So what do you think are the odds that these guys NEVER will fork out the $1000, no matter what evidence is presented?
I'm sure these nitwits will lay down a smoke screen of inpermeable theological hogwash whenever someone tries to cash in that check. I call their bluff, they never intended to pay that money, they're only trying to prove a feeble, easily refuted point.
Jeeesus...is this guy for real? Oh my non-existent god dude!! Stop caring about the existence of god and rather focus on NOT being such an infinite virgin...
This is laughably easy - The Infinite Exists, that is, an infinite permutations among infinite dimensions. If true, then it stands to reason that our all possible permutations of our measily 4+6 (Newtonian/Quantum) Dimensions exist within the space of the universe, including the one particular permutation in which I exist. Put another way, my observable universe is precisely one set defining the universe that is necessary for me to exist.
Equations available if you want. It's a laughably trivial solution. So can I get that $1000 bucks in a check or is your organization baring false witness for Jesus. Again.
The sun would not come up tomorrow and this has been proven by Copernicus from his scientific formulations based on heliocentric cosmology. You know, as in the Sun is the center of our solar system and the Earth revolves around it. Since you like to base your arguments on 15th century science that just shows how irrelevant and out of touch people like you are. As for me, I enjoy living in the present without the supernatural. Even if they did exist, I wouldn't want to worship them anyway.
That's because I'm an American, where the greatest minds used to come from by questioning and rebelling against the establishment, the British monarchy and religiously intertwined government. It's people like you that give us Americans a bad name.
Just $1000? Them's not alot of bones for such a bold claim, me think this guy worries someone will be able to claim the monies. Never the less occam's razor approach to un answered questions may be convinient, but it's certainly not fool proof, something all those burnt at the stake witches would likely agree with.
If a god exists then you have wasted a part of the afterlife until you are forgiven. If no god exists you have wasted your life, your time and your money.....I'll take cash thx
By the same rules the probably of a God is less likely than our star going nova tomorrow. A being no one can see or talk to has an incredibly small probability that it exists. Non belief in a god has no influence what so ever except for the nattering of the faithful.
The sun came up yesterday and for every day of recorded history. Therefor an "Atheist" would assume that by high probability the sun will come up tomorrow. An Atheist knows that a star has a finite lifetime so as more time passes the probability of the sun going nova becomes 100 percent.
Your challenge is a ridiculous one. You might as well ask people to prove that there is no teapot orbiting around the sun. You can't claim things without evidence than ask people to prove them with evidence.
This challenge is ludicrous, anyone with common sense knows you cannot prove anything to be absolutely true. Even gravity is just a theory.
The challenge really should be prove that God does exist, but someone has already put up $1MIL for that.
I'm pretty sure that you guys don't have the permission to use Aphex Twin's track "Flim". Nor would I think that Richard would ever give permission to some religious nutbag like yourself to use it.
god will deny him heaven because he's an asshole, a liar, a sinner, and a douchebag. St. Peter will be all like "Sorry preppy, no douchebags allowed."
um, you christians don't ALLOW us to pursue science, we do it because it is the right of all people to do what they want. You christians don't hold any power over us, so how can you ALLOW us to do things.
So, according to this "logic", the only way to "prove" that the scientific laws exist is to throw a baseless assumption that "a supernatural causeless God who has sent his son to be tortured a thousand years ago has created these laws"?
Going to have to agree with you on that. It boggles my mind how someone could even pretend to be this idiotic. Belief is one thing but this...no this is just beyond that, wandering into the 'What?' category.
God is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance and confess the truth that God's Son came in the flesh. No liar can enter heaven's gates.
You can quote all the scripture you want, but why both, it means nothing. If I reject it as fact from church and my own bible, why would I except it as fact from you?
"I reject the imagination that keeps you from understanding."
It sparked a passionate two-year debate within the scientific community; the discovery of a one meter tall female skeleton in an Indonesian cave, along with the remains of other hobbit-like people called into question the assumption that homo-sapiens were the only human species alive 18,000 years ago.
But now an international team of scientists says it has proof that the so-called Hobbit is in fact a new human species.
How about you go prove the existence of god for the JREF million dollar challenge instead. At least they offer a substantial amount compared with the pocket change you're offering. The burden of evidence is in your hands.
There is evidence of an intelligent designer already because no object or static ever made any proteins to fall together in the right order for an good thing to result. This also disproves evolution. If you want proof of God, you have to read the Bible because that is where the prophecies of Messiah were written thousands of years (as many as 4000 years) before He came.
"There is evidence of an intelligent designer already because no object or static ever made any proteins to fall together in the right order for an good thing to result."
First, that is not evidence because evolution does not believe this either, nor does science.
Second, How exactly does this disprove Evolution?
I have read the bible, and no it did not prove god exists. In fact it is one of the reasons I no longer have faith.
The only thing that you read was your own imagination. Reading God's word is reading God's mind and you only read your own mind (or someone else's mind which is worse!).
Evolution does believe that proteins happened to fall together in the right order because you can't get from an existing design of good order to more good order without more and more of proteins falling together in the right order. You can't have more and more good order without more and more information. It doesn't happen.
I would agree I read someones imagination. Prove to me that reading the bible is like reading gods mind. You come up with some of the stupidest things to say.
"Evolution does believe that proteins happened to fall together in the right order" You show me were it says that in the Theory of Evolution, you can not because it does not. You are talking about abiogenesis, that is something different.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
The scripture itself, the paper it is printed on, etc.
Killer bees are produced by selective breeding done by humans. They are not classified as a new species because they can still genetically mingle and breed with the old species.
Which scientists? How many are biologists? I am not saying it is not science, I am saying I have as yet to see anything that validates ID. I have never seen anything to validate Creationism.
I probably will watch the movie sooner or later. However, just because someone is a scientist does not mean they are qualified to speak on any given subject. This is why they would in fields. As for ID validating creation, it does not. What it does do is try and show everything need a creator and absorb parts the Theory of Evolution into itself. This does not validate Christian Creationism however as being the correct creation.
I did not creationism borrowed anything from Evolution (learn to read, ID does. Evolution borrows nothing from creation.
"The variation of species is not evolution because the variation of the species is a part of the original design." The fossil record does not support this claim, so support it.
Genetically it is impossible to come from just two people.
"The fossils (and the geologic upheaval) are proof of the flood." The fossil record does not support this claim either.
Speak to the issues. You do not because you cannot address the issues. If you don't have a point to make, don't waste your time putting me down because the lower that you put me, the more you have to explain about why you still believe the nonsense about the evolution cult that you believe and I don't believe that nonsense because at least I know that information does not magically appear. It has to come from somewhere and don't say the environment because that was made too.
