment is such an example.
@Casshyr aah but can you show where it has added genetic information to a genome? Sorry couldn't resist!, now your a creationist and you knew that didn't you? why does he condensed creationists? because he's full off it and his paper is just yet another rehash of the fifty year old mantra! boring!!
@888WulfDog888 "added genetic information to genome" => LMAO i knew this is going to come up. Creationists like you don't understand how genetic information is gained. Genome duplication is such an example. Look up the evolution of Hox genes on wikipedia, the sources are all there. Creationist thinks a gain in genetic information has to be novel, and not borrowed from something pre-existing...that's totally bullshit. that's not how nature works dude.
@888WulfDog888 Besides, I'm still waiting for scientific articles against evolution. I've provided mine, you can find "faults" in them all you like, but in the end, without actual sources to back you up, you are simply saying your own opinion. And since you didn't elaborate your education background, i'm gonna assume you don't hold any graduate degree in the relevant fields, so unless you can find articles that say evolution is false, your personal interpretations are insignificant
@Casshyr Ive got 20 years experience as a lab tech in the mechanical testing industry, nearly everyone I know thinks evolution is a load of crap! Not one of you biology guys has been able to provide evidence other than postulations and observation of standard genetic mutation (information entropy) and falsely call it -neutral evolution, no physical evidence found! I don't disbelieve evolution for some mystical reason, I disbelieve it on the weight of evidence, hearsay and opinions i.e. bullshit!
@888WulfDog888 earlier you admit scientists who have been studying evolution are smarter than both you and me. Now according to latest poll in 2009, ~97% of scientists accept evolution (source is on wikipedia, look up level of support for evolution). So unless you are saying all 97% are wrong, and the remaining 3% are correct.... forgive me but i think this is one of the situations where majority is right and minority is wrong.
@Casshyr 100% per cent of people used to think the world was flat, because that was what was taught at university! Medicine psychology and biology have all come to revolve around evolution! It is taught into people and they pass it on one to the other, recanting on it now would have massive implications. Nobody wants to even admit the possibilities that it could be wrong, so they leave it alone. I severely doubt those figures, maybe in certain countries but certainly not globally.
@888WulfDog888 I said this before and I will say it again: If a scientist can prove that evolution is wrong, that scientist will win the Nobel Prize. There's no conspiracy. The only reason you don't see any evidence against evolution published in scientific journals is because those authors either use philosophy or holy text passages as part of their reasoning, which in the end, is not science. Philosophy isn't science. That's also why Granville Sewell's article got retracted.
@888WulfDog888 I didn't make up the stats. It's on wiki, the source is there. If you doubt it, go check it up yourself. The stats is taken in US, which is already known to be notoriously high for creationism. If you limit to other first world nations like England...my bet is the stats will climb even higher.
@Casshyr I just looked on wiki (which is mainly some member of the public's opinion anyway) and it says that in 2007 22% post graduates don't believe in it 2009 results this figure 26% and in 2010 22% so the information is a little misleading. and btw check the definition, all science is based out of philosophy! excepting law, medicine and theology. The reason anti evolution arguments are not taken seriously is because it is the minority view,you are misinformed if you think its for other reason
@888WulfDog888 lol what? are we reading the same wiki? Under "level of support for evolution" wiki page, there's a reference #129, which quotes "only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism". The proof for antibiotic resistance started off as minor too, but with sufficient evidence, it became widely accepted. So it has been demonstrated in science that a minority argument, if provided with sufficient evidence, can become widely accepted.
@Casshyr Im working off the gallup polls, which are a far more accurate representation. Evolutionism will take a long time to dismiss because as you have clearly demonstrated by stating that opponents quote "holy text passages" it has become a "creationist"-evolutionist debate. Just simply proving that evolution is totally improbable or even impossible is no longer good enough.; Because the alternative is to most people to return to "how"? Evolution answers that for many. But it's not real fact!
@888WulfDog888 According to Discovery Science, a creationist organization, they have signatures of ~700 scientists who disagree with evolution. This represents ~0.5% of the total scientists in the world, meaning that the remaining 99.5% scientists accept evolution, or at least disagree with creationism. The source is available if you simply go to their website. So my question to you is: why are you so confident the 99.5% educated people are wrong, and the 0.5% are correct?
@Casshyr Thats a brash assumption. The vast majority of scientists who don't hold to the belief that its a fact remain silent because to speak out is to invite ridicule and could even jeopardize ones carrier. The fundamental basis of the philosophical sciences today are evolutionary postulations that where entered as fact. When you are instructed in the methodology and the practice of your given field this is a large basis of your education. Would you speak against it? Ask yourself that question
@888WulfDog888 I would speak against it IF I have the evidence for it. If I have evidence against evolution (and actual scientific evidence, not mathematical theories, or Biblical passages), yes, I would speak out. But right now there is no such evidence. And btw, i didn't quote specific sources because youtube doesn't like links, and it's always a pain in the ass to modify the links.
@Casshyr There is a crap load of evidence against evolution which equally has only mathematical theories and postulations as it basis, you are symptomatic of someone who has been brainwashed into believing that empirical data somehow builds the case. It only builds the case if the base assumptions are taken to be correct, they are never allowed to be challenged because the ramifications are enormous.
@888WulfDog888 lol whatever dude. empty words. like i've been saying from the beginning, when you can actually point me to some scientific articles showing evolution is wrong, i'll look into it, until then, i'll call this a break seeing as this argument is going nowhere. As Michael Crichton put it very nicely: it's not the passion nor the caring that counts, it's about knowledge and results. And if you going to talk about brainwash, don't get me started on religion. Now THAT'S brainwash.
@888WulfDog888 "unbiased polling stands around 20%" => where's your source? and btw, does this include people who do not have post-secondary education? because quite frankly, i don't care what people without at least a Masters degree say. All they have is at least a bachelors, and i was once a bachelors too, so i know how much evolution you guys have learned at that stage, and honestly, it's not even close to understanding it.
@Casshyr WHy dont you read the post properly. For someone of so called intelligence your comprehension is atrocious, your the one that brought up that stupid wikipedia crap, it has Gallup poll results in it. I was quite clear that the figures I was quoting where from the Gallup poll was I not. And what makes you think that people who have not been indoctrinated into evolution via the university system are stupid and have any less understanding of empirical logic.
@Casshyr I know Im in a minority, but I do not accept 3% I do not accept 10% I do however believe on the basis of unbiased polling the the figure stands at around 20%. And one must bear in mind that many people don't even think to question the fundamentals of the assertion that evolution is fact. I have meet people who disbelieved in it after they did just that.
@888WulfDog888 Please at least clarify your source of information before you present it next time. It is disappointing to see a quote of figures one 'just looked on wiki' that turns out to be 'the gallup polls', makes the motive of such unclear citation questionable.
@isabellawebb Hi sorry about that I was responding to an assertion by someone else, who had cited that insidious vexation on information flow Wikipedia. I ascertained from the wiki article that the author had used Gallup poll results to quote some figures, so from there I inspected the Gallup polls and found the statistical data to be quite rational and easily interpreted without bias.
@888WulfDog888 And here are some papers that use thermodynamics + evolution for interpreting biological outputs: Allostery in pharmacology: Thermodynamics, evolution and design. Gábor Maksay. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. 2011
Thermodynamics of Neutral Protein Evolution. Jesse D. Bloom, Alpan Raval, Claus O. Wilke. Genetics. 2007.
Evolution and thermodynamics of the slow unfolding of hyperstable monomeric proteins. Jun Okada, et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2010.
@888WulfDog888 concerning evolution, there's no need for faith. you either accept the evidence or you don't. And I find it funny that you quote from a professor who does mathematics...you do realize they basically know ZERO knowledge about genetics right? I don't mean to be discriminative, but that is kinda weak. I would prefer listening to someone who is at least of genetics background.
@Casshyr That's why you have zero understanding of the overall problem that is posed to evolution. The problem lays in quantum mechanics. You've got your head stuck so far in the evolutionary Bible that its gonna get chopped off because your unaware of your surroundings, and yes it does take faith to believe that dribble. Einstein knew full well the implications of his theory (why to you think he fudged it) you call yourself a person of empirical knowledge and a creationists to boot! Dribble
@888WulfDog888 Basically, to be clear, I'm waiting for you to provide me an science article that actually says evolution is false. Because if you can't provide that, then obviously anything you say contain errors, because if there is indeed proof against evolution, scientist would publish it, and that scientist would win the Nobel Prize for disproving something that has fooled >95% of the scientific community!
The difference in conduct and intellect between Ray and Ed is like night and day. Ray lacks professionalism. He speaks like an angry monkey that has had its banana taken away. He doesn't believe in evolution because he himself has come from individuals who are little evolved.
Not very good presentation by eihter side to be honest.
Ray was raving like a madman and proclaiming horrendously erroneous strawmen og what evolution teaches, but the others didn't do a very good job of just explaining what evolution was either when it came their time to do so. Even though Ray probably wouldn't listen no matter what he said - at least he could have made the attempt to dispell the confusion for some of the listeners who really didn't know any better.
"Well, I don't know that there is no God, I just don't have any belief that there is any God and I haven't seen any good evidence to believe that there is one ..."
@VOLDEMORThasrisen replace the word "god" in your comment with "unicorns" and then read it again including the part that holds your own comment. The problem with that kind of argumentation should then become apparent withoutfurther need for me to point out the problem - hopefully.
This kind of informal fallacy is called an argument from ignorance. See wikipedia for more info.