I have asked you several times to validate your claims seekmosttoprphesy. You have not validate one. You have misstated and misused science. You have claimed science states things it clearly does not. How do you argue with someone who's mind is as far gone as yours? If you do not show evidence to support your claims then I must write you off as a crazy, mindless individual. I have asked for evidence more than once on subjects you claim to be able to prove. Either validate or shut up.
I never tried to prove objects make information, how much clearer does that need to be. You show me were I said that. You are the one who keeps stating it over and over again.
Darwin feared the church. Science does not denote a point of creation, it just does not claim god is that point.
Yes all species came from one original species. Genetics has shown that chimps and humans have a common ancienter. You can deny it, but that does not mean it is not true. You should do more research on the subject. The fossil record, everyday growing larger, provides more and more evidence for evolution.
"...and don't compare the planets to the genome!" Why?
"The only things that apes and humans have in common is that of having the same Designer/Creator/God." Prove it. Science has shown that apes and humans share common markers in there DNA. The most likely reason for this is that they share a common ancestor.
"The fossil record provides more and more evidence of things buried by the flood." Actually dating show that not to be the case. If dating is correct, then you are wrong.
The moon Titan has an atmosphere, that when exposed to earth like sun light in a lab, produces the building blocks of like. This is how the prehistoric atmosphere of earth is believed to have been. It is believed the building blocks formed, then life eventually formed from those.
Evolution is a belief and it is a false belief at that. You could make a model of a molecule and worship it and it would be the same as believing that objects fall together in the right order for a good outcome. You also like to get hammered too, don't you?
The fossil record clearly shows links between extinct species and modern day species.
Another example that supports evolution is research into birds of flight. Bird prefer to stay on the ground if possible. Experiments have been done that show, if possible, bird will walk over flying. That wings most likely developed to assist birds in walking up steep inclines. Flight was most likely developed later as a way to flee predators and take advantage of pray for predator birds.
It is instinct that anything will walk when it comes into contact with something. Animals also instinctively swim when they are put into water. Many birds also do not "grasp" the limbs that they land on. Their claws close when their legs bend (backwards) at the knee. It is a tendon action and not a muscular action. It is amusing that I don't hear evolutionists talk about instinct anymore because instinct has the connotation of being preprogramed. LOL!!!
Actually if a creature is created to fly why would it not simple fly up instead of walk? This test has been done with baby bird as well, they react the same. That is the point, if you are created to fly then flying would be the instinct.
What makes you believe that we have been contaminated be apes? Is it possible for you to consider the fact that humans are the ones who contaminated everything? I already know that funny dating is wrong.
I am not sure what you mean by this. You should convey your thoughts more clearly. Perhaps you should go to school and take a class or two. First in the English language it is impossible to speak to an issue, you can speak about an issue.
We see many designs in nature that are not from intelligence but there are also many designed things which can only be by intelligence because smarts do not come from random forces and objects.
"Smarts" as you call them can and do come from changes. People, or babies to more precise, are not born knowing all things. They must learn and adapt to survive. Babies cannot talk, which would be "smarts" as you put it. This is a learned behavior. Yes, random experiences and forces shape our lives. That is why you, most likely, are like neither of your parents.
All things are either designed or not designed, you cannot have it both ways.
Also, your statement "many designed things in nature which can only be by intelligence", there is no design in nature that I have ever seen that can only be explained by intelligent design. If this was true then it would be a simple task to prove ID.
"Designs that contain information are of intelligent design. It is that simple." That is a statement, but not necessarily a true statement. Prove it is a fact.
The proof that intelligent design contains other world information is that static forces and objects do not make any kind of information at all. No known rule of science can explain that kind of information.
If you say that proteins happen to fall together in the right order, that is the same as saying there is a Creator only you attribute that to objects and random static chance which is not very intelligent.
"If you say that proteins happen to fall together in the right order, that is the same as saying there is a Creator only you attribute that to objects and random static chance which is not very intelligent." Man the crazy just runs out of you doesn't it?
You believe anything, don't you? You glorify the Universe saying it is able to "create itself OUT OF NOTHING". You are very deluded. No object ever did anything of its own. That is contrary to science itself. You believe in magic, you believe in objects, you believe nonsense.
"You believe anything, don't you?" The same could be asked of you. You will believe someone like Hovind. I did not say the universe could create itself, you do not read very well do you? I said Hawking can show how it happens. There is a difference.
"No one has ever shown objects making information. You are so deluded." I never claimed they did, you are the one who is deluded. You keeping saying this, but I am not arguing the point, nor am I claim I, or anyone else, has claimed this. If you know someone who claims this then you should talk to them and not me.
This is your problem somehow you have it in your head that objects make information. You for some reason feel you must prove this wrong. I do not know how this got in your head and I do not care. You can stop any time repeating this nonsense, no one is arguing the point. Just because it is the most intelligent thing you have said does not mean you need to keep repeating it.
I will stop repeating that objects do not make information when it is acknowledged. Evolution requires that objects make information both for life to start AND for life to continue changing from one species to another.
"I will stop repeating that objects do not make information when it is acknowledged." I have acknowledged every time you have said it. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Evolution does not require objects to create information. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about how life started. As for the continuation of life, no that does not require objects to create information either. It requires life to have the ability to change, which is does.
In fact the fact you would believe something Hovind said over something Hawking said scares me. However the on thing thing I have yet to say I believe in is the Theory of Evolution. That theory states no where that objects create information. You so far the only person to make claims in that area.
What I find most interesting is that you do not understand religion (creation) and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. What I mean by that is one does not disprove the other, or vise versa. If the Theory of Evolution were proven tomorrow, and it pretty much is proven as fact, it would disprove creation as a possibility. However, the same is true for creation. Most of this crap you are talking about has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
umm. the sone dosent "come up" the sun comes into an individuals vision because of the spin of the earth and its rotation around the sun.... like sceince told us. =]
Objects do not produce information. The information in DNA was not made by objects. The information in DNA was also not made by static energy or light. Creatures did not make themselves. Everything that exists was made by a Designer/Creator/God.
You don't want to be honest so science (honest observation) is proving you wrong and you still don't want to admit it so you believe silly things like rocks having power to do something they clearly do not do.
Idolatry is an age old problem and Judaism/Christianity is the only thing that ever said, "Hey wait a minute! Carved objects do not have any power to do anything!"
Actually I do not disagree science could be wrong, that is science. The theory of gravity could be 100% incorrect. However it is induction to believe, that with no proof whatsoever, the universe is uniform because there is a god. That is worse that what science is being accused of. As for believing rocks have power, I am not sure what you mean by that.
"you believe silly things like rocks having power to do something they clearly do not do." I in no way shape or form believe this, and neither does science. You, on the other hand, believe that some invisible powerful being (who there has ever been a shred of proof to prove exists), willed everything into existence. You also believe this is not a problem of induction in itself. Who is the one not being honest.