@TheStigma Is there any proof that there are no unicorns? If you say, "they can't be real", then prove that they are not.
It is the same with God. Nobody knows what He is. Nobody knows what form He might take. And I don't care what anyone thinks. If God's real, I have nothing to lose by believing in Him. If He is not, I will live with the shame, it's no big deal to me. I just know the values I live by, and nothing is going to change that.
Do you not realize the horrible flaw in that kind of thinking?
I can't disprove the possibility of unicorn no - nor any other concievable thing for which we have no evidence either. Unless you want to be irrational and arbitrarily decide which of these things for which we have no evidence you want to believe in you would have to beleive in them all. After thinking it through, is this REALLY your position?
@VOLDEMORThasrisen In short its enough to have insufficient evidence of something to be justified in not believing in it. Given lack of proof you only really have 3 choices - accept all such claims (absurd! AND impractical) - accept none of them until you get sufficient evidence (the rational position) - accept arbitrarily chosen claims, based on preference or what makes you feel good or what your friends want you to do for example (irrational).
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Your outlook on truth and how to go about finding it is frankly quite scary. With this kind of attitude toward evidence you are almost garantueed to come to believe wrong things - no matter how good your intentions - because there is no valid method of determining fact from fiction in this outlook.
Proclaiming Pascals wager (are you remembering to pray to the unicorns?) and "Pah - science. I live by the heart." and "I just know ... nothing is going to change that" is worrying
@TheStigma I'm not letting what anyone says change how I feel. Frankly, I don't care about what's fact and what's fiction in this matter, because if you knew me, you'd know that for me there's only a very fine line between the two. And no, I'm not superstitious.
What's there to lose by believing in God? If He is real, I've done the right thing. And if He's not, I'll never find out, will I?
@VOLDEMORThasrisen I assume I don't have to go through the details of why Pascals wager is utterly absurd, or mabye I do? You let me know. There are many good videos exposing its (huge crippeling) problems, but I'd be happy to explain them myself if you want.
@TheStigma You explain the flaws of Pascal's wager. There are "huge crippling" problems on both sides of the argument. I'll take the side I want and you take yours.
@VOLDEMORThasrisen What flaw in my thinking? That I believe God exists? Is that a flaw? Or that I believe a person can find God by 'looking in the right places'?
You're not going to change my beliefs. (If I've got the wrong end of what you're trying to say, please explain.) I'll think how I want and believe what I want and you can do the same. I don't think age changes much. Or maybe I'm just abnormal.
And you succeeded in coming across "ass antagonistic".
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Well the flaw I was refering to was that you seemed to try to defend belief without evidence as rational. I see abouve that you say you don't try to show evidence (and I assume not rationalize it). Thats actually fine by me then as long as you realize that it is an irrational belief. We all have some irrational beliefs,emotions and behaviors and I actually have no problem with that as long as you don't use those kinds of belifefs to inform your real world actions - atleast...
@TheStigma My 'real world actions' are based on what I view to be as right, nothing else. I would not kill someone if I believed God had called me to do so, for example. Although I cannot see why I would ever think that.
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Your all-right in my book then. I have no big problem with people who handle their faith in that manner. Sorry for misinterpreting you. Force of habit I guess after many heated theological debated here on YT.
@VOLDEMORThasrisen ... atleast as long as they don't affect the rest of us who choose to not follow irrational beiefs. You are entitled to believe whatever you want as long as irrational beliefs don't form the basis for discrimination against others or leads to making laws based on them.
I just assumed you were one of those people who do exactly those things based on your seeming defence of the rationality of the belief - but I can see now that I might have misjuged your intentions.
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Took a sneak peek at your profile. I see you are still young. I won't hold that against you in any way, but it makes me glad to see because it means that your patterns of thinking are still not set in stone.
Realize that I am not writing all this in the effort to "show you how wrong you are" or make you seem stupid or to "win". it's a little too easy to come off ass antagonistic like that. I just hope that by showing you a flaw in your thinking you can correct it over time.
@TheStigma What flaw in my thinking? That I believe God exists? Is that a flaw? Or that I believe a person can find God by 'looking in the right places'?
You're not going to change my beliefs. (If I've got the wrong end of what you're trying to say, please explain.) I'll think how I want and believe what I want and you can do the same. I don't think age changes much. Or maybe I'm just abnormal.
And you succeeded in coming across "ass antagonistic".
The Stigma has been to kind to you but you don't get it.
When someone makes a claim any claim they have the responsibility to prove it. No one has to disprove it or as it is termed prove a negative. This is just a way to hide the fact you have no evidence.
So you claim there is a God or Many fine, now provide proof.
@VideoAudioDisco09 When we try to prove this claim, all you types do is say that it's not possible. That's because you're all looking for scientific evidence and you're so narrow-minded you can't even accept the possibiity that some things are at the current point in time not able to be scientifically proven.
And I'm not trying to "hide the fact I have not evidence". What kind of evidence do you mean, hmm? I have evidence, but the kind of evidence you would all stamp on and label "excuses".
@VOLDEMORThasrisen I have to add though that "we types" don't generally say thats impossible to prove a god exists - I can think of a hundred ways of doing that - assuming a god that wanted to let us know he existed.
What atheists often do say however i that you can't DISPROVE gods, which is quite true except if there are glaring internal contraditions in one particular god concept. Thats the typical answer given "prove god!" is replied to with "disprove god!". only one of those are possible.
Many things can not be scientifically proven I know. However that is a lot less than could not be proven 200 years ago.
Narrow-Minded by looking for evidence proof a coherent explanation that makes sence. What as aposed to just wanting to believe something on faith, when evidence to the contrary exsists.
You have no evidence because there is nothing.
I would accept "Moving a mountain" or "emptying a large hospital of all patients" by prayer as claimed in the Bible
@VideoAudioDisco09 ... do unless it somehow affects the people around them. If I have some personal quirk about it being bad luck to step on the lines of the sidewalk, you can call me silly, but its a bit extreme to start asking for evidence IMO. We do have freedom of religion and freedom of thought after all. You are free to believe whatever you want - but the second you try to convince others or affect them with that belief - thats when you need evidence.
@VideoAudioDisco09 What evidence to the contrary? The only evidence you have to the contrary is that you haven't found down-to-earth, scientific evidence to prove God's existence. The world is not made only out of things that can be explained scientifically. And we're back to the old ping-pong argument. Neither side can be proved, so we must choose the side we believe in and go with it. Which is exactly what I'm doing.
I'm of the opinion that nothing is impossible, though we may not have proof.
God doesn't exsist ANY OF THEM, so noo evidence can be found.
However the writtings, The Bible not what was included but what was left out as well as the discoveries of The Dead Sea Scrolls and Damascus Documents. The histories and observations of all thoes in and around Rome to the Middle east as well as archeology. It is obvious the bible has changed, is not original, not unique in content and many events never happened. Get out and READ its all available.
@VideoAudioDisco09 Here you go again. "God doesn't exist, it's just not possible."
I am perfectly aware that the Bible has not remained untouched for the past thousands of years, but the point is, it didn't just spring out of nowhere. Many events have changed dramatically. The point is, these things have a basis in fact, which is something you seem very fond of.
And I'm not a fundamentalist either: I don't take everything in the Bible literally and I know it's been edited hundreds of times.
these things have a basis in fact, which is something you seem very fond of.
Yes I am fond of reality and facts.
No it did not spring out of nowhere but we have a good history of how it evolved.
Many of the stories are borrowed OT and NT modified Miricles added, meaning changed. It started a a reading list of which all the autonimous churched had a prefered version. It did not start as one book. More was later left out than kept in... WHY. Cause it destroys the religion
@VideoAudioDisco09 I want to know HOW you can claim that you know all this beyond doubt. These things happened two thousand years ago, nobody knows what happened. There are versions. I know. I'll believe one version, not because it hasn't been modified, but because of its obvious morals and sense. And I'm not talking about the rules in Leviticus. I'm talking about the history, the recorded fact, not the rules Men made for themselves because they took the Scripture too literally.
@VideoAudioDisco09 I can select from the Bible things that I find plausible and not utterly conceived by the human mind. I use deduction to figure these things out; I don't blindly follow what the Bible says. You can't deny that these things happened, no matter how modified they are. You can't say for sure how much is fiction and how much is fact. Neither can I. Case closed?
Protecting thier power and wealth was religion, a was a tool of repression and control.
So it was spread and enforced by violence and fear.
Amassing wealth and all the while the pretence of peace and love.
Many advances and human rights have been oppsed by the church.
Where education is greatest religiousity is least. The truth uncovered exposes the fraud. People were and are gulible and they are expert at pretence and deception.
@VideoAudioDisco09 What do you mean, 'the pretence of love'? What did all this wisdom in the Bible come from? Love is not a pretence if it is TRUE love and not artificial, and the love displayed in the New Testament is TRUE love. "Let he who has not sinned be the first to throw a stone." Forgiveness is love. Pretence? I don't think so.
What power and wealth? They didn't have any. Jesus went against these people who did things only for themselves. That is obvious.
Most of the good stuff in the bible came from other cultures.
You reall picked a bad exsample about stoneing to death, it is the subject of much debate as authentic or not -
The absence of the passage from the earliest manuscripts, combined with the occurrence of stylistic characteristics atypical of John, together implied that the passage was an interpolation.
Also the Romans did not allow anyone else to execute anyone.
The writer may not have know 100's of year later.
@VideoAudioDisco09 CONTINUED: But the fact remains that no matter how many times it’s been edited and changed, the whole theme has not changed, and that theme is God. I don’t believe all these tales just popped out of the ground, or, for that matter, out of someone’s head.
Why not there are tens of thousands of fiction novels. People are eminantly good at making things up. The christian Bible fly's in the face of the Jewish view and it is thier God. Which according to the earliest evidence Jesus was both Jewish and did not come to change that religion. " I have not come to change the law, but to fulfill prophacy".
@VideoAudioDisco09 Do these things actually have other genuine records that confirm them? No, they do not! Their only proof is what they are. No recorded witnesses or anything.
I've already told you that I know he didn't come to change the law. He came to show the people the errors of their ways, and he did. Look at Christians today!
@VideoAudioDisco09 We're both being hypocritical. I claim there's a God. You say prove it. I claim to have no scientific proof. You insist I prove my claim. I tell you to prove your claim that God does not exist.
If neither of us can prove it either way, we must assume that there is a possibility that God exists, and a possibility he doesn't.
No I am not being hypocritical, one can not prove a negative, I need prove nothing.
You claim there is a god, you prove it.
It is like me claiming the I spoke to god who revealed he is a Pink Elephant and Jesus was sent by Satan. So you would acccept this without asking me to prove it.
Besides the trail of history and anthropology shows clearly the development of the consept of God and Gods. Created by Man. Nothing supports it as reality just myths.
@VideoAudioDisco09 Just a small correction for the sake of correctness. It is possible to prove a negative - but only under certain very spesific conditions. If you define a spesific place for something to exist it can sometimes be disproven.
Example: "There is a computer on the table in front of me". Assuming its not an invisible computer we are talking abut its easy enough to disprove. disproving gods is a problem however because a time/place is not specified, nor gods attributes to recognize
It really hinges on Falsifiability, it's only to denote difficulty in gathering experimental evidence really.
When it comes to claims of God well the contradiction in the bible alone sinks that ship. Even so followers keep moving the goal post they then say, "But the Bible doesn't mean THAT, it means THIS as if they knew.
They change the context to suit themselves... Which by the laws of the bible will eventually send them to hell self defeat.
@VideoAudioDisco09 To be fair she did clarfy to us that she only holds a belief that there is a god, but dosn't claim to have proof of this. Thats not really a claim if you aren't trying to convince anyone besides yourself.
I don't think we are entitled to harrass people to provide proof of their personal beliefs when they aren't trying to present them as factual. I think such belief is irrational of course, but we don't don't generally pressure people to justify other irrtional stuff they ...
@VideoAudioDisco09 And where did myths come from? Many ancient things we take to be fairy tales have a basis in fact.
Some things cannot be proved. How could you prove, for example, that you had met God? In the same manner, you could not prove that you had met a homeless person who lives deep in the forest. Just because there is no proof does not mean that something does not exist. I read a book five minutes ago. How do I prove that to you?
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Lets start easy:\ An proof of God is the power of prayer which God listens to and answers. According to the bible and christians who say Prayer works it is answered on a stagering scale. YET Statistically ...nothing. In fact the only triple blind study done showed a marginal negative effect. (they think it was the preasure to perform admittedly) However we would expect a fantastic result the other way. Unless of course no one was there to answer desperate please at the sky.
@VideoAudioDisco09 For your information, I know precisely two devout Christians, my friends, who have directly experienced contact with God. One is twenty-two years old and before you say anything, he is not immature and does not lie. The other is our Malaysian assistant priest.
Do not scorn. I know you're not going to believe that, but that's fine by me, as long as you know I am not lying to you.
Enough with "scientifically" and "statistically"! Think outside the box for once.
I accept they may believe that acctually had contact with God, thats a normal part of any delusion.
The same thing can be induced during brain surgery by stimulating a particular part of the brain. Also by using certain drugs. So clearly god is in the mind and not real.
Otherwise we would have to start accepting all the claims of Alien abduction, all appearences of other Gods, talking pink elephants ect.
So such a fantastic claim hold no value. Happens all the time.
@VideoAudioDisco09 Delusion? Where you the one who experienced it? Can you say, "it was a delusion" when you actually don't know that it was? You blame me for lacking in proof, so don't claim things that themselves lack the same thing.
"Clearly God is in the mind and not real". That's an opinion. Just because visions can be induced by artificial means, doesn't mean the real thing can't exist.
Maybe it does happen all the time. But I've chosen the belief that I believe is right and good.
Acctually Yes bin there done that, examined it, me, reality and asked questions that could not be answered.
So I do understand. I do not excuse persisting without asking and seeking truth.
Remember mental Asylums are full of people who hear god or voices, have fits and see things. Not possessed as the early church would have us believe but ill many helped by medication not exorcism. I know I have helped someone in this situation.
@VideoAudioDisco09 CONTINUED: I've already explained that that's what I live by - my sense of good and evil. If you call such things as love, bravery, hope and mercy good, then we are on the same side. I picked the side that follows those things. Therefore I believe in it. If it's clearly good, then I cannot say it's not real. All good things are real to my mind, whether they exist only in my head or not. So is evil. But I believe that good shall always conquer in the end. At the very end.
Many myths do indeed have a basis in fact I am glad you say that.
As you would aslo know that these myths in current form do not resemble thier original form. For exsample we now know that the "miricles" were added to the narative of the bible to sell it to a roman audience, we know Jesus did not come to start a new religion and was a firm Jew of the old testament. We know he was one of 2 messiahs in a long line of claimants. 4 - 5 brother 2 sisters. Many followed James
@VideoAudioDisco09 They do resemble their original form, but with modifications.
"To sell it to the Romans"? Are you kidding? The Romans wanted to stamp it all out! They certainly never BOUGHT the Bible - if they found out at all it was from word of mouth. And how do you know the miracles were added on? Were you there? Miracles happen, many recent miracles that eye witnesses beheld have occurred. All under the name of Christ.
@VideoAudioDisco09 HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING? I've already told you why I believe in God and no other God, and that's because of the values of Christianity. I frankly don't care if the Romans believed in Jupiter and Juno and Mercury, because I don't. And I've already told you that.
How do you know that these scarce miracles are 'NOT GOOD ENOUGH'? What, pray tell, is the 'norm'? And I never said I could explain away the other miracles that occur.
@VideoAudioDisco09 CONTINUED: But then there are a lot of things that no one can explain. These things may never be explained. But that doesn't mean miracles under Christ can't happen.
And of course these things have happened to 'non-religious people'. If there is a God, as I believe, do you really think that he'd confine himself to the people who ALREADY believe in him?
If you have a grain of faith, you can do miricles as Jesus did reaise the dead...
Also you can rink poison and not be harmed obvousely this would be a qantity considered faital to us atheists. So I give you the Ratsack challange, consume a pack of ratsack and not be harmed remember you only need one grain of faith.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing it does not go away.
@VideoAudioDisco09 Don't take the Bible literally. This is the kind of irrational thing people do - take it word for word. The Bible is written metaphorically and in riddles.
If Christianity is based on a true God, as I believe, then you are wrong. When you stop believeing in him, God does not go away. God is always there; when you can't find him it shows you've been looking in all the wrong places.
@VideoAudioDisco09 And of course there were claimants! Everybody wanted to be
"the Messiah". But Jesus was different, his values were unexpected, no one thought the Messiah would be anything like it. Who encouraged mercy and love, faith and hope? Who fought violence with peace? They had never seen anything like it before. Jesus brought good into the world. I thought that was obvious.
And of course he didn't come to start a new religion. Are you calling belief in God new? Jesus was born a Jew
@VideoAudioDisco09 ... and he re-introduced God to the Jews. Only, he introduced a rather different God to what people had expected. Why else do you think he was born into a Jewish family?
Why else do you think he was born into a Jewish family
Ahh because he was a Jew,
decended from the line of David, giving him credability to be a claiment to the thrown, at the right time when the people were expecting the 2 messiahs to appear.
NB: earliest records say born of a woman according to the law, no shepards, no wisemen (astrologers). In fact in december the animals are kept indoors so they don't freeze to death. Acctually born in March. another lie.
@VideoAudioDisco09 You're nitpicking again. What does it matter if these small things were misrecorded (and by the way, if you believe those earliest records that claim they were, why don't you believe OTHER ancient records? a.k.a the Bible) if you actually can't prove that these bigger things didn't occur?
Lies. And yet if it all happened so long ago, how can we prove they are? There are many ancient recordings, and by the sound of it, it seems that each of us is choosing which to believe!
Respond to this video... In other words, it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition when there is no evidence. Even if it is less certainly false than propositions which are actually contradicted by evidence (although even that does not amount to a complete certainty), it is still reasonable to regard them as false so long as we've done some checking, and don't ignore new evidence that we come across.
Your God has no proof and is contrdicted by evidence. Double fail. It is a Lie.
@VideoAudioDisco09 Of course it's reasonable not to believe in something you cannot see proof of. But it's not reasonable to force that upon the rest of us.
I thought you just said God was not contradicted by evidence? Which is right, by the way - if it's not, you give me your evidence.
No proof? I'll say it once more: neither have you. STOP USING THAT ARGUMENT. I'm fully aware that there is not much 'statistical', 'scientific' evidence.
I'm fully aware that there is not much 'statistical', 'scientific' evidence. That would be none acctually.
It is reasonable to defend the advances of our race against the persistant vestiges of ancient myth and superstition as it is used by modern hucksters to fleece the nieve and thoes desperately hoping it is true.