As soon as you calm down a bit, you can learn something if that's what you really want. I believe God exists because of what I see. The same goes for Creation. I believe there is a Creator because of everything I see. Everything reproduces after its kind with variations that help to accommodate changing environments. I also see rare random accidental mutations which have NO comparison to the variation of species being corrected within a few generations. I believe what I do based on what I see.
First of all I am always calm, I think you are the one who needs to calm down. You are going to teach me something, you are not even capable of stringing words together in a coherent manner. I believe there is not a creator because of everything I see, that goes for god as well. It is nice to see that you admit evolution is true. "Everything reproduces after its kind with variations that help to accommodate changing environments. I also see rare random accidental mutations"
The "rare random accidental mutations" are totally insignificant. The variation of species is a part of the existing design. New species do not come from existing designs because the design already existed.
The problem with your statement is if you get enough "rare random accidental mutations" to make a 2% deviation in DNA then you get new species. "Rare random accidental mutations" are cumulative in nature. Another words 1+1+1+1+1+1+etc= new species.
Wrong, wrong, wrong because your mutations are so rare and when they do occur and when they are not bad mutations and even if they are bad mutations, they are deleted within a few generations. It is so rare and even if it did happen, it is corrected within a few generations.
I agree, you are wrong. If a mutation happens and is passed on, spread from one individual to the next, then a new mutation happens and spreads with the old mutation, etc. Genetic research has show that mutations in species is happening every generation. Enough of these mutations over time and you will get new species.
You are confusing mutations with the variation of species. It is actually evident that there is a sort of feeling of the environment going on. That is a part of the preexisting design. It is not at all accidental as you suggest. Accidents don't have direction and purpose. The design was already there.
I don't have to prove anything. You have to observe the design and understand that this particular information and this particular design is not made by objects. I cannot open your eyes.
I cannot open your eyes. If you are going to make crazy statements, hen yes you must prove them. You cannot prove design, that is why it has not been done.
Information by definition is intelligent when contained in a designed structure. These structures or bodies are designs not unlike houses but these designs are much more complex than houses. Only bold faced liars would deny all of these things.
A statement like requires proof there is a soul. Are you now going to try and prove there is a soul. So a library has a soul and is intelligent by your definition.
"Only bold faced liars would deny all of these things." Oh nice touch, I must be a liar if I do not agree with you.
A library has a creator. All the information in the library also has a creator. All souls were envisioned when Adam was made.
The bold faced liars lied to you and you believed them (some of them could have been deceived like you). They are all deceived but there comes a point when the lying becomes intentional.
I do not disagree that a library was a creator, as god has a creator, man. I contend, that by your definition, you think a library has a soul. My comment has nothing to do with who created what.
"The bold faced liars lied to you and you believed them (some of them could have been deceived like you). They are all deceived but there comes a point when the lying becomes intentional." I feel the same way about you.
Kent Hovind, I knew this from just looking at him, came from a conservative, fundamental, bible believing church (because that is where I came from). These people, like us, know a lot about the Bible. We don't know so much about the outside world but we do know a lot about the Bible. We still have some things to learn about Jewish culture and customes but we learn fairly easily from what we already know about the Bible. I have the slight advantage of having been raised in other places as well.
Kent Hovind (continued) is not an intentional liar, there are just some things that he is still learning but there is so much that you can learn from things that he knows. The only parts that I would disagree with is his political stance (the tax evasion thing) and his harsh edges towards unbelievers. I understand his harshness because I am familiar with his background. The tax evasion thing is a little hard to understand because I thought that he was a minister. (I don't have all the facts)
"Kent Hovind (continued) is not an intentional liar" ok, the man is in prison for stealing, which is pretty much the same thing as lying. Not to mention he has been shown a liar on more than on subject, like his education.
Give him a break, he studied some nine years for his PhD. and it is nothing more than philosophy anyway.
His "stealing" is subject to interpretation of the law. He seemed to think that because he was doing a non-profit ministry, he was not obligated to pay taxes although he seemed to preach that no one should have to pay taxes. Well, he did not succeed at convincing the authorities and that is why he went to jail.
I work for a living and I pay taxes but I believe too much is taken from me.
You don't think that Hovind should be able to provide the world with a service and not be burdened with taxes because of the benefit he is doing for the world? What if he doesn't live an extravagant life like some do and puts all the money back into the ministry?
There are some good things that you could learn from Mr. Hovind, well, not necessarily from him but from his background. There is a lot of knowledge there. I should know and it is not about being a thief. It is about effectively serving well.
That is not why they give honorary degrees. So Steven Colbert is an expert in Fine Arts, that is what his honorary degree is in. Science, nor I, claim objects make information.
There have been a lot of complaints that honorary degrees are totally worthless. At one time, they were given very rarely and to people who achieved great things in those fields.
Now, they are tossed in by a university, anytime they need a speaker for graduation.
We have the ability to choose what we read and what we believe. That is what America is all about. If you choose Seekmosttoprophesy, to believe nonsense, you will do nonsense which is self-defeating.
That is why I don't believe the nonsense of evolution and the Darwinist cult religion because it means that you will do evil nonsense like believing that objects produce information. That is equivalent to idol worship and believing that a carved object can do anything for you. You just happen to believe that the objects made you what you are.
What a load of crap. You show me in the theory of evolution it states anywhere that "believing that a carved object can do anything for you" or "You just happen to believe that the objects made you what you are." You have no idea what you are talking about and you are repeating stuff that people who do not know what they are talking about are saying. Evolution is a proven scientific theory, period.
Evolution is losing even its belief stage because it is not even supported with any scientific evidence whatsoever! It is utter nonsense and a belief in magic. Objects do not make information.
Of course evolution does not say objects make information because it would be obvious that evolution is not true if it did. Evolution is a theory (that was not thought out very well). Evolution ASSUMED that information could be added without ever really considering whether or not it was possible. Darwin saw similarities in creatures and assumed they were related. These similarities are from having One Creator of everything and the materials used are all the same. Evolution is a very poor theory.
Intelligent design and creation are not even theories and much poorer in construction. In order to be a scientific theory it must have some proof. Again, do you believe in micro evolution?
Intelligent design is observable science and observable facts. Creation is a historical account. No kind of evolution happens because the variation of species is a part of the original design so that we can live in changing environments. That's not evoltution because the integrity of the original species is maintained, information is lost and changed somewhat but no information is ever added. There's a big difference between changing existing information and adding information that wasn't there.
"Intelligent design is observable science and observable facts. Creation is a historical account." Show me one case were intelligent design has been observed. Where is creation a historical fact. All scientific date show neither of these choices are the most likely to have occurred. Micro evolution is part of the evolution theory, and is a proven part of the evolution theory. It in itself validates evolution as a theory.