Would you not stop someone buying dehydrated water from the back of a car.
@VideoAudioDisco09 In which case I could also say that it's reasonable to force my beliefs upon you, because I believe them to be true.
"The advances of our race"? Technology ad science-wise, you mean? Because I'm afraid I see the advances of our race spiritually just as important. And I'm not talking about people HAVING to believe in God. I'm talking about the values Jesus brought into the world, which I have already described to you. Stamping out Christianity would not be a good thing to do.
@VOLDEMORThasrisen CONTINUED: Christianity has advanced and you can't deny that it's good. We encourage important values and we're up-to-date with the world. Taking away Christianity would be a terrible blow to the world. Explain why it wouldn't be.
The Nazi's thought they were right, The Communist dictators thought they were right.
The pope's launched dozens of crusades, even against Christians and thought they were right. What matters is the Facts and Truth. Wish thinking is nice and wonderful for children. Religion has served mankind well at times and in certain areas, it still does. however in the modern era it is not relevant and just myth.
Good people will be good people. Religion is divisive and cruel.
@VideoAudioDisco09 Facts and truth. Right. Well, you believe in what you think is facts and truth, and I'll believe what I think is facts and truth. I can't say fairer than that. I've already told you that I don't want to continue this discussion. The conclusion is that neither one of us is going to win, and that neither of us is going to change the other's opinion. I therefore say to you that I respect your opinions and I ask that you respect mine. The case is closed. Goodbye.
There it is, this is not about win or loose, it is about what ARE the facts and what IS the truth. It can never be what anyone wants to believe is Fact or Truth. What one believes is completley irrelevant.
I agree to discontinue the conversation, as many of your commrades do,
ignoring evidence and fact or avoiding the truth via logical conclusion is a way of life albeit required to maintain faith. Many have said as much.
@VideoAudioDisco09 CONTINUED: Have you any idea of the good things Christians are doing in the world at this very moment? It's mainly us who have set up all these charities and organisations to protect disadvantaged people around the world, and we also set up environment and animal protection organisations. We have advanced so far from what many people consider to be our primitive beginnings, and you would take that away? What good would that do?
A good things are done by good people, from all walks of life and belief systems.
You certainly don't need religion for that. However realise the people the congregation do these things by donation of money and free labor, the church takes out expences and claims credit. Some charity is given with many many string attached.
Please take a moment to see the tip of the ice burg, watch the video titled-
In The name Of Jesus: Child Witches (1 of 2) - There is much more.
@VideoAudioDisco09 A lie? You think so? If you can tell me with absolute certainty, because you have proved the claim beyond all doubt, you can say that. If not, you can't. And that goes for me, too. I'm not going to say "God is real". I'm going to say "I believe God is real". Because I do. And if He's not real, do I care? No. As long as there remains such good in the world as love, mercy, peace, friendship, bravery and hope, I'm really not too concerned about what's fact and what's fiction.
Note the earliest most reliable gospel, ended with crusifiction death and the corpse removed. 300 years later christian editors added that to the gospel.
No contemporary source even mentions these fantastic events.. a bit strange?
Efectively there was no reserection, christianity is a fraud.
Jesus was claimig to be King of the Jews not God, executed for sedition.
Peaceful group, why send 600 troops to arrest him. Wake up .
@VideoAudioDisco09 Jesus claimed to be the son of God, the King of the Jews. How do you know that Christian editors added that? These events did not pop out of the ground! I accept some of them are fables and that some have been modified. But the Bible is a record! Witnesses recorded the events and then the events were officially recorded later. With modifications, I know. But they happened all the same.
Read the Bible, you'll see why they sent so many after him.
evolution doesnt all ways need a male and female there is a lizard that only has femmales in the poplution
crazycoolben13 1 month ago
@crazycoolben13 there is also a snake that is only female. Bramini blind snake.
Hectom8 3 weeks ago
lmao 1:34
Hollowman1985 4 months ago
If anyone is watching this video then ask yourself this. We sent men to the moon, we have cracked the dna code and we have invented high speed computer,s high speed cars, instant entertainment and we can fly around the world. But amongst all this with over 140 years of theory and all the tools at their disposal, not one single example of a real evolution has been demonstrated, just one mutation after another stinking entropic monstrosity! Failure after failure! Because its all just BULLSHIT!
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 Concerning your disbelief in evolutionary theory....organisms can be grouped by sequence similarity via DNA sequence comparison and the resulting phylogenetic trees are consistent with taxonomy. Scientists had envisioned the paleontological tree of life long before it was CONFIRMED by DNA sequence analysis. Consequently, evolution is one of the most validated theories in all of science.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 weeks ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 here's one for you! Cancer is nothing more than the build up of acid mainly folic from the sick and nutritionless food which contains heavy traces of super phosphates and now some even have genetic modifications including removal of the plants ability to reproduce, this has added even more acidic compounds. Cancer can be cured quite simply through saturating the body with alkalinity and raising the internal Ph level to the point of folic acid neutrality.
888WulfDog888 2 weeks ago
@888WulfDog888 Your last comment was truly ridiculous. If your hypothesis about curing cancer is actually valid...please present this for the peer-review process and you will become incredibly wealthy....since cancer is so easily curable then you should be able to save millions of lives.
By the way, you are a minority in your own religion. The majority of religious believers worldwide accept evolution due to the overwhelming evidence.
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
CynicalSkeptic1 6 days ago
@888WulfDog888 Here are some links about evolution if you are interested.
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/section1
anthro(dot)palomar(dot)edu/evolve/evolve_3
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
evolution(dot)berkeley(dot)edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2
txtwriter(dot)com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents
You can ignore the information if you prefer....but that doesn't make it disappear.
CynicalSkeptic1 6 days ago
@888WulfDog888 Excerpt: James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 weeks ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Scientists win prizes for all sorts of reasons. Most of the world believe cancer to be some mystical disease because just like evolution their are those who stand to make gain and profit for keeping the wool pulled. Its sick, I watched a 33 year old mothers hair turn grey within a month because she was told she had inoperable cancer. Just as disgusting as evolutionary theory. Once they lie is set in and profit making becomes key, the truth is hard to find
888WulfDog888 2 weeks ago
@888WulfDog888 I'm sorry Sir, but you are in denial. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
CynicalSkeptic1 6 days ago
There has never been a crime that didn't have a criminal - so, in what god shell we belief?
guillatra 7 months ago
Comfort gets pwned!
teeyodi 7 months ago
Ray doesn't understand that evolution works at the population level. He's always saying "if you one species evolved, now it needs another one...", but he forgets that evolution works at population level. Not to mention, each parent usually give rise to multiple offsprings carrying that mutation.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr mutation? haven't you heard that darwinian evolution is soon to be revised? in the face of quantum mechanics it has failed. The snow flake model is being made into hypothesis as we speak
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 If you can find me even at least 1 scientific article saying evolution is wrong, i will be glad to read into it. Keep in mind anything published by creationists are not scientific articles, nor is quoting anything from creationists website count as legit scientific sources.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr You are naive to somehow believe that creationist's can't refute the error that has perpetuated: Open systems are equally subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as demonstrated by the decomposition effects of solar radiation, snow flakes reflect movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function whatsoever. Evolution is impossible, empirical FACT!
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 i didn't ask you to quote me more sentences that are dubious to begin with. I ask you to find me 1 scientific article that goes against evolution. Or do you not understand what a scientific article looks like?
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr "there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.The second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems,..there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 What's the title of the article called? I went on the C&EN website, searched John Ross among archives dating back up to 1970s, and nothing relevant came up.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 this link debunks your statement: digisys .net/ users / hoppnrmt / miscthermo .htm. The error that Ross was correctly pointing out was that by requiring a continual supply of energy, the systems do follow the second law. and btw, John Ross isn't a creationist. Ross agrees with Steiger who says that evolution does not violate the second law, because it receives a continuous input of energy by the sun. That is why there are no known violations.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr No those are just postulations in the face of the law, the only other conclusions are that apparent "evolution" is in fact "devolution" (this has much scientific merit given the distribution of genome accross the different species from single cell upward) or that life on earth is a static state , but in either case the 2nd law creates problems with the first law when applied to the earth as being "open system" and cosmic evolution via the big bang
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@Casshyr Should have said by static state I mean the necessary anti entropy mechanisms are build in as a feature of design, such as photosynthesis etc..
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 I'm a theistic evolutionist, so I have no problem saying maybe evolution has a God component in it. And we do have a pretty good idea how photosynthesis was evolved, see paper "Molecular Evidence for the Early Evolution of Photosynthesis" in Science published in 2002.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr Hi, I'm a creationist and I believe that evolution as purported by modern science is highly unlikely at best, it has I believe become a concept that was build off the back of a mans wondering at certain natural aspects of this creation. Because it was an attractive creation story alternative to the science minded atheist. It has grown on atheistic interpretation of data such as broken dna proteins which are evidence of the fall and nothing more.
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@Casshyr I have quoted the second law of thermodynamics, an empirical fact. To call that dubious.....
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 I'm not saying 2nd law is dubious, but i'm saying your claim that it is just as good in closed system as in open system is dubious. But I may retract that statement when I see the article.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr I don't know the name of the article but from my quick look up at the archives it would appear to be a letter, you need membership to access.. Here is an overly simplistic synopsis of the trouble so far it is note worthy in that it quotes various sources that are available for further investigation. From the onset the author commits psychological back load and betrays bias by subversively implying life is not possible through creation this is not science, but the references are good.
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 I fail to see your point. Dr. John Ross has no problem saying evolution and 2nd law of thermodynamics do not contradict each other. He is the expert in the field, and you are the one who just quoted him. You either take his expertise, or don't take it. You can't take part of his statement, and say "oh, but he is an atheist, therefore he is biased, so we can ignore the rest of his opinion, and just take whatever that supports my view"
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr panspermia. org/ seconlaw. htm
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 "Earth's biological system is open to organizing input from outside." => of course no1 is going to argue against that. I am arguing that once life is established on earth, evolution does happen. I don't care how life started, whether it's aliens, abiogenesis, or maybe even God. I don't care. I'm merely arguing that once life has somehow established itself, evolution is true, especially the whole common descent part which creationists disagree.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr This is not strictly true, the earth is not an open system as some people misreport, even if it was the second law of thermodynamics applies equally well. The problem involved for evolution is that when the law is applied to molecular machines requiring entropic use of energy we can see that the likely hood of one species somehow organizing another species is highly unlikely at best. even over 14.5 billion years give or take
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 like i've already stated earlier, there is no scientific article that says evolution is false. You have not yet provide any article saying such. You have at best only provide articles that suggest 2nd law of thermodynamics can be applied to study Earth, which i already agree, but you miss out the crucial point that the authors of those articles DO believe in evolution, which pretty much debunks your whole point of trying to use 2nd law to disprove evolution.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr careful what you state! Where is your faith? in perpetual energy or God? They are both acts of faith. Evolution is akin to every nut case's dream of perpetual energy from the dawn of time. Your naivete is a little humorous, Do you really think journals are going to publish articles that go against the grain, the only papers I can give you are unpublished but by credible people. start here: math.utep.edu/ Faculty/ sewell/AML_3497.pdf
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 Check out "How anti-evolutionists abuse mathematics" by Jason Rosenhouse, and "Does Evolution have a thermodynamics problem", and "Seawell's Thermodynamic failure" by Mark Perakh
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr scientific articles please, we don't want blog posts.
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 there is no scientific articles against Sewell's article because his article was never published, it got retracted.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr give us an article that disproves the position then
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 Disprove what? You have yet to provide a scientific article that disproves evolution! And the fact that you would even mention "quantum mechanism" suggests you don't understand evolution. I don't mean to sound rude, but seriously, what's your education background? How much biology have you taken?
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr The fundamental premise of evolution is flawed and this has been reported for decades by people who are far more advanced than you or I. It is still being reported as empirical fact to this MINUTE by seriously intelligent people. The dribble that you believe in are just fairy tales borne from postulations! Wake up.
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 "give us an article" => i will when you provide me an article that claims evolution is false first! The earlier article you give doesn't sound since officially it was never published. it got retracted.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr Whatever man! and btw I never said anything about "quantum mechanism" that's your cheap little attempt at an entropic shot into this conversation. Molecular machinery is governed by the laws of physics just like any other machine. I think your the one who's a little unclear as to what evolution states in the face of the law! Its illegal man and as such empirically nonviable, God laid down the law and now your an accomplice in the attempt to stupefy. Busted!
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 Actually a quick google scholar search is able to provide me plenty of examples of scientist defending evolution against 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'll name a few:
Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics, Emory F. Bunn American Journal of Physics -- October 2009 -- Volume 77, Issue 10, pp. 922
Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Effectively Communicating to Non-technicians. Evolution: Education and Outreach Volume 3, Number 1, 99-106
Casshyr 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 Entropy and evolution, Daniel F. Styer. American Journal of Physics -- November 2008 -- Volume 76, Issue 11, pp. 1031
Science and the Concept of Evolution: From the Big Bang to the Origin and Evolution of Life. Evolution: Education and Outreach. Volume 1, Number 1, 65-73, DOI: 10.1007/s12052-007-0008-5
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr What do you think he meant by this statement? "This creationist argument also rests upon the misconception that evolution acts always to produce more complex organisms." hmmm we shall return to that later. But he is repetitious in a 50 year old error in his reasoning and thus attempts evasion, the point: The 2nd law is a manifestation of entropy. Heat transfer entropy and information entropy are two very different phenomena. Invalid pointless argument
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 there's nothing wrong with that quote. Evolution does indeed not always produce more complex organisms. A viral adaptation to antibiotics treatment is such an example.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr aah but can you show where it has added genetic information to a genome? Sorry couldn't resist!, now your a creationist and you knew that didn't you? why does he condensed creationists? because he's full off it and his paper is just yet another rehash of the fifty year old mantra! boring!!
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 "added genetic information to genome" => LMAO i knew this is going to come up. Creationists like you don't understand how genetic information is gained. Genome duplication is such an example. Look up the evolution of Hox genes on wikipedia, the sources are all there. Creationist thinks a gain in genetic information has to be novel, and not borrowed from something pre-existing...that's totally bullshit. that's not how nature works dude.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 Besides, I'm still waiting for scientific articles against evolution. I've provided mine, you can find "faults" in them all you like, but in the end, without actual sources to back you up, you are simply saying your own opinion. And since you didn't elaborate your education background, i'm gonna assume you don't hold any graduate degree in the relevant fields, so unless you can find articles that say evolution is false, your personal interpretations are insignificant
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr Ive got 20 years experience as a lab tech in the mechanical testing industry, nearly everyone I know thinks evolution is a load of crap! Not one of you biology guys has been able to provide evidence other than postulations and observation of standard genetic mutation (information entropy) and falsely call it -neutral evolution, no physical evidence found! I don't disbelieve evolution for some mystical reason, I disbelieve it on the weight of evidence, hearsay and opinions i.e. bullshit!
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 earlier you admit scientists who have been studying evolution are smarter than both you and me. Now according to latest poll in 2009, ~97% of scientists accept evolution (source is on wikipedia, look up level of support for evolution). So unless you are saying all 97% are wrong, and the remaining 3% are correct.... forgive me but i think this is one of the situations where majority is right and minority is wrong.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr 100% per cent of people used to think the world was flat, because that was what was taught at university! Medicine psychology and biology have all come to revolve around evolution! It is taught into people and they pass it on one to the other, recanting on it now would have massive implications. Nobody wants to even admit the possibilities that it could be wrong, so they leave it alone. I severely doubt those figures, maybe in certain countries but certainly not globally.
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 I said this before and I will say it again: If a scientist can prove that evolution is wrong, that scientist will win the Nobel Prize. There's no conspiracy. The only reason you don't see any evidence against evolution published in scientific journals is because those authors either use philosophy or holy text passages as part of their reasoning, which in the end, is not science. Philosophy isn't science. That's also why Granville Sewell's article got retracted.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 I didn't make up the stats. It's on wiki, the source is there. If you doubt it, go check it up yourself. The stats is taken in US, which is already known to be notoriously high for creationism. If you limit to other first world nations like England...my bet is the stats will climb even higher.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr I just looked on wiki (which is mainly some member of the public's opinion anyway) and it says that in 2007 22% post graduates don't believe in it 2009 results this figure 26% and in 2010 22% so the information is a little misleading. and btw check the definition, all science is based out of philosophy! excepting law, medicine and theology. The reason anti evolution arguments are not taken seriously is because it is the minority view,you are misinformed if you think its for other reason
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 lol what? are we reading the same wiki? Under "level of support for evolution" wiki page, there's a reference #129, which quotes "only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism". The proof for antibiotic resistance started off as minor too, but with sufficient evidence, it became widely accepted. So it has been demonstrated in science that a minority argument, if provided with sufficient evidence, can become widely accepted.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr Im working off the gallup polls, which are a far more accurate representation. Evolutionism will take a long time to dismiss because as you have clearly demonstrated by stating that opponents quote "holy text passages" it has become a "creationist"-evolutionist debate. Just simply proving that evolution is totally improbable or even impossible is no longer good enough.; Because the alternative is to most people to return to "how"? Evolution answers that for many. But it's not real fact!
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 According to Discovery Science, a creationist organization, they have signatures of ~700 scientists who disagree with evolution. This represents ~0.5% of the total scientists in the world, meaning that the remaining 99.5% scientists accept evolution, or at least disagree with creationism. The source is available if you simply go to their website. So my question to you is: why are you so confident the 99.5% educated people are wrong, and the 0.5% are correct?
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr Thats a brash assumption. The vast majority of scientists who don't hold to the belief that its a fact remain silent because to speak out is to invite ridicule and could even jeopardize ones carrier. The fundamental basis of the philosophical sciences today are evolutionary postulations that where entered as fact. When you are instructed in the methodology and the practice of your given field this is a large basis of your education. Would you speak against it? Ask yourself that question
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 I would speak against it IF I have the evidence for it. If I have evidence against evolution (and actual scientific evidence, not mathematical theories, or Biblical passages), yes, I would speak out. But right now there is no such evidence. And btw, i didn't quote specific sources because youtube doesn't like links, and it's always a pain in the ass to modify the links.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr There is a crap load of evidence against evolution which equally has only mathematical theories and postulations as it basis, you are symptomatic of someone who has been brainwashed into believing that empirical data somehow builds the case. It only builds the case if the base assumptions are taken to be correct, they are never allowed to be challenged because the ramifications are enormous.
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 lol whatever dude. empty words. like i've been saying from the beginning, when you can actually point me to some scientific articles showing evolution is wrong, i'll look into it, until then, i'll call this a break seeing as this argument is going nowhere. As Michael Crichton put it very nicely: it's not the passion nor the caring that counts, it's about knowledge and results. And if you going to talk about brainwash, don't get me started on religion. Now THAT'S brainwash.