"If you haven't observed DNA sequence showing intelligent origin, that is not my problem." I would have to believe you have not "observed it either", however I have read about it. Speculation with little supporting evidence. You make a lot of statements of fact with little in the way of supporting evidence. As for not admitting there is a god, I choose to believe there is not god, you choose to believe there is one. Neither of us can prove are position true.
Christianity is the only belief that can be proven because it is the only belief based on fact. Everything about Christianity is historical. It is about God's historical relationship to us. ...and the existence of God is supported by observable science because intelligent design is observable science.
Christianity is not provable or can be proven historically factual. The story of Jesus now is believed to be borrowed from other religions, as is Noah's Ark. Intelligent design is not observable science, stop smoking weed. Your lack of understanding of science is dumbfounding. You have nothing but misinformation. "A human species would never be another species" prove that statement with logic.
You wish and hope that none of the historical information that we have is correct because if it is correct, you have to confess God as your Maker and your Savior but you cannot prove that the history is not true because you do not have any other history because there is no other history.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claims, I in no way shape or form have to prove it is not correct. This entire statement has to be the dumbest thing you have muttered as of now. "I can see the result of your fingers typing but I see no support for what you are saying." I was wrong I just read this and now it is the dumbest thing you have said.
Intelligent design is science that has observed design which is of an intelligent origin. Not only is it intelligent, it is far beyond anything we can duplicate and there is a lot of it. So just accept the fact that there is a God. Now you need to try to understand God and what wants us to do.
Intelligent design is not science, that may or may not observed design which is of intelligent origin.
"Not only is it intelligent, it is far beyond anything we can duplicate and there is a lot of it." Prove this statement.
My belief is there is no god, it has nothing to do with any science or more to the point of evolution. My lack of a belief in god is personal as your belief in a god is personal. Proving or disproving any theory or hypothesis will change either of our beliefs.
You need to look at it another way. I believe there is God and you BELIEVE there is not God. What historical evidence do you have that God is not? What scientific proof do you have that God is not? I have both historical and scientific evidence that everything that God says is true. You have nothing. I have everything.
I see no historical evidence, furthermore you cannot prove historical accuracy. I do not have historical evidence god does not exist (nor did I calm that I disbelieve in god because of historical evidence), it is a belief not a fact. As your idea there is a god is a belief and not a fact. I do not need any proof to believe there is a god. "I have both historical and scientific evidence that everything that God says is true." No you do not. Show me one piece of historic proof you have.
Belief in intelligent design is a belief in fact. This fact does NOT contradict the historical records found in the Bible. You cannot prove the historical records found in the Bible are not true. The most you can do is speculate and speculation is not true.
So what do you think are the odds that these guys NEVER will fork out the $1000, no matter what evidence is presented?
I'm sure these nitwits will lay down a smoke screen of inpermeable theological hogwash whenever someone tries to cash in that check. I call their bluff, they never intended to pay that money, they're only trying to prove a feeble, easily refuted point.
KapteinPuma 3 years ago
guess he knows the answer now cuz he's dead:/
basabs1 3 years ago
Jeeesus...is this guy for real? Oh my non-existent god dude!! Stop caring about the existence of god and rather focus on NOT being such an infinite virgin...
RaptorSA 3 years ago
This is laughably easy - The Infinite Exists, that is, an infinite permutations among infinite dimensions. If true, then it stands to reason that our all possible permutations of our measily 4+6 (Newtonian/Quantum) Dimensions exist within the space of the universe, including the one particular permutation in which I exist. Put another way, my observable universe is precisely one set defining the universe that is necessary for me to exist.
Eridanman 3 years ago
Equations available if you want. It's a laughably trivial solution. So can I get that $1000 bucks in a check or is your organization baring false witness for Jesus. Again.
Eridanman 3 years ago
The sun would not come up tomorrow and this has been proven by Copernicus from his scientific formulations based on heliocentric cosmology. You know, as in the Sun is the center of our solar system and the Earth revolves around it. Since you like to base your arguments on 15th century science that just shows how irrelevant and out of touch people like you are. As for me, I enjoy living in the present without the supernatural. Even if they did exist, I wouldn't want to worship them anyway.
bushidogamer 3 years ago
That's because I'm an American, where the greatest minds used to come from by questioning and rebelling against the establishment, the British monarchy and religiously intertwined government. It's people like you that give us Americans a bad name.
bushidogamer 3 years ago
dumbest shit ever
LOLZORZZZZ 3 years ago
quantum mechanics - mutiverse, all possible laws exist, in other universes. wheres my 1000$
friendlynihilist 3 years ago 2
matter and energy is eternal! where my 1000$
friendlynihilist 3 years ago
FUCK. THIS. SHIT.
doesmykeyboardwork 3 years ago
Yawnsville. I hit the mute button to kill this droning as I typed.
8002reverse 3 years ago
Here is an idea, why don't you read a science book? There you go, no mention of god. Please send me $1000.
cakesyy 3 years ago 2
this is retarded.
An explanation without invoking God? Do I get the 1000 $ if I happen to invoke some other than the christan God?
"The laws of physics are what they are because of John Frum" (see cargo cult)
randomcitizen 3 years ago
how many people can win? these guys are giving away money!
alpharaptor1 3 years ago 2
Fail.
bionicbrian 3 years ago
i will give any non-leprechaunist $1000 if they can prove rational non-leprechaunism. lucky charms, eat your heart out.
MAdk1p 3 years ago 2
More of the:
"Don't bother me with the avalanche of facts... I've already made up my mind."
THEMACGOD 3 years ago 3
After careful consideration, as an Atheist, I have come up with the appropriate response to this challenge:
Ares could kick Yaweh's ass.
PandionFerrus 3 years ago
Just $1000? Them's not alot of bones for such a bold claim, me think this guy worries someone will be able to claim the monies. Never the less occam's razor approach to un answered questions may be convinient, but it's certainly not fool proof, something all those burnt at the stake witches would likely agree with.
psptutorial 3 years ago
Biggest moron ever.
Is anyone really this stupid?
Yeah, from his other stuff it appears so.
Too dumb to understand science, but thinks he can defend fairy tales?
mightydavefish 3 years ago 6
Kids, this is your brain on religion.
dante13xy 3 years ago 5
Are you kidding me?
filorps 3 years ago 2
If a god exists then you have wasted a part of the afterlife until you are forgiven. If no god exists you have wasted your life, your time and your money.....I'll take cash thx
Mahoivlich 3 years ago 2
By the same rules the probably of a God is less likely than our star going nova tomorrow. A being no one can see or talk to has an incredibly small probability that it exists. Non belief in a god has no influence what so ever except for the nattering of the faithful.
Mahoivlich 3 years ago 2
The sun came up yesterday and for every day of recorded history. Therefor an "Atheist" would assume that by high probability the sun will come up tomorrow. An Atheist knows that a star has a finite lifetime so as more time passes the probability of the sun going nova becomes 100 percent.