Casshyr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@888WulfDog888 //There is a crap load of evidence against evolution...//
like?
//...which equally has only mathematical theories and postulations as it basis...//
besids the questions of this statments validity, why would this be a bad thing?
//...that empirical data somehow builds the case.//
it does.
//It only builds the case if the base assumptions are taken to be correct...//
which assumptions?
demondim5 6 months ago
@888WulfDog888 "unbiased polling stands around 20%" => where's your source? and btw, does this include people who do not have post-secondary education? because quite frankly, i don't care what people without at least a Masters degree say. All they have is at least a bachelors, and i was once a bachelors too, so i know how much evolution you guys have learned at that stage, and honestly, it's not even close to understanding it.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr WHy dont you read the post properly. For someone of so called intelligence your comprehension is atrocious, your the one that brought up that stupid wikipedia crap, it has Gallup poll results in it. I was quite clear that the figures I was quoting where from the Gallup poll was I not. And what makes you think that people who have not been indoctrinated into evolution via the university system are stupid and have any less understanding of empirical logic.
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@Casshyr I know Im in a minority, but I do not accept 3% I do not accept 10% I do however believe on the basis of unbiased polling the the figure stands at around 20%. And one must bear in mind that many people don't even think to question the fundamentals of the assertion that evolution is fact. I have meet people who disbelieved in it after they did just that.
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 typo: i meant "Discovery Institute".
Casshyr 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 Please at least clarify your source of information before you present it next time. It is disappointing to see a quote of figures one 'just looked on wiki' that turns out to be 'the gallup polls', makes the motive of such unclear citation questionable.
isabellawebb 7 months ago
@isabellawebb Hi sorry about that I was responding to an assertion by someone else, who had cited that insidious vexation on information flow Wikipedia. I ascertained from the wiki article that the author had used Gallup poll results to quote some figures, so from there I inspected the Gallup polls and found the statistical data to be quite rational and easily interpreted without bias.
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 And here are some papers that use thermodynamics + evolution for interpreting biological outputs: Allostery in pharmacology: Thermodynamics, evolution and design. Gábor Maksay. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. 2011
Thermodynamics of Neutral Protein Evolution. Jesse D. Bloom, Alpan Raval, Claus O. Wilke. Genetics. 2007.
Evolution and thermodynamics of the slow unfolding of hyperstable monomeric proteins. Jun Okada, et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2010.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 typo: i meant "doesn't count"
Casshyr 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 concerning evolution, there's no need for faith. you either accept the evidence or you don't. And I find it funny that you quote from a professor who does mathematics...you do realize they basically know ZERO knowledge about genetics right? I don't mean to be discriminative, but that is kinda weak. I would prefer listening to someone who is at least of genetics background.
Casshyr 7 months ago
@Casshyr That's why you have zero understanding of the overall problem that is posed to evolution. The problem lays in quantum mechanics. You've got your head stuck so far in the evolutionary Bible that its gonna get chopped off because your unaware of your surroundings, and yes it does take faith to believe that dribble. Einstein knew full well the implications of his theory (why to you think he fudged it) you call yourself a person of empirical knowledge and a creationists to boot! Dribble
888WulfDog888 7 months ago
@888WulfDog888 Basically, to be clear, I'm waiting for you to provide me an science article that actually says evolution is false. Because if you can't provide that, then obviously anything you say contain errors, because if there is indeed proof against evolution, scientist would publish it, and that scientist would win the Nobel Prize for disproving something that has fooled >95% of the scientific community!
Casshyr 7 months ago
The difference in conduct and intellect between Ray and Ed is like night and day. Ray lacks professionalism. He speaks like an angry monkey that has had its banana taken away. He doesn't believe in evolution because he himself has come from individuals who are little evolved.
MunkyDrag0n 1 year ago
I have seen the PROOF Ray proports.
They are nothing, deliberate lies or tremendous stupidity taker your pick.
As for asking did the blood, blood vessels or heart come first.
Take a course in science Ray it is all well explained and evidenced.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
Ray is such an idiot or a clever con man. Or both.
He is a con man and ignorant of science.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
Not very good presentation by eihter side to be honest.
Ray was raving like a madman and proclaiming horrendously erroneous strawmen og what evolution teaches, but the others didn't do a very good job of just explaining what evolution was either when it came their time to do so. Even though Ray probably wouldn't listen no matter what he said - at least he could have made the attempt to dispell the confusion for some of the listeners who really didn't know any better.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma
"Ray was raving like a madman"
Ray always does that, fast mouth and clever semantics. Usually used on the street against laymen so he can look good and appear to win an argument.
Ray is a madman with nothing but silly stunts to back his position.
I find him really irritating and he needs a good smack in the mouth.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
And AtheistDutch, I think you have a sick sense of humour.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
"Well, I don't know that there is no God, I just don't have any belief that there is any God and I haven't seen any good evidence to believe that there is one ..."
Maybe he's just been looking in the wrong places.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen replace the word "god" in your comment with "unicorns" and then read it again including the part that holds your own comment. The problem with that kind of argumentation should then become apparent withoutfurther need for me to point out the problem - hopefully.
This kind of informal fallacy is called an argument from ignorance. See wikipedia for more info.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma Is there any proof that there are no unicorns? If you say, "they can't be real", then prove that they are not.
It is the same with God. Nobody knows what He is. Nobody knows what form He might take. And I don't care what anyone thinks. If God's real, I have nothing to lose by believing in Him. If He is not, I will live with the shame, it's no big deal to me. I just know the values I live by, and nothing is going to change that.
Pah - science. I live by the heart.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Wow you miss the point I'm making here don't you?
Do you not realize the horrible flaw in that kind of thinking?
I can't disprove the possibility of unicorn no - nor any other concievable thing for which we have no evidence either. Unless you want to be irrational and arbitrarily decide which of these things for which we have no evidence you want to believe in you would have to beleive in them all. After thinking it through, is this REALLY your position?
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma Maybe you should make it clearer what positions you are describing.
And keep in mind you're talking to a fourteen-year-old.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen In short its enough to have insufficient evidence of something to be justified in not believing in it. Given lack of proof you only really have 3 choices - accept all such claims (absurd! AND impractical) - accept none of them until you get sufficient evidence (the rational position) - accept arbitrarily chosen claims, based on preference or what makes you feel good or what your friends want you to do for example (irrational).
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma I accept that you don't believe in it. What physical proof do I have? Nothing. Belief in God means faith in God.
And I don't care if it seems I'm missing the point.
Because that may well be the case.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Your outlook on truth and how to go about finding it is frankly quite scary. With this kind of attitude toward evidence you are almost garantueed to come to believe wrong things - no matter how good your intentions - because there is no valid method of determining fact from fiction in this outlook.
Proclaiming Pascals wager (are you remembering to pray to the unicorns?) and "Pah - science. I live by the heart." and "I just know ... nothing is going to change that" is worrying
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma I'm not letting what anyone says change how I feel. Frankly, I don't care about what's fact and what's fiction in this matter, because if you knew me, you'd know that for me there's only a very fine line between the two. And no, I'm not superstitious.
What's there to lose by believing in God? If He is real, I've done the right thing. And if He's not, I'll never find out, will I?
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen I assume I don't have to go through the details of why Pascals wager is utterly absurd, or mabye I do? You let me know. There are many good videos exposing its (huge crippeling) problems, but I'd be happy to explain them myself if you want.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma You explain the flaws of Pascal's wager. There are "huge crippling" problems on both sides of the argument. I'll take the side I want and you take yours.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen What flaw in my thinking? That I believe God exists? Is that a flaw? Or that I believe a person can find God by 'looking in the right places'?
You're not going to change my beliefs. (If I've got the wrong end of what you're trying to say, please explain.) I'll think how I want and believe what I want and you can do the same. I don't think age changes much. Or maybe I'm just abnormal.
And you succeeded in coming across "ass antagonistic".
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Well the flaw I was refering to was that you seemed to try to defend belief without evidence as rational. I see abouve that you say you don't try to show evidence (and I assume not rationalize it). Thats actually fine by me then as long as you realize that it is an irrational belief. We all have some irrational beliefs,emotions and behaviors and I actually have no problem with that as long as you don't use those kinds of belifefs to inform your real world actions - atleast...
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma My 'real world actions' are based on what I view to be as right, nothing else. I would not kill someone if I believed God had called me to do so, for example. Although I cannot see why I would ever think that.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Your all-right in my book then. I have no big problem with people who handle their faith in that manner. Sorry for misinterpreting you. Force of habit I guess after many heated theological debated here on YT.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma Cheers. ;D
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen ... atleast as long as they don't affect the rest of us who choose to not follow irrational beiefs. You are entitled to believe whatever you want as long as irrational beliefs don't form the basis for discrimination against others or leads to making laws based on them.
I just assumed you were one of those people who do exactly those things based on your seeming defence of the rationality of the belief - but I can see now that I might have misjuged your intentions.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma I would not force someone to believe anything if they didn't want to. I'd explain the belief to them and see their point of view on it.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen Took a sneak peek at your profile. I see you are still young. I won't hold that against you in any way, but it makes me glad to see because it means that your patterns of thinking are still not set in stone.
Realize that I am not writing all this in the effort to "show you how wrong you are" or make you seem stupid or to "win". it's a little too easy to come off ass antagonistic like that. I just hope that by showing you a flaw in your thinking you can correct it over time.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma What flaw in my thinking? That I believe God exists? Is that a flaw? Or that I believe a person can find God by 'looking in the right places'?
You're not going to change my beliefs. (If I've got the wrong end of what you're trying to say, please explain.) I'll think how I want and believe what I want and you can do the same. I don't think age changes much. Or maybe I'm just abnormal.
And you succeeded in coming across "ass antagonistic".
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
The Stigma has been to kind to you but you don't get it.
When someone makes a claim any claim they have the responsibility to prove it. No one has to disprove it or as it is termed prove a negative. This is just a way to hide the fact you have no evidence.
So you claim there is a God or Many fine, now provide proof.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 When we try to prove this claim, all you types do is say that it's not possible. That's because you're all looking for scientific evidence and you're so narrow-minded you can't even accept the possibiity that some things are at the current point in time not able to be scientifically proven.
And I'm not trying to "hide the fact I have not evidence". What kind of evidence do you mean, hmm? I have evidence, but the kind of evidence you would all stamp on and label "excuses".
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen I have to add though that "we types" don't generally say thats impossible to prove a god exists - I can think of a hundred ways of doing that - assuming a god that wanted to let us know he existed.
What atheists often do say however i that you can't DISPROVE gods, which is quite true except if there are glaring internal contraditions in one particular god concept. Thats the typical answer given "prove god!" is replied to with "disprove god!". only one of those are possible.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
Many things can not be scientifically proven I know. However that is a lot less than could not be proven 200 years ago.
Narrow-Minded by looking for evidence proof a coherent explanation that makes sence. What as aposed to just wanting to believe something on faith, when evidence to the contrary exsists.
You have no evidence because there is nothing.
I would accept "Moving a mountain" or "emptying a large hospital of all patients" by prayer as claimed in the Bible
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 ... do unless it somehow affects the people around them. If I have some personal quirk about it being bad luck to step on the lines of the sidewalk, you can call me silly, but its a bit extreme to start asking for evidence IMO. We do have freedom of religion and freedom of thought after all. You are free to believe whatever you want - but the second you try to convince others or affect them with that belief - thats when you need evidence.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 What evidence to the contrary? The only evidence you have to the contrary is that you haven't found down-to-earth, scientific evidence to prove God's existence. The world is not made only out of things that can be explained scientifically. And we're back to the old ping-pong argument. Neither side can be proved, so we must choose the side we believe in and go with it. Which is exactly what I'm doing.
I'm of the opinion that nothing is impossible, though we may not have proof.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
God doesn't exsist ANY OF THEM, so noo evidence can be found.
However the writtings, The Bible not what was included but what was left out as well as the discoveries of The Dead Sea Scrolls and Damascus Documents. The histories and observations of all thoes in and around Rome to the Middle east as well as archeology. It is obvious the bible has changed, is not original, not unique in content and many events never happened. Get out and READ its all available.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 Here you go again. "God doesn't exist, it's just not possible."
I am perfectly aware that the Bible has not remained untouched for the past thousands of years, but the point is, it didn't just spring out of nowhere. Many events have changed dramatically. The point is, these things have a basis in fact, which is something you seem very fond of.
And I'm not a fundamentalist either: I don't take everything in the Bible literally and I know it's been edited hundreds of times.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
these things have a basis in fact, which is something you seem very fond of.
Yes I am fond of reality and facts.
No it did not spring out of nowhere but we have a good history of how it evolved.
Many of the stories are borrowed OT and NT modified Miricles added, meaning changed. It started a a reading list of which all the autonimous churched had a prefered version. It did not start as one book. More was later left out than kept in... WHY. Cause it destroys the religion
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 I want to know HOW you can claim that you know all this beyond doubt. These things happened two thousand years ago, nobody knows what happened. There are versions. I know. I'll believe one version, not because it hasn't been modified, but because of its obvious morals and sense. And I'm not talking about the rules in Leviticus. I'm talking about the history, the recorded fact, not the rules Men made for themselves because they took the Scripture too literally.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 I can select from the Bible things that I find plausible and not utterly conceived by the human mind. I use deduction to figure these things out; I don't blindly follow what the Bible says. You can't deny that these things happened, no matter how modified they are. You can't say for sure how much is fiction and how much is fact. Neither can I. Case closed?
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
Respond to this video...
Continued......
Protecting thier power and wealth was religion, a was a tool of repression and control.
So it was spread and enforced by violence and fear.
Amassing wealth and all the while the pretence of peace and love.
Many advances and human rights have been oppsed by the church.
Where education is greatest religiousity is least. The truth uncovered exposes the fraud. People were and are gulible and they are expert at pretence and deception.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 What do you mean, 'the pretence of love'? What did all this wisdom in the Bible come from? Love is not a pretence if it is TRUE love and not artificial, and the love displayed in the New Testament is TRUE love. "Let he who has not sinned be the first to throw a stone." Forgiveness is love. Pretence? I don't think so.
What power and wealth? They didn't have any. Jesus went against these people who did things only for themselves. That is obvious.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
Most of the good stuff in the bible came from other cultures.
You reall picked a bad exsample about stoneing to death, it is the subject of much debate as authentic or not -
The absence of the passage from the earliest manuscripts, combined with the occurrence of stylistic characteristics atypical of John, together implied that the passage was an interpolation.
Also the Romans did not allow anyone else to execute anyone.
The writer may not have know 100's of year later.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 CONTINUED: But the fact remains that no matter how many times it’s been edited and changed, the whole theme has not changed, and that theme is God. I don’t believe all these tales just popped out of the ground, or, for that matter, out of someone’s head.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
Why not there are tens of thousands of fiction novels. People are eminantly good at making things up. The christian Bible fly's in the face of the Jewish view and it is thier God. Which according to the earliest evidence Jesus was both Jewish and did not come to change that religion. " I have not come to change the law, but to fulfill prophacy".
Basis in fact?
Alice in wonderland,
Atlas, holding the world on his shoulders.
Zeus
Little Red Riding Hood.
Think about it.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 Do these things actually have other genuine records that confirm them? No, they do not! Their only proof is what they are. No recorded witnesses or anything.
I've already told you that I know he didn't come to change the law. He came to show the people the errors of their ways, and he did. Look at Christians today!
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 We're both being hypocritical. I claim there's a God. You say prove it. I claim to have no scientific proof. You insist I prove my claim. I tell you to prove your claim that God does not exist.
If neither of us can prove it either way, we must assume that there is a possibility that God exists, and a possibility he doesn't.
Fair enough?
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
No I am not being hypocritical, one can not prove a negative, I need prove nothing.
You claim there is a god, you prove it.
It is like me claiming the I spoke to god who revealed he is a Pink Elephant and Jesus was sent by Satan. So you would acccept this without asking me to prove it.
Besides the trail of history and anthropology shows clearly the development of the consept of God and Gods. Created by Man. Nothing supports it as reality just myths.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 Just a small correction for the sake of correctness. It is possible to prove a negative - but only under certain very spesific conditions. If you define a spesific place for something to exist it can sometimes be disproven.
Example: "There is a computer on the table in front of me". Assuming its not an invisible computer we are talking abut its easy enough to disprove. disproving gods is a problem however because a time/place is not specified, nor gods attributes to recognize
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma
I agree for the sake of correctness.
It really hinges on Falsifiability, it's only to denote difficulty in gathering experimental evidence really.
When it comes to claims of God well the contradiction in the bible alone sinks that ship. Even so followers keep moving the goal post they then say, "But the Bible doesn't mean THAT, it means THIS as if they knew.
They change the context to suit themselves... Which by the laws of the bible will eventually send them to hell self defeat.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 To be fair she did clarfy to us that she only holds a belief that there is a god, but dosn't claim to have proof of this. Thats not really a claim if you aren't trying to convince anyone besides yourself.
I don't think we are entitled to harrass people to provide proof of their personal beliefs when they aren't trying to present them as factual. I think such belief is irrational of course, but we don't don't generally pressure people to justify other irrtional stuff they ...
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma
Yes of they do present them as factual.
Spent centuries persecuting, raping and murdering thoes who would not agree.
This they would do again given half a chance. A quick look at the surviving theocratic states in the world shows the Evil religion is.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 And where did myths come from? Many ancient things we take to be fairy tales have a basis in fact.
Some things cannot be proved. How could you prove, for example, that you had met God? In the same manner, you could not prove that you had met a homeless person who lives deep in the forest. Just because there is no proof does not mean that something does not exist. I read a book five minutes ago. How do I prove that to you?
You claim there's not a God, you prove it.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 For your information, I know precisely two devout Christians, my friends, who have directly experienced contact with God. One is twenty-two years old and before you say anything, he is not immature and does not lie. The other is our Malaysian assistant priest.
Do not scorn. I know you're not going to believe that, but that's fine by me, as long as you know I am not lying to you.
Enough with "scientifically" and "statistically"! Think outside the box for once.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
I accept they may believe that acctually had contact with God, thats a normal part of any delusion.
The same thing can be induced during brain surgery by stimulating a particular part of the brain. Also by using certain drugs. So clearly god is in the mind and not real.
Otherwise we would have to start accepting all the claims of Alien abduction, all appearences of other Gods, talking pink elephants ect.
So such a fantastic claim hold no value. Happens all the time.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 Delusion? Where you the one who experienced it? Can you say, "it was a delusion" when you actually don't know that it was? You blame me for lacking in proof, so don't claim things that themselves lack the same thing.