Mahoivlich 3 years ago
This is a joke, right?
GBart 3 years ago 4
this blokes a fucking moron!
urbanspaceman1 3 years ago 4
Van Til:
Your challenge is a ridiculous one. You might as well ask people to prove that there is no teapot orbiting around the sun. You can't claim things without evidence than ask people to prove them with evidence.
This challenge is ludicrous, anyone with common sense knows you cannot prove anything to be absolutely true. Even gravity is just a theory.
The challenge really should be prove that God does exist, but someone has already put up $1MIL for that.
BenjaminFranklin2u 3 years ago 2
You are currently involved in copyright infringement.
This video uses Aphex Twin's song "film", illegally. A cease and desist order will follow shortly.
volumptuous 3 years ago 2
I'm pretty sure that you guys don't have the permission to use Aphex Twin's track "Flim". Nor would I think that Richard would ever give permission to some religious nutbag like yourself to use it.
deadredeyes 3 years ago
I will give a trillion dollars to any Christian who can prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
spank74 3 years ago
Christians hahahahaha
DoctorE0 3 years ago 2
It's up to the christians to prove that god exists. Not for atheists to prove that god doesn't exist.
Bojaxs 3 years ago 2
God is dumb, evolution is great. give up give up
Keithed200 3 years ago
I liked when you got fired for being a preppy douchebag. Keep up the good word, oh stereotypical golf course paramecium of the Republican party!
KoroOutbreak 3 years ago
This challenge is unnecessary, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Atheists claim nothing.
MrMontagne 3 years ago
What a fucking idiot. I'll laugh when God denies him entry in to heaven because he's too fucking stupid to realize that God doesn't exist.
agnaga 3 years ago
god will deny him heaven because he's an asshole, a liar, a sinner, and a douchebag. St. Peter will be all like "Sorry preppy, no douchebags allowed."
KoroOutbreak 3 years ago
You can start laughing, then. Paul Kelly Tripplehorn blew his brains out with a shotgun on Nov 29, 2008. The obit's in the Dallas papers.
I guess that's atheism for the win, then.
keinsignal 3 years ago
All praise belongs to the true God Odin, fuck yeah!
Cyllid 3 years ago
what drugs is he on ? has anyone won ?
tyroy57 3 years ago 2
What a jackass.
danuu2 3 years ago
um, you christians don't ALLOW us to pursue science, we do it because it is the right of all people to do what they want. You christians don't hold any power over us, so how can you ALLOW us to do things.
Dylanshreds1 3 years ago
...
hefftatious 3 years ago
explain why things happen without saying god? easy way: the power of Odin and Quetzlcoatl demand it!
JimmytheWalrus 3 years ago
WHAT THE ASS!
SHSH1212 3 years ago
So, according to this "logic", the only way to "prove" that the scientific laws exist is to throw a baseless assumption that "a supernatural causeless God who has sent his son to be tortured a thousand years ago has created these laws"?
And then they wonder why do we laugh?
GurgleGurgleBlahBlah 3 years ago 2
There is no way you could actually be this stupid.
TheAllCityKing 3 years ago 4
Going to have to agree with you on that. It boggles my mind how someone could even pretend to be this idiotic. Belief is one thing but this...no this is just beyond that, wandering into the 'What?' category.
jaystreete 3 years ago
lmao hes all sweet and nice and then hes like "but if you can't answer, you'll go to hell ! "
religious bastard
sammygee17 3 years ago
God is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance and confess the truth that God's Son came in the flesh. No liar can enter heaven's gates.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Wow, you can quote scripture, proves little.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
I can quote Scripture and I can understand what Scripture is saying because I reject the imagination that keeps others from understanding.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You can quote all the scripture you want, but why both, it means nothing. If I reject it as fact from church and my own bible, why would I except it as fact from you?
"I reject the imagination that keeps you from understanding."
dataloreforever 3 years ago
It sparked a passionate two-year debate within the scientific community; the discovery of a one meter tall female skeleton in an Indonesian cave, along with the remains of other hobbit-like people called into question the assumption that homo-sapiens were the only human species alive 18,000 years ago.
But now an international team of scientists says it has proof that the so-called Hobbit is in fact a new human species.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Dead things are not "new". There is nothing new under the sun.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
How about you go prove the existence of god for the JREF million dollar challenge instead. At least they offer a substantial amount compared with the pocket change you're offering. The burden of evidence is in your hands.
Holammer 3 years ago
There is evidence of an intelligent designer already because no object or static ever made any proteins to fall together in the right order for an good thing to result. This also disproves evolution. If you want proof of God, you have to read the Bible because that is where the prophecies of Messiah were written thousands of years (as many as 4000 years) before He came.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"There is evidence of an intelligent designer already because no object or static ever made any proteins to fall together in the right order for an good thing to result."
First, that is not evidence because evolution does not believe this either, nor does science.
Second, How exactly does this disprove Evolution?
I have read the bible, and no it did not prove god exists. In fact it is one of the reasons I no longer have faith.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
The only thing that you read was your own imagination. Reading God's word is reading God's mind and you only read your own mind (or someone else's mind which is worse!).
Evolution does believe that proteins happened to fall together in the right order because you can't get from an existing design of good order to more good order without more and more of proteins falling together in the right order. You can't have more and more good order without more and more information. It doesn't happen.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I would agree I read someones imagination. Prove to me that reading the bible is like reading gods mind. You come up with some of the stupidest things to say.
"Evolution does believe that proteins happened to fall together in the right order" You show me were it says that in the Theory of Evolution, you can not because it does not. You are talking about abiogenesis, that is something different.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
More scripture, what a waste.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Respond to the issues, what (in Scripture) is a waste?
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
The scripture itself, the paper it is printed on, etc.
Killer bees are produced by selective breeding done by humans. They are not classified as a new species because they can still genetically mingle and breed with the old species.
Which scientists? How many are biologists? I am not saying it is not science, I am saying I have as yet to see anything that validates ID. I have never seen anything to validate Creationism.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
You have to watch the movie. There were a number of scientists.
The evidence of intelligent design validates the account of Creation. Also prophecies validate the accounts of Scripture.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I probably will watch the movie sooner or later. However, just because someone is a scientist does not mean they are qualified to speak on any given subject. This is why they would in fields. As for ID validating creation, it does not. What it does do is try and show everything need a creator and absorb parts the Theory of Evolution into itself. This does not validate Christian Creationism however as being the correct creation.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Creationism doesn't borrow anything from evolution. Evolution only has the Creation to "borrow" from to make its (baseless) case.
There is no contradiction with species reproducing after their kind. That is in keeping with the science of DNA.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I did not creationism borrowed anything from Evolution (learn to read, ID does. Evolution borrows nothing from creation.