"Clearly God is in the mind and not real". That's an opinion. Just because visions can be induced by artificial means, doesn't mean the real thing can't exist.
Maybe it does happen all the time. But I've chosen the belief that I believe is right and good.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
Acctually Yes bin there done that, examined it, me, reality and asked questions that could not be answered.
So I do understand. I do not excuse persisting without asking and seeking truth.
Remember mental Asylums are full of people who hear god or voices, have fits and see things. Not possessed as the early church would have us believe but ill many helped by medication not exorcism. I know I have helped someone in this situation.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 CONTINUED: I've already explained that that's what I live by - my sense of good and evil. If you call such things as love, bravery, hope and mercy good, then we are on the same side. I picked the side that follows those things. Therefore I believe in it. If it's clearly good, then I cannot say it's not real. All good things are real to my mind, whether they exist only in my head or not. So is evil. But I believe that good shall always conquer in the end. At the very end.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
I believe that good shall always conquer in the end.
MMMM Agreed. though i think with much swinging of the pendulum.
Organised Religion particularly monothiesm is the Evil - read history.
As much as you want to thing Jesus brought all this goody goody stuff - he did not.
Again agreat deal of it can be found in pre-exsiting cultures and religions, as well as many bible stories like the Noahs Ark.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 CONTINUED: ... if humans still exist with the will and desire to do good.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
Many myths do indeed have a basis in fact I am glad you say that.
As you would aslo know that these myths in current form do not resemble thier original form. For exsample we now know that the "miricles" were added to the narative of the bible to sell it to a roman audience, we know Jesus did not come to start a new religion and was a firm Jew of the old testament. We know he was one of 2 messiahs in a long line of claimants. 4 - 5 brother 2 sisters. Many followed James
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 They do resemble their original form, but with modifications.
"To sell it to the Romans"? Are you kidding? The Romans wanted to stamp it all out! They certainly never BOUGHT the Bible - if they found out at all it was from word of mouth. And how do you know the miracles were added on? Were you there? Miracles happen, many recent miracles that eye witnesses beheld have occurred. All under the name of Christ.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
Romans did persecute early christians as Atheists, because that did not worship all the usual Roman gods.
You need to get out of the closet and look around.
Phenomenon do occur,
but when a 1,000,000 pray everyday for a event then 1 happens and they scream miricle. NOT GOOD ENOUGH, stats show no difference than the norm.
Nor does it explain all the phenomenon that occur at the same rate for non religious people or attribted to different Gods.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING? I've already told you why I believe in God and no other God, and that's because of the values of Christianity. I frankly don't care if the Romans believed in Jupiter and Juno and Mercury, because I don't. And I've already told you that.
How do you know that these scarce miracles are 'NOT GOOD ENOUGH'? What, pray tell, is the 'norm'? And I never said I could explain away the other miracles that occur.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 CONTINUED: But then there are a lot of things that no one can explain. These things may never be explained. But that doesn't mean miracles under Christ can't happen.
And of course these things have happened to 'non-religious people'. If there is a God, as I believe, do you really think that he'd confine himself to the people who ALREADY believe in him?
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
Respond to this video...
HERE IS YOUR CHANCE.
According to the Bible.
If you have a grain of faith, you can do miricles as Jesus did reaise the dead...
Also you can rink poison and not be harmed obvousely this would be a qantity considered faital to us atheists. So I give you the Ratsack challange, consume a pack of ratsack and not be harmed remember you only need one grain of faith.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing it does not go away.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 Don't take the Bible literally. This is the kind of irrational thing people do - take it word for word. The Bible is written metaphorically and in riddles.
If Christianity is based on a true God, as I believe, then you are wrong. When you stop believeing in him, God does not go away. God is always there; when you can't find him it shows you've been looking in all the wrong places.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 And of course there were claimants! Everybody wanted to be
"the Messiah". But Jesus was different, his values were unexpected, no one thought the Messiah would be anything like it. Who encouraged mercy and love, faith and hope? Who fought violence with peace? They had never seen anything like it before. Jesus brought good into the world. I thought that was obvious.
And of course he didn't come to start a new religion. Are you calling belief in God new? Jesus was born a Jew
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 ... and he re-introduced God to the Jews. Only, he introduced a rather different God to what people had expected. Why else do you think he was born into a Jewish family?
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
Why else do you think he was born into a Jewish family
Ahh because he was a Jew,
decended from the line of David, giving him credability to be a claiment to the thrown, at the right time when the people were expecting the 2 messiahs to appear.
NB: earliest records say born of a woman according to the law, no shepards, no wisemen (astrologers). In fact in december the animals are kept indoors so they don't freeze to death. Acctually born in March. another lie.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 You're nitpicking again. What does it matter if these small things were misrecorded (and by the way, if you believe those earliest records that claim they were, why don't you believe OTHER ancient records? a.k.a the Bible) if you actually can't prove that these bigger things didn't occur?
Lies. And yet if it all happened so long ago, how can we prove they are? There are many ancient recordings, and by the sound of it, it seems that each of us is choosing which to believe!
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
Respond to this video... In other words, it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition when there is no evidence. Even if it is less certainly false than propositions which are actually contradicted by evidence (although even that does not amount to a complete certainty), it is still reasonable to regard them as false so long as we've done some checking, and don't ignore new evidence that we come across.
Your God has no proof and is contrdicted by evidence. Double fail. It is a Lie.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 Of course it's reasonable not to believe in something you cannot see proof of. But it's not reasonable to force that upon the rest of us.
I thought you just said God was not contradicted by evidence? Which is right, by the way - if it's not, you give me your evidence.
No proof? I'll say it once more: neither have you. STOP USING THAT ARGUMENT. I'm fully aware that there is not much 'statistical', 'scientific' evidence.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
I'm fully aware that there is not much 'statistical', 'scientific' evidence. That would be none acctually.
It is reasonable to defend the advances of our race against the persistant vestiges of ancient myth and superstition as it is used by modern hucksters to fleece the nieve and thoes desperately hoping it is true.
Would you not stop someone buying dehydrated water from the back of a car.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 In which case I could also say that it's reasonable to force my beliefs upon you, because I believe them to be true.
"The advances of our race"? Technology ad science-wise, you mean? Because I'm afraid I see the advances of our race spiritually just as important. And I'm not talking about people HAVING to believe in God. I'm talking about the values Jesus brought into the world, which I have already described to you. Stamping out Christianity would not be a good thing to do.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen CONTINUED: Christianity has advanced and you can't deny that it's good. We encourage important values and we're up-to-date with the world. Taking away Christianity would be a terrible blow to the world. Explain why it wouldn't be.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
The Nazi's thought they were right, The Communist dictators thought they were right.
The pope's launched dozens of crusades, even against Christians and thought they were right. What matters is the Facts and Truth. Wish thinking is nice and wonderful for children. Religion has served mankind well at times and in certain areas, it still does. however in the modern era it is not relevant and just myth.
Good people will be good people. Religion is divisive and cruel.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 Facts and truth. Right. Well, you believe in what you think is facts and truth, and I'll believe what I think is facts and truth. I can't say fairer than that. I've already told you that I don't want to continue this discussion. The conclusion is that neither one of us is going to win, and that neither of us is going to change the other's opinion. I therefore say to you that I respect your opinions and I ask that you respect mine. The case is closed. Goodbye.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
what I think is facts ???
There it is, this is not about win or loose, it is about what ARE the facts and what IS the truth. It can never be what anyone wants to believe is Fact or Truth. What one believes is completley irrelevant.
I agree to discontinue the conversation, as many of your commrades do,
ignoring evidence and fact or avoiding the truth via logical conclusion is a way of life albeit required to maintain faith. Many have said as much.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 CONTINUED: Have you any idea of the good things Christians are doing in the world at this very moment? It's mainly us who have set up all these charities and organisations to protect disadvantaged people around the world, and we also set up environment and animal protection organisations. We have advanced so far from what many people consider to be our primitive beginnings, and you would take that away? What good would that do?
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
A good things are done by good people, from all walks of life and belief systems.
You certainly don't need religion for that. However realise the people the congregation do these things by donation of money and free labor, the church takes out expences and claims credit. Some charity is given with many many string attached.
Please take a moment to see the tip of the ice burg, watch the video titled-
In The name Of Jesus: Child Witches (1 of 2) - There is much more.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 A lie? You think so? If you can tell me with absolute certainty, because you have proved the claim beyond all doubt, you can say that. If not, you can't. And that goes for me, too. I'm not going to say "God is real". I'm going to say "I believe God is real". Because I do. And if He's not real, do I care? No. As long as there remains such good in the world as love, mercy, peace, friendship, bravery and hope, I'm really not too concerned about what's fact and what's fiction.
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago
@VOLDEMORThasrisen
Note the earliest most reliable gospel, ended with crusifiction death and the corpse removed. 300 years later christian editors added that to the gospel.
No contemporary source even mentions these fantastic events.. a bit strange?
Efectively there was no reserection, christianity is a fraud.
Jesus was claimig to be King of the Jews not God, executed for sedition.
Peaceful group, why send 600 troops to arrest him. Wake up .
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 Jesus claimed to be the son of God, the King of the Jews. How do you know that Christian editors added that? These events did not pop out of the ground! I accept some of them are fables and that some have been modified. But the Bible is a record! Witnesses recorded the events and then the events were officially recorded later. With modifications, I know. But they happened all the same.
Read the Bible, you'll see why they sent so many after him.
Define "contemporary source".
VOLDEMORThasrisen 1 year ago