"The variation of species is not evolution because the variation of the species is a part of the original design." The fossil record does not support this claim, so support it.
Genetically it is impossible to come from just two people.
"The fossils (and the geologic upheaval) are proof of the flood." The fossil record does not support this claim either.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Dr Solomon and Professor Oliver, with colleagues in the US and Switzerland, have published their findings in Nature Genetics.
"Gene transfer (horizontal gene transfer) was widely speculated for many years, but up until now, the data has been weak," Dr Solomon said.
"Our study has for the first time presented strong evidence that genes are able to pass from one species to another."
dataloreforever 3 years ago
"Our study has for the first time presented strong evidence that genes are able to pass from one species to another."
What did they do, rub against each other???
Viruses are already sets of good information gone bad but even these things speak of existing information that is being used!!!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You probably should go back and get your High School diploma.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Speak to the issues. You do not because you cannot address the issues. If you don't have a point to make, don't waste your time putting me down because the lower that you put me, the more you have to explain about why you still believe the nonsense about the evolution cult that you believe and I don't believe that nonsense because at least I know that information does not magically appear. It has to come from somewhere and don't say the environment because that was made too.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I have asked you several times to validate your claims seekmosttoprphesy. You have not validate one. You have misstated and misused science. You have claimed science states things it clearly does not. How do you argue with someone who's mind is as far gone as yours? If you do not show evidence to support your claims then I must write you off as a crazy, mindless individual. I have asked for evidence more than once on subjects you claim to be able to prove. Either validate or shut up.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Speak to an issue, don't just say that you did and try to prove that objects make information.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I never tried to prove objects make information, how much clearer does that need to be. You show me were I said that. You are the one who keeps stating it over and over again.
Darwin feared the church. Science does not denote a point of creation, it just does not claim god is that point.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Since objects do not make information, by your own admission, no life came into existence by itself or any other object.
Now if you can get straight the fact that no species ever produced something other than its own species, we would be getting somewhere.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Yes all species came from one original species. Genetics has shown that chimps and humans have a common ancienter. You can deny it, but that does not mean it is not true. You should do more research on the subject. The fossil record, everyday growing larger, provides more and more evidence for evolution.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
...and don't compare the planets to the genome!
The only things that apes and humans have in common is that of having the same Designer/Creator/God.
The fossil record provides more and more evidence of things buried by the flood.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"...and don't compare the planets to the genome!" Why?
"The only things that apes and humans have in common is that of having the same Designer/Creator/God." Prove it. Science has shown that apes and humans share common markers in there DNA. The most likely reason for this is that they share a common ancestor.
"The fossil record provides more and more evidence of things buried by the flood." Actually dating show that not to be the case. If dating is correct, then you are wrong.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
The moon Titan has an atmosphere, that when exposed to earth like sun light in a lab, produces the building blocks of like. This is how the prehistoric atmosphere of earth is believed to have been. It is believed the building blocks formed, then life eventually formed from those.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
The problem we seem to be having here is you are not capable of distinguish between a belief and a fact.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Evolution is a belief and it is a false belief at that. You could make a model of a molecule and worship it and it would be the same as believing that objects fall together in the right order for a good outcome. You also like to get hammered too, don't you?
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Evolution is a validated theory and the most correct theory we have today.
"You also like to get hammered too, don't you?" Yes I do enjoy carpentry, thanks for asking.
You have yet to tell me your education level, just one of the many things I have asked you are incapable of answering.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
I had enough education not be believe stupid things like building blocks falling togehter in the right order.
Evolution hasn't even evolved a leg to stand on! LOL!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
The fossil record clearly shows links between extinct species and modern day species.
Another example that supports evolution is research into birds of flight. Bird prefer to stay on the ground if possible. Experiments have been done that show, if possible, bird will walk over flying. That wings most likely developed to assist birds in walking up steep inclines. Flight was most likely developed later as a way to flee predators and take advantage of pray for predator birds.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
It is instinct that anything will walk when it comes into contact with something. Animals also instinctively swim when they are put into water. Many birds also do not "grasp" the limbs that they land on. Their claws close when their legs bend (backwards) at the knee. It is a tendon action and not a muscular action. It is amusing that I don't hear evolutionists talk about instinct anymore because instinct has the connotation of being preprogramed. LOL!!!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Actually if a creature is created to fly why would it not simple fly up instead of walk? This test has been done with baby bird as well, they react the same. That is the point, if you are created to fly then flying would be the instinct.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Wrong. Chickens are too lazy to fly anyway.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
What makes you believe that we have been contaminated be apes? Is it possible for you to consider the fact that humans are the ones who contaminated everything? I already know that funny dating is wrong.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"Speak to an issue, don't just say that you did"
I am not sure what you mean by this. You should convey your thoughts more clearly. Perhaps you should go to school and take a class or two. First in the English language it is impossible to speak to an issue, you can speak about an issue.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Don't speak "to" me. Speak to (of or about) an issue. Language comes in many forms and styles. Speak to the issues and don't change the subject.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
We see many designs in nature that are not from intelligence but there are also many designed things which can only be by intelligence because smarts do not come from random forces and objects.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"Smarts" as you call them can and do come from changes. People, or babies to more precise, are not born knowing all things. They must learn and adapt to survive. Babies cannot talk, which would be "smarts" as you put it. This is a learned behavior. Yes, random experiences and forces shape our lives. That is why you, most likely, are like neither of your parents.
All things are either designed or not designed, you cannot have it both ways.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Also, your statement "many designed things in nature which can only be by intelligence", there is no design in nature that I have ever seen that can only be explained by intelligent design. If this was true then it would be a simple task to prove ID.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Designs that contain information are of intelligent design. It is that simple.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"Designs that contain information are of intelligent design. It is that simple." That is a statement, but not necessarily a true statement. Prove it is a fact.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
The proof that intelligent design contains other world information is that static forces and objects do not make any kind of information at all. No known rule of science can explain that kind of information.
If you say that proteins happen to fall together in the right order, that is the same as saying there is a Creator only you attribute that to objects and random static chance which is not very intelligent.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"If you say that proteins happen to fall together in the right order, that is the same as saying there is a Creator only you attribute that to objects and random static chance which is not very intelligent." Man the crazy just runs out of you doesn't it?
dataloreforever 3 years ago
I am not the one saying that objects are able to do things.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Well I never said "that objects are able to do things", so who said it then? The only comments I can find that say anything about this is yours.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Stephen Hawkings shows how the universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
You believe anything, don't you? You glorify the Universe saying it is able to "create itself OUT OF NOTHING". You are very deluded. No object ever did anything of its own. That is contrary to science itself. You believe in magic, you believe in objects, you believe nonsense.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"You believe anything, don't you?" The same could be asked of you. You will believe someone like Hovind. I did not say the universe could create itself, you do not read very well do you? I said Hawking can show how it happens. There is a difference.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
No one has ever shown objects making information. You are so deluded.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"No one has ever shown objects making information. You are so deluded." I never claimed they did, you are the one who is deluded. You keeping saying this, but I am not arguing the point, nor am I claim I, or anyone else, has claimed this. If you know someone who claims this then you should talk to them and not me.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
This is your problem somehow you have it in your head that objects make information. You for some reason feel you must prove this wrong. I do not know how this got in your head and I do not care. You can stop any time repeating this nonsense, no one is arguing the point. Just because it is the most intelligent thing you have said does not mean you need to keep repeating it.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
I will stop repeating that objects do not make information when it is acknowledged. Evolution requires that objects make information both for life to start AND for life to continue changing from one species to another.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"I will stop repeating that objects do not make information when it is acknowledged." I have acknowledged every time you have said it. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Evolution does not require objects to create information. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about how life started. As for the continuation of life, no that does not require objects to create information either. It requires life to have the ability to change, which is does.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
In fact the fact you would believe something Hovind said over something Hawking said scares me. However the on thing thing I have yet to say I believe in is the Theory of Evolution. That theory states no where that objects create information. You so far the only person to make claims in that area.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Even Darwin acknowledged that life has to make itself. Why can you face the facts?
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
What I find most interesting is that you do not understand religion (creation) and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. What I mean by that is one does not disprove the other, or vise versa. If the Theory of Evolution were proven tomorrow, and it pretty much is proven as fact, it would disprove creation as a possibility. However, the same is true for creation. Most of this crap you are talking about has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
I guess someone got the money or they pulled the challenge, because the long video challenge is no longer up.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Found the long video.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
You lost.
runeman00 3 years ago
umm. the sone dosent "come up" the sun comes into an individuals vision because of the spin of the earth and its rotation around the sun.... like sceince told us. =]
psykick10 3 years ago
The sun does come up in relation to where we are. The devil is in the definitions.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Are you stoned?
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Objects do not produce information. The information in DNA was not made by objects. The information in DNA was also not made by static energy or light. Creatures did not make themselves. Everything that exists was made by a Designer/Creator/God.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
That is a good example of bad induction.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
You don't want to be honest so science (honest observation) is proving you wrong and you still don't want to admit it so you believe silly things like rocks having power to do something they clearly do not do.
Idolatry is an age old problem and Judaism/Christianity is the only thing that ever said, "Hey wait a minute! Carved objects do not have any power to do anything!"
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Actually I do not disagree science could be wrong, that is science. The theory of gravity could be 100% incorrect. However it is induction to believe, that with no proof whatsoever, the universe is uniform because there is a god. That is worse that what science is being accused of. As for believing rocks have power, I am not sure what you mean by that.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
"you believe silly things like rocks having power to do something they clearly do not do." I in no way shape or form believe this, and neither does science. You, on the other hand, believe that some invisible powerful being (who there has ever been a shred of proof to prove exists), willed everything into existence. You also believe this is not a problem of induction in itself. Who is the one not being honest.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
As soon as you calm down a bit, you can learn something if that's what you really want. I believe God exists because of what I see. The same goes for Creation. I believe there is a Creator because of everything I see. Everything reproduces after its kind with variations that help to accommodate changing environments. I also see rare random accidental mutations which have NO comparison to the variation of species being corrected within a few generations. I believe what I do based on what I see.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
First of all I am always calm, I think you are the one who needs to calm down. You are going to teach me something, you are not even capable of stringing words together in a coherent manner. I believe there is not a creator because of everything I see, that goes for god as well. It is nice to see that you admit evolution is true. "Everything reproduces after its kind with variations that help to accommodate changing environments. I also see rare random accidental mutations"
dataloreforever 3 years ago
The "rare random accidental mutations" are totally insignificant. The variation of species is a part of the existing design. New species do not come from existing designs because the design already existed.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
The problem with your statement is if you get enough "rare random accidental mutations" to make a 2% deviation in DNA then you get new species. "Rare random accidental mutations" are cumulative in nature. Another words 1+1+1+1+1+1+etc= new species.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Wrong, wrong, wrong because your mutations are so rare and when they do occur and when they are not bad mutations and even if they are bad mutations, they are deleted within a few generations. It is so rare and even if it did happen, it is corrected within a few generations.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I agree, you are wrong. If a mutation happens and is passed on, spread from one individual to the next, then a new mutation happens and spreads with the old mutation, etc. Genetic research has show that mutations in species is happening every generation. Enough of these mutations over time and you will get new species.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
You are confusing mutations with the variation of species. It is actually evident that there is a sort of feeling of the environment going on. That is a part of the preexisting design. It is not at all accidental as you suggest. Accidents don't have direction and purpose. The design was already there.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I never suggested it was an accident. Prove it is design.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
I don't have to prove anything. You have to observe the design and understand that this particular information and this particular design is not made by objects. I cannot open your eyes.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I cannot open your eyes. If you are going to make crazy statements, hen yes you must prove them. You cannot prove design, that is why it has not been done.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Information by definition is intelligent when contained in a designed structure. These structures or bodies are designs not unlike houses but these designs are much more complex than houses. Only bold faced liars would deny all of these things.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
A statement like requires proof there is a soul. Are you now going to try and prove there is a soul. So a library has a soul and is intelligent by your definition.
"Only bold faced liars would deny all of these things." Oh nice touch, I must be a liar if I do not agree with you.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
A library has a creator. All the information in the library also has a creator. All souls were envisioned when Adam was made.
The bold faced liars lied to you and you believed them (some of them could have been deceived like you). They are all deceived but there comes a point when the lying becomes intentional.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I do not disagree that a library was a creator, as god has a creator, man. I contend, that by your definition, you think a library has a soul. My comment has nothing to do with who created what.
"The bold faced liars lied to you and you believed them (some of them could have been deceived like you). They are all deceived but there comes a point when the lying becomes intentional." I feel the same way about you.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Talk about listening to liars, Kent Hovind is a born again, proven liar.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Kent Hovind, I knew this from just looking at him, came from a conservative, fundamental, bible believing church (because that is where I came from). These people, like us, know a lot about the Bible. We don't know so much about the outside world but we do know a lot about the Bible. We still have some things to learn about Jewish culture and customes but we learn fairly easily from what we already know about the Bible. I have the slight advantage of having been raised in other places as well.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Kent Hovind (continued) is not an intentional liar, there are just some things that he is still learning but there is so much that you can learn from things that he knows. The only parts that I would disagree with is his political stance (the tax evasion thing) and his harsh edges towards unbelievers. I understand his harshness because I am familiar with his background. The tax evasion thing is a little hard to understand because I thought that he was a minister. (I don't have all the facts)
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"Kent Hovind (continued) is not an intentional liar" ok, the man is in prison for stealing, which is pretty much the same thing as lying. Not to mention he has been shown a liar on more than on subject, like his education.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Give him a break, he studied some nine years for his PhD. and it is nothing more than philosophy anyway.
His "stealing" is subject to interpretation of the law. He seemed to think that because he was doing a non-profit ministry, he was not obligated to pay taxes although he seemed to preach that no one should have to pay taxes. Well, he did not succeed at convincing the authorities and that is why he went to jail.
I work for a living and I pay taxes but I believe too much is taken from me.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
What ever you think, Hovind is still a liar and a thief.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
You don't think that Hovind should be able to provide the world with a service and not be burdened with taxes because of the benefit he is doing for the world? What if he doesn't live an extravagant life like some do and puts all the money back into the ministry?
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
First I do not think Hovind is providing any kind of service or benefit to the world. Second a thief is a thief.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
There are some good things that you could learn from Mr. Hovind, well, not necessarily from him but from his background. There is a lot of knowledge there. I should know and it is not about being a thief. It is about effectively serving well.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Hovind has nothing to offer but misinformation. It has been proven that most of his degrees are honorary only.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Hovind has honorary degrees because the educational institutions have recognized his expertize in those fields.
Objects still do not make information.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
That is not why they give honorary degrees. So Steven Colbert is an expert in Fine Arts, that is what his honorary degree is in. Science, nor I, claim objects make information.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
There have been a lot of complaints that honorary degrees are totally worthless. At one time, they were given very rarely and to people who achieved great things in those fields.
Now, they are tossed in by a university, anytime they need a speaker for graduation.
imrational 3 years ago
We have the ability to choose what we read and what we believe. That is what America is all about. If you choose Seekmosttoprophesy, to believe nonsense, you will do nonsense which is self-defeating.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
That is why I don't believe the nonsense of evolution and the Darwinist cult religion because it means that you will do evil nonsense like believing that objects produce information. That is equivalent to idol worship and believing that a carved object can do anything for you. You just happen to believe that the objects made you what you are.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
What a load of crap. You show me in the theory of evolution it states anywhere that "believing that a carved object can do anything for you" or "You just happen to believe that the objects made you what you are." You have no idea what you are talking about and you are repeating stuff that people who do not know what they are talking about are saying. Evolution is a proven scientific theory, period.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Evolution is losing even its belief stage because it is not even supported with any scientific evidence whatsoever! It is utter nonsense and a belief in magic. Objects do not make information.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
So you do not believe micro evolution?
Evolution says nothing about objects making information. You cannot show me were it says that, because it does not say it.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Of course evolution does not say objects make information because it would be obvious that evolution is not true if it did. Evolution is a theory (that was not thought out very well). Evolution ASSUMED that information could be added without ever really considering whether or not it was possible. Darwin saw similarities in creatures and assumed they were related. These similarities are from having One Creator of everything and the materials used are all the same. Evolution is a very poor theory.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Intelligent design and creation are not even theories and much poorer in construction. In order to be a scientific theory it must have some proof. Again, do you believe in micro evolution?
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Intelligent design is observable science and observable facts. Creation is a historical account. No kind of evolution happens because the variation of species is a part of the original design so that we can live in changing environments. That's not evoltution because the integrity of the original species is maintained, information is lost and changed somewhat but no information is ever added. There's a big difference between changing existing information and adding information that wasn't there.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"Intelligent design is observable science and observable facts. Creation is a historical account." Show me one case were intelligent design has been observed. Where is creation a historical fact. All scientific date show neither of these choices are the most likely to have occurred. Micro evolution is part of the evolution theory, and is a proven part of the evolution theory. It in itself validates evolution as a theory.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
If you haven't observed DNA sequence showing intelligent origin, that is not my problem.
Evolution is nonsense. Things reproduce because of their design. The only problem is that you don't want to admit there is a Designer/Creator/God.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"If you haven't observed DNA sequence showing intelligent origin, that is not my problem." I would have to believe you have not "observed it either", however I have read about it. Speculation with little supporting evidence. You make a lot of statements of fact with little in the way of supporting evidence. As for not admitting there is a god, I choose to believe there is not god, you choose to believe there is one. Neither of us can prove are position true.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Christianity is the only belief that can be proven because it is the only belief based on fact. Everything about Christianity is historical. It is about God's historical relationship to us. ...and the existence of God is supported by observable science because intelligent design is observable science.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Christianity is not provable or can be proven historically factual. The story of Jesus now is believed to be borrowed from other religions, as is Noah's Ark. Intelligent design is not observable science, stop smoking weed. Your lack of understanding of science is dumbfounding. You have nothing but misinformation. "A human species would never be another species" prove that statement with logic.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
You wish and hope that none of the historical information that we have is correct because if it is correct, you have to confess God as your Maker and your Savior but you cannot prove that the history is not true because you do not have any other history because there is no other history.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claims, I in no way shape or form have to prove it is not correct. This entire statement has to be the dumbest thing you have muttered as of now. "I can see the result of your fingers typing but I see no support for what you are saying." I was wrong I just read this and now it is the dumbest thing you have said.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Science get closer everyday to proving you wrong. It may not be there yet, but one day it will be.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Science has already proven the existence of God. It is just that you haven't understood it yet.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You show me were science has proven the existence of god. You like to make a lot of claims with no proof.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Intelligent design is science that has observed design which is of an intelligent origin. Not only is it intelligent, it is far beyond anything we can duplicate and there is a lot of it. So just accept the fact that there is a God. Now you need to try to understand God and what wants us to do.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Intelligent design is not science, that may or may not observed design which is of intelligent origin.
"Not only is it intelligent, it is far beyond anything we can duplicate and there is a lot of it." Prove this statement.
My belief is there is no god, it has nothing to do with any science or more to the point of evolution. My lack of a belief in god is personal as your belief in a god is personal. Proving or disproving any theory or hypothesis will change either of our beliefs.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
You need to look at it another way. I believe there is God and you BELIEVE there is not God. What historical evidence do you have that God is not? What scientific proof do you have that God is not? I have both historical and scientific evidence that everything that God says is true. You have nothing. I have everything.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I see no historical evidence, furthermore you cannot prove historical accuracy. I do not have historical evidence god does not exist (nor did I calm that I disbelieve in god because of historical evidence), it is a belief not a fact. As your idea there is a god is a belief and not a fact. I do not need any proof to believe there is a god. "I have both historical and scientific evidence that everything that God says is true." No you do not. Show me one piece of historic proof you have.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Belief in intelligent design is a belief in fact. This fact does NOT contradict the historical records found in the Bible. You cannot prove the historical records found in the Bible are not true. The most you can do is speculate and speculation is not true.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago