Why would you want to reject the greatest love there is ....the greatest love that will ever love you.. the love that gave His life for you!!! No matter how long you don't belive in Him....no matter how much you try to persude yourself....God exists...and Jesus is your Savior if you will let Him be....why give up this gift?
That is a really persuasive arguement. The lack of actual evidence was amazing. You simply argued that somehow I am missing some great love and it made it true. The blunt statement "god exists" without proving it to be true, wow.
@InTheHeartOfChrist That love doesnt even exist... its in your head, you might need his love cuz you feel like you cant get any one elses.. thats all this sounds like to me.
Do I have to state all the reasons to point 2? It has absolutely no relevance to today's society. It's all assuming that you cannot live happily knowing this fact. Sounds to me as though it's another brainwashing attempt by Christians to scare innocent children, and keep them from changing their minds. THIS IS NOT a new tactic, he has simply repeated what has been preached for thousands of years.
PASCALS WAGER? lol That is your response to Atheism? I will say 2 obvious flaws with it. 1) It only applies to the Christian faith, Pascal stated that he observed all religions and concluded that Christianity as the right one. Christians have the arrogance to say this even today, even though 49% of the rest of the world believe in other things. 2) His core argument is: if you live your life assuming there is a God, you will not go to hell, so why not believe in him? Ummmmm, for many reasons.
Yes, but he also listed reasons to support this statement, and to disprove it. The second point I made is taken from an excerpt in his wager. An example of how ridiculously often he contradicts his own theory and analysis. He states that if you believe in God (On the topic of the afterlife), and you die, and you go to heaven, or not go to heaven, it doesn't matter. Either way you win. I cannot think of a reason to HAVE faith if nothing happens when you die. That's the whole point. FLAWED.
The part you missed is that he considered living a good life a reward in and of itself. Most poeple will relate to this except those of a sociopathic bent.
Then why is it necessary to believe in God to live a full and happy life? Do you not see how illogical this is? His wager is more of a scapegoat tactic just in case Atheism is wrong. It doesn't have any evidence disproving Atheism, only insurance for scared people who fear death.
By living according to a moral compass one would naturally come to recognize and pursue the idea of an ultimately virtuous being. If you don't believe me just try it. Humans are born with a moral compass-why do we blush? why is it difficult to take a human life? because we have a moral compass.Not to be nit picky but I think you mean an escape tactic not a scapegoat tactic in this case.He deemed it impossible to prove or disprove atheism by reason without faith.Fact is nothing can be save ideas.
So, once again morality comes into the argument. Typical. But nevertheless, morality can also be explained by science as well, through observation. Since the beginning of time animals have been working in communities to accomplish things (food, survival etc) and obviously realized that working together and treating each other right had a greater affect than not treating each other right. Chimps and other species have been observed doing this today by scientists. So we can dispute that point.
It might sound cheesy but that's the reality of the situation. It's a well observed fact in scientific terms. Chimps, Elephants (especially elephants), Lions, Any species really. They aren't religious. So what makes us any different? Because a few people write down a few rules 4,000 years ago, makes them solely responsible for moralities explanation? Ok...I don't get it.
You won't prove or disprove anything that isn't abstract thought. There will always be a reason to doubt if one chooses. That goes for atheism like any other belief.
"No he said if you make decisions in life as though there were a God you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. " As if which god exists? Do you follow ever rule of every religion? If Pascals Wager is right then you must live like every god proposed is valid.
There has never been any SCIENTIFIC evidence against it either.
Not accepting evolution is not a legitimate excuse anymore, regardless of your faith. Denying it is just plain ignorant, and is definitely a form of mental illness.
Yes I agree she can say that till the cows come home, unfortunately it does not make it true. I did not feel I needed to offer any evidence sense she actually did not offer any at any point either. However I have talked about some of the evidence in other videos, due to time I could not in the video. The problem you both seem to have is most atheists, at least the ones I know, do not base their atheism off of science. So even if she could show evolution to be a lie it would not matter.
Actually I except what science has to say about the subject. However it does not actually matter how we got here, nor does religion actually answer the question. If you make something up to answer a question is the question really answered? As for evolution, yes like any scientific law, theory, or hypothesis it could be wrong. However, unlike religion it actually tries to validate these ideas and/or falsify them.
Who said I do not accept evolution, in fact I just stated the opposite of this just 3 minutes ago, or "Actually I except what science has to say about the subject." I also except what science says about gravity. I except that a lot of things I enjoy today, like having this conversation from the convince of my home, is because of science. The car I drive, the house I live in, etc. SCIENCE.
Furthermore showing evolution to be a lie does not show her religion or the answers it pretends to give to be correct. Another words, I can't believe I have to explain this to you, even if evolution could be shown to be wrong (which it has yet to be) that does not make creation the right answer by default.
So yes pal you are and she are so far off base it is embarrassing. Why we are talking about embarrassing you will notice I actually spelled it correctly, sorry I had to correct you.
You say evolution has yet to be proven wrong? It still has yetto be proven correct! Its only a theory and one with plenty of holes in it too.Granted micro-evolution is observable but macro-evolution is a different story. By the way proving evolution doesn't disprove Intelligent design.
Yes in science they try to actually prove these ideas wrong, as they have done over and over with the theory of evolution. No one has accomplished it yet. They also make predictions and do experiments. I would beg to differ that evolution has more than been show to be the predominate theory at this time.
"By the way proving evolution doesn't disprove Intelligent design." When did I say it did?
OK. you seem not to understand basic things. She is claiming if you accept evolution you are an atheist. This is not a true claim.
She is also claiming evolution is a lie. This is a falsified claim in that she provides no evidence to back up her claim nor has she falsified evolution in the scientific arena.
I never made the claim that evolution some how falsifies creation or I.D.
She never claimed if you accept evolution you're an atheist! She says that atheists have been lied to about evolution!
In her opinion evolution is a lie, she has a right to that opinion.Evolution certainly hasn't been proven in the scientific arena or any other for that matter.
So the evolution that theists accept is different then that atheists accept? Again you need to talk to a biologist if you wish to argue over the validity of evolution.
I have no idea what she was thinking when she made this video, nor do you. However we can determine what she means from the sentences she speaks. She clearly equates evolution with atheism. She clearly believes they are related subjects. She clearly believes that somehow she can disprove evolution. She clearly thinks this will somehow dismantle atheism. She is wrong on every account.
Pascal's wager is flawed? There you go with the empty claims. Care to back that up by pointing out the flaw?Oh sorry i forgot you're just full of hot air.
Equates evolution with atheism? Thats where you're off base. She said "all you atheists have been lied to about evolution" where does that equate atheism and evolution?
Pascal's wager leaps over the fact that people believe in different gods, or that there are more than one god to choose from. Also when I did go to church I remember a sermon on truly believing. If you only believe to be safe or out of fear do you not think the creator would know this. It's biggest flaw most likely is that it actually does nothing to prove a god or gods actually exist in the first place. It is the same as claiming you will get presents if you believe in Santa Claus.
I guess in my interpretation of the wager I accounted for the natural moral compass inate in humans (if you take pschology to be a science-there is scientific evidence of this).About the sermon I think it is wrong(if you go by the Chritian belief)-reading in proverbs:" the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom"There really are no proofs per se in religion or science. Proof is a mathmatical term. Science only evaluates evidence and interprets it according to the accepted postulates.
Oh wait did I just crush you, I thought I was only full of hot air. I guess not.
So what did her video have to do with atheism then? Exactly what talking point did she make about atheism? If you are right she had no talking points on atheism at all. So why is he video titled "If U want to stay an Atheist don't watch this video" if she was not actually going to talk about atheism? You have pretty much single handed show she is an idiot. Good job.
Funny how you say there are mountains of evidence for evolution yet you mention none.Truth is that all that evidence is subject to interpretation.That is all evolution amounts to interpretation not proof.
Try getting anywhere in the scientific community while claiming to be religious-pretty obvious the jusy is no longer out with the scientific community when it comes to beliveing in a higher power of any kind.
Maybe you should learn more about what youre' talking before you throw stones.
The proponents of evolution are always the atheists just look for any debate on the subject.If you're trying to insinuate I'm claiming theres an atheist "conspiracy" you're wrong again the 2 ideas just seem to go hand in hand.
Your picture belongs in the dictionary next to the word asinine.
I suggest you spend alot of time sitting on the nearest toilet-its apparent you're full of it right over the top.
It does not matter if atheists debate about evolution or not, some atheists have a strong interest in science. Just because they are interested in the subject does not mean it is somehow part of anything else. Prove to me atheism has anything to do with evolution.
"Your picture belongs in the dictionary next to the word asinine." "I suggest you spend a lot of time sitting on the nearest toilet-its apparent you're full of it right over the top. "
You nor she has a leg to stand on when you claim atheism is based on science. It just goes to show you no nothing about atheists, and she has clearly shown a lack of knowledge about science as well. If you truly want to debate evolution you should find someone with a biology degree to talk to. I am an atheist, not a biologists. I am sure there are a few atheist biologists if you need to find someone who is both.
lol... look at him go... loggin in and out of his accounts to down thumb me... he's up to 3 so far... just cos I pointed out he was lying...and where he was lying... as if giving me the downthumb makes his 'bearing of false witness' go away.... hahahahaha they are the silliest people I've ever corresponded with... seriously!
Hey guydecervens should I report all those logins to my friends in Google? lol I'm sure one of them will delete all those accounts you have there!
It's looks like MumblingMichey is on one of his bipolar manic phases. I guess that answers my question, "what sort of crazy people troll for atheism?" And why are they all so damn ugly?????
Or even one for idiots who breech their YT T&C by having more than one account.... whats say we see what YT have to say about that.... ??? hmmmm...
Seriously...the second you have to LIE to prove your beliefs...is the same second you lose!
Remember now... your lying... that's bearing false witness... ohhh the pain... of burning in hell... God won't be pleased... you'll have to explain it on Judgment day...to God and Jesus...and Probably to Arnold Schwarzenegger too....
The levels of education in the US must be at an all time low for anyone to accept any of this bullshit of being relevant!
Whats more her ideas require the 'absence' or willful 'suspension' of reason... so she can never have been a reasoned person ......its not like she had an ability to 'reason' and it went away!
I think what I'm trying to say... in a nice way...datalore is she's too 'stupid' to be an atheist!
i am a Christan that believes in evolution i know god can not be proven and evolution is close to being completely proven.... i think something had to start it and that god started the big bang off and let it go with small influences.... we are in his image is what it says.... that dose not mean we did not evolve into his image i hate when someone says you cant believe in both what your saying is right and atheists are smart i know that. iv never met a stupid atheist, so thats my opinion thanks
I saw that vid too, and I wanted to make a comment about all fossils being transitional fossils, but of course that person disabled ratings and comments. That always seemed to me to be the youtube equivalent of somebody putting their fingers in their ears and saying 'la la la I can't hear you, la la la'
My point exactly, if abiogenesis is not part of evolution then why bring it up and act like it is. I think my point has been clear from the beginning. It only seems to be you that does not get it. So I guess if you examined the evidence that would mean the problem must be you. No embarrassment here, but I am not you, so I have nothing to be embarrassed about.
bra you said thers evidence but some wouldnt believe the evidence [in evolution] evidence is a solid thing so if it where evidence TRUE evidence it would be no room for doubt... theres only theories and assumptions im not bias to either side jus making a point.... most and all ideas of origin are jus theories for the most part..
Is there an such thing as TRUE evidence? The problem is that no matter how good the evidence is we have a choose to believe it or not, regardless if it is right or wrong. Those who truly study the evidence for things like the theory of evolution have found the evidence to be more than conclusive. Those who decide not to believe the evidence do so for no better reason generally that they personally choose to. Most of these people have not studied the evidence nor the theory.
Great vid except you missed one thing. If I recall correctly she also went on a tangent about Abiogenesis calling it evolution... Which are two separate things, lol.
Oh I don't doubt that you know they are separate things, I was just stating that SHE did not know. You seem very knowledgeable and this is why I respect you. Good videos.
I thought maybe I actually did forget to mention that in this video. I was not trying to say you are accusing me of not knowing this. I agree she seems to have no clue that there are separate theories in science, let alone multiple fields.
Lol, yes, and this is why she makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time. I sincerely wish there were less people like her in this country. Unfortunately, there are not and this country is dominated by them.
Are you saying that she did say they are not the same thing? If she did please give me the time frame in which she said it g4. Yes, I do have a valid point, atheism has nothing to do with science and only the ignorant like this and you thinks it does. So no she did nothing but fail, just as you have g4.
How is it relevant? What is your argument? If she says atheism has nothing to do with science, you somehow WIN? You are really, really, really dumb. You should delete your response and videos to avoid further embarrassment.
It has nothing to do with winning or losing. The truth is the truth, and the truth is atheism has nothing to do with science or the other way around. If evolution was shown to be false tomorrow it would not change my reasons for being an atheist. I can't speak for all atheists, but I see no connection between the two subjects.
Insults from ignorance, wow could I expect more.
You should stop leaving comments so you do not further embarrass yourself.
It is relevant because abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
Her entire arguement is that evolution and abiogenesis are somehow wrong so that means atheism is wrong as well. She has not falsified evolution or abiogenesis, but even if she could it would not effect atheism in the least.
I did say they are two separate things, because I, unlike her, and probably unlike you, actually at least somewhat look into something before arguing against it or making a decision pertaining to it. There is no way she wins anything except for ignorant moron of the year. In that case, yes, you are right, she does win hands down. I actually DID have a valid point, whether or not you or her are capable of understanding it is not the question.
Yeah, wasn't talking to you, sorry if it shows up that way :/ He replied to something I said so my intent was to reply to him. Sorry for the mix up. Also, I recommend you give up on the argument with him... I have read quite a bit of it and he seems hopeless.
A youtube glitch. I blocked him after his last comment, so yes I have pretty much given up on him saying anything intelligent. Sorry for the confusion, I thought he had come back with a different account, but his comment made no sense. After reading twice I realized it must not be him.
Many scientists dissent from the modern evolutionary synthesis and many hundreds have dissented from the theory. You will find them if you search "a scientific dissent from darwinism" or "Dissent From Darwinism". The first two search results on Google take you to a site where you can see their names under "download the list". There were just under 800 respected scientists on that list over a year ago and the number is growing all the time. It is you who are arguing with good science.
I am interested in a few thing, if you actually could show me that modern science is somehow wrong, to what end? What will change if the Theory of Evolution is proven wrong? What will take it's place and what will that mean for man kind? What degree in science do you hold?
I find this arguement interesting, but lacking substance, if not evolution then what? What is the theory they wish to replace it with and where is the evidence to support it. I think if you look back I have never once claimed evolution to be anything more than the best theory we have at the time. It could be wrong, just as gravity could be wrong, or any other theory could be wrong. However trying to discredit evolution as a theory does not credit any other theory as true.
Does there have to be 'a theory'? Can we not just follow the evidence wherever it leads? What are people defending? A theory or a worldview? Think of the political and sociological implications of discarding the old theory. Not to mention the careers that are nailed to it's mast. I can't offer a contradictory theory but I would say research should be allowed to progress and neo Darwinists should step out of the way of progress. Could Darwinism become the first acedemic transitional fossil?
So why do we need an science at all? You should probably get rid of your computer, stop driving a car, move out of your house with its indoor plumbing, etc., after all that is where science leads. What a load of crap. There is more and more research into evolution everyday. There is evidence to support it regardless if you expect it or not. The fact that not one person or scientist has been able to falsify it adds to its strength. Someday someone may falsify it, but that day is not today.
So truthfully why do you argue about the validity of evolution but not gravity, thermal dynamics, string theory, etc? It can't be that you simple do not believe this one scientific theory, you either trust no science or you have a special reason for not expecting this one theory. How about the big bang and expansion, do you except them? You have already mentioned I.D., so obviously you except that as being factual. If you do where is the scientific data supporting it as fact?
I never said we don't need science. What we don't need is bad science trying to distort the evidence to fit a flawed theory. Gravity is not in question, it is a fact. Evolution is not proven and is very much in question. Yes, I accept some form of intelligence as being responsible for the cell. It is observable. This much at least I agree on with the modern evolutionists. I do not however believe in aliens so I would sooner keep an open mind and follow the evidence than sign up to some UFO club.
Is gravity a fact? How do you know that it is not bad science? How do you know the evidence has not been distorted to fit a flawed theory? You say Evolution is not proven and is in question, but evolution has more evidence to support it as fact than gravity does, so how can you justify your statement? How can you make the claim there is an intelligence behind the cell when there is no evidence to support that statement. I.D. is far from proven as even close to factual.
Back to aliens. We have agreed that no where in the theory of evolutions are aliens mentioned, so why are you trying to discredit evolution with aliens again? The complexity arguement is far from provable, and if it was you would have to except alien intelligence to be just as likely as any other explanation. After all that is exactly what the claim of god creating everything is a story about an alien creating life.
Now take the time to go back and answer my questions, after all I have answered every question you have asked me.
By the way if I have not said it already evolution is just as proven as gravity is. There have been plenty of experiments performed that have supported evolution as fact. They would be observable as well. You should do a little more research into the subject matter. Especially sense you keep returning to this idea that somehow aliens are tied to the Theory of Evolution.
I can only address one issue at a time so if I have not adequately answered all your questions it is because you ask too many at one time. Yes, evolutionary theory is tied in with aliens. That is a fact even though evolution itself is not. As I said Directed Panspermia, a theory used by evolutionists to explain the complexity of the cell, states that aliens seeded life on earth. I will return to this idea as long as you question it's centrality to modern neo Darwinism and evolutionary theory
It is really pointless that we continue this conversation. You have shown you lack a bases in reality. Aliens have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. If you wish to continue under this premise please provide we with evidence of one evolutionary biologist that has published a paper on aliens as they pertain to evolution. I have already said that i do not believe Dawkins actually believes this to be true nor have you provide evidence to prove he does.
As for addressing one issue at a time. I am done with this conversation unless you answer my questions. How is evolutionary theory tied to aliens if evolution is not? So if you believe in I.D. what do you believe the intelligence behind it is? Also if you believe god created anything then you believe Directed Panspermia.
Modern evolutionary synthesis which forms a logical account of evolution has as one of it's strongest pillars Directed Panspermia - the theory that aliens seeded life on earth. This is their evolutionary theory for evolution! ID is observable and that is why evolutionists have developed the 'alien' aspect of directed panspermia. What it ID? I think some of the Vedic philosophies may come closest to explaining it. They call it 'Creative Intelligence'. But you would have to talk to a philosopher.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Panspermia is not part of the theory of evolution. its a hypothesis in its own right and was one of the first ideas to explain the origin of life in the first place.
We have actually found the chemicals responsible for life along with basic replication material and a huge chunk of organic material on meteorites (in space not on earth) this does add evidence but not to evolution to Abiogenisis!
Alien simply means 'not of this earth'. So the moon is alien yet devoid of life (as far as we know)
Hovever directed panspermia is not touted by ANY evolutionists or Abiogenisits... it has nothing whatsoever to do with science... it might have something to do with science fiction though!
Evolutionists did not create the idea of panspermia... abiogenisists did... and again...just so you understand directed panspermia was invented by 'Hollywood'
If you know different supply the peer reviewed paper on 'directed panspermia' since you think its true...you must have some evidence...!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Now francis crick made a point that HUMANITY could use directed panspermia to colonise other worlds with living organisms from earth... is that what your touting?
Nobody believe this crap you guys spout...except yourselves...and since you do no research you're being sidestepped...
So you might like me to show you a guy who's using evolution to create life...and has already done so... would that fuck your sad little life up... should I ruin your little peace of mind there by showing you the US government giving him a grant and taking a 10% share in his company... which is now getting ready to start producing living organisms designed on a PC... would that fuck your head up? or should I leve you in blissful ignorance... which will it be pal... the blue pill or the red pill?
In fact the 'theory' has changed in the last 140 years... for one thing most people believe that there is a tree of life... TOL for short... well only ten years ago the TOL was replaced with the 'forest' of life after the discovery of cross species genetic interaction! However the original theory did not alter by a lot... it just got a massive injection of new data.
And that investigation started after one woman in the US gave rise to a new species herself. Its called Hela.
Just so you know signing a petition is not the same as falsifying a theory. None of this scientists on the list give their reason for not accepting evolution nor has one of them falsified the theory.
Another of your proofs is that we are all made from the same elements? Another is the 'geographic distribution of species'. I don't know what sort of science would consider those as proofs of anything. Another is 'genetic changes over ages'. Small variations, adaptations and mutations do not prove a single origin for all species on earth. It only shows life adapts to it's environment. I am most interested in what you claim is the 'Molecular and anatomical' evidence. The 'lab work'? Ha ha ha!
Pleas fell free to give another theory that explains either of these things? Yes life adapts to it environment, or another word for that is evolves. Here is an idea do your own research. There is plenty of information out there on molecular and anatomical evidence for evolution. Come back when you have an actual arguement. Better yet come back when you have published your first paper falsify anything.
lol... no... another proof is not that we are made from the same elements. Elements are are in the periodic table... you should look that up some time.
Evolutions goes further... it stated (in advance of the research mind you) that if it were to be true then all life will carry the same genetic encoding and same manner of coding.
This has in fact been proven... in the laboratory... you share 96% of your DNA with a chimp... 75% with your dog... and 33% with a tree! So erm... tough!
Your first 'proof' is Archaeopteryx (feathered dinosaur). This is a proven hoax. October 2000 edition of National Geographic admitted this. You say there are thousands of such transitional fossils but there are only a few and they are all false. For example, Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryxis are flightless birds, Sinosauropteryx and Sinocalliopteryx were dinosaurs with frayed colligen fibres, Microraptor gui was a gliding bird and Shuvuuia was a bird. None were transitional fossils. Any other?
Actually Archaeopteryx has never been shown to be a hoax, again you can choose to not except it, but it has not been falsified. As for National Geographic, I could not find the article, so if you wish me to believe you on that point send me the original article.
Archaeopteryx is a hoax... really... and you heard this where?
Ohh I see...you are getting confused with Archaeoraptor liaoningensis... which was a hoax... and later shown to be so by who now? creation scientists? nope as usual creation science didn't do any actual science! who proved it false? ... THOSE PESKY EVOLUTIONISTS!
It was shown to be a pretty crude hoax perpetrated to get the fossils which are worth money out of china! Whats more...this crap still goes on...its a disgrace!
and BTW... simply sticking to the 'down thumb' when I point out the actaul facts of the matter... which are reported on CREATIONIST websites... is in fact again 'bearing false witness' and the punishment for that...as you know... is frying in hell with satan ramming his pitchfork up yer ass!!
are you now logging in to down thumb me... lol... spot of lying for God ehh? remember... Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
So your walking the road to sin right there... it'll be terrible hot in hell btw!
In fact Dawkins actually said it was possible aliens seeded life on earth. Why he said it is beside the matter. He said it and claimed it as a possible explanation for the first self replicating cell.
Who mentioned God? Don't go changing the subject. The evidence for an intelligent design is obvious to anybody who firmly grasps the complexity of the cell. Darwin had no idea how complex the cell was or he would never have posited it developed by chance. As for God, I am not capable or interested in arguing his existence. I can only argue with regard to actual science and will gladly do so on any proof of such you think you have. You did say there was much proof. Shall we examine some of this?
I am not changing the subject, I am say that Dawkins when asked about the interview he gave said that the alien scenario was just as likely as the god creation Ben was proposing. He does not believe the alien scenario anymore than he believes go did it.
So what evidence do you have to support complexity?
As for the theory of evolution it is not my evidence but the evidence provided by science in the field of biology. The theory of evolution has yet to be falsified nor the evidence proven wrong. You can argue with me all you want but it does nothing to falsify evolution. So until you get a biology degree and falsify the theory you arguements are worthless. Arguing with me, someone who does not have a degree in biology is pointless and proves nothing. I am not going to except you over science
Actually Darwins theory has been disproved in many ways but the comment space here does not allow me to give you the full thesis. It would be better if you gave me say, just one 'proof', of this theory and I can tell you why that is not a proof. Surely it is not too difficult for you to point to just one single solitary 'proof' of evolution, this great theory that is so well proven. Just one.... anybody?
If you look at my other videos and you find one with this title "Theory of Evolution and evidence to support it", This would most likely answer your question.
Please link me to a scientific paper that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Just one little piece of scientific evidence that supports anything you are saying. As far as I know The Theory of Evolution has not yet been falsified by one person. Because if you actually have a piece of evidence that can do that you will be famous in the scientific community.
What you mean is YOU HAVEN'T read anything amounting to proof of evolution... and I'd agree with you on that... my guess is you find STOP signs tricky!
You missed the point. Dawkins said that it was a hell of a lot more logical to think aliens seeded life on Earth than to think an invisible guy in the sky did it.
No he said it was 'probable' that aliens had seeded life on earth and went on to compare it with the creationist view. In fact this is not Dawkins' theory, it is one held by evolutionists and Sir Francis Crick in particular since the discovery of DNA in 1953. That is when they realised the cell was much to complex to ever have 'evolved' so they though of 'aliens' instead. About the same time all the UFO stories started coming out. Interesting or what?
First there is no such thing as an evolutionist, second the Theory of Evolutions says nothing about aliens. Please show me anywhere in that theory that mentions aliens.
'Evolutionist'? You know the people who believe in evolution? When you say 'the theory' I'm sure you mean Darwins theory of evolution? You are correct of course, Darwin believed life began from the 'primordial soup'. As I said, it was Crick in 1973 who talked about 'directed panspermia' the theory that aliens seeded life on earth. That is what Dawkins and other evolutionists talk about today. Search here on YouTube for this video 'The Invisible Pink Unicorn' I think you will find it funny
"'Evolutionist'? You know the people who believe in evolution?" This would be were you are a little confused, you either except evolution as being a valid scientific theory or you do not, there is no belief involved. Does you thing that a scientist is only someone who believes in science? No, I mean the theory of evolution as it stands today. Darwin did not create the the idea of evolution, he simple expanded the information about it.
I could care less if Dawkins believes in alien life seeding Earth, or people you claim are evolutionist claim it either, show me were it is in the Theory of Evolution. I am pretty sure you will not find it in there. Just because Dawkins may believe something does not mean it is biology. Now do I believe he actually believes that, NO. Do I believe you have a clue what you are talking about, NO. After all you think there is such a thing as an evolutionist, where are all the gravityists?
I think we all agree on gravity. I must say this again: there is no mention of 'directed panspermia in Darwins theory of evolution. Darwin believed the first cells came about by lightning hittin the primordial soup. In the theory of 'Directed Panspermia' (please Google it) evolutionist biologists posit the first cells were seeded on earth by aliens. Again, this twist by the neo-Darwinists came about when they were faced with evidence from microbiology that the cell could not have 'evolved'.
Again just because Darwin believed something to be true does not mean it is part of the Theory of Evolution. Primordial soup is just the name given for a liquid rich in organic compounds, providing favorable conditions for the emergence and growth of life forms.
Regardless if some biologists believe in directed panspermia or not it does not mean it is attached to any theories. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean they can't have a belief system of their own.
Regardless if we mostly accept a scientific theory or not, it does not make you a gravityist for accepting the Theory of Gravity anymore than it makes you an evolutionist for excepting the Theory of Evolution.
First of all it is 'Darwins theory of evolution' so what he believed is pertinent. There is ample evidence the cell could not possibly have 'evolved' by virtue of it's compexity. This is why the acedemic censensus of evolutionist today is on Directed Panspermia as the only means to exlain this complex system. Evolution is not a 'fact' as it is not firmly supported by evidence. You said there was plenty of evidence? Can you show me just one piece of conclusive evidence for the theory? Just one?
Actually there is plenty of evidence in biology on how a cell can and most likely does evolve. This idea that a cell is to complex has and is not proven. Again as I have said my video "Theory of Evolution and evidence to support it" provides the evidence you keep asking for as well as do the other links I provided. I would assume you have no scientifically based arguement against these proofs sense you just continue to act like I have not provided you any.
No science does not work that way, someone can create a scientific theory but that does not mean that every belief they hold is automatically attached to that theory. Darwin was supposedly a racist as well that does not make the Theory of Evolution racist as well. If you see some difference between "Darwin's theory of evolution" and the modern theory of evolution then it is most likely those ideas he had that turned out not to be valid no longer exist in modern science.
I have provided you with plenty of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. You can not accept this evidence but that does little to invalidate it. Again you nor anyone else has falsified evolution as a theory. That may happen some day, and when it does a new theory with more evidence will replace it, but it has not happened yet.
I have provided a lot of evidence, you on the other hand have provided none. You just repeat the same unproven baseless claims over and over again.
In fact you have not provided one piece of proof to support the theory of evolution. Not one. Like all who cling to evolutionism you say there is ample evidence but never show any. I challenge you again, show me one piece of evidence or proof to support this theory of evolution. I feel you believe in evolution but you obviously don't have any proof. Can you consider you have been brainwashed? You believe something for which you have any proof. Show me why you are so convinced. C'mon, just one?
I do not need to prove any of the evidence to be factual, science has already done this. You are not arguing with me but with the scientific method. Am I going to believe you over science or over the scientific method? NO. Again I have provided this information in my other video. You can choose not to except it, but that does not make it wrong. Do I accept the evidence I provided, yes I do. Have I looked at the evidence in the fossil record, YES and I accept it. Have you?
I didn't realise you meant the proof was in some other video, I assumed you meant in your discussion with me. I will of course look at this other video and consider your evidence for evolution. I am however arguing with you and not science. I am using science as my source as you may do. The fossil record? But there is no proof in the fossil record of any transitionary species. Do you mean the 'feathered dinasaur' that has been proved to be a hoax. Please state which fossil you find convincing.
I have only told you this several times, and provided you with the title to my video. I guess that depends on what you consider a transitional fossil and how well you understand speciation. Lets see the fact that the fossil record shows clearly simpler life forms to more complex ones as time passes.
No you are arguing with science and the scientific method. This work is not mine it is the work of experts in the fields of paleontology, biology, etc. You are making the claim that these people wasted their educations and are frauds in the fields they excel at. You make claims that there work is not factual but offer no evidence to back up that claim. I assume you have not written a scientific paper trying to falsify evolution.
You seem to think that we have some choose in what science reveals to use, that we need to personally be able to prove it true for it to be true. I have actually done a great deal of research into both evolution, I.D. and creationism. I see the evidence for evolution and except it. I do not see any evidence for I.D. or creationism.
You are arguing semantics here. I can't prove gravity any further than I can prove evolution, can you?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Darwin didn't BELIEVE it... he offered it as an explanation... we now know that replicators don't require vast quantities of energy and that its a chemical process!
And we know it... cos we are REPEATING IT! Science doesn't need to 'believe' it simply discovers stuff... what you do with that information... or the impact it has on your sad little theory of 'godidit!' is up to you!
"'Evolutionist'? You know the people who believe in evolution? "
Ohh you mean the scientific community... and most school children! yes... hmmmm... are all these people also breakfastists.... I mean they all believe in a healty breakfast too!
HE did not say it was 'probable' he said it was an old idea... and was 'highly unlikely' since replicating organisms that can withstand high amounts of radiation had yet to be discovered... since then they have!
There are no panspermia aliens... this again is bullshit science ID...claiming that evolution theory states this and that.. when it does nothing of the sort.... and you are out of your fucking depth....and in well above your head!
He offered it as an explanation OUTSIDE any other... that was the question he was asked... IF LIFE DIDN'T START HERE... AND YOU COULD CONCEIVE OF ANY OTHER WAY IT COULD START.... which is why you ended that with 'why he said it is beside the matter'... no it fucking isn't... are you bearing false witness?
An atheist is a very simple thing, Only a fool believes in heart there is no God. And when atheists die they are no longer atheists. They talk very eloquently and are very educated however they have no education about spirit. They cannot understand spirit because they must use faith and since they have no faith they can not learn of the spirit so the devil sends them pride and arrogance to their own destruction but when they take thier last breath they learn.
If you watch that video you will see Stephen Dawkins say, '.. at some earlier time, somewhere in the Universe, a civilisation evolved ... to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet........that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe".
Because of the recently understood complexity of the human cell, DNA, etc evolutionists themselves now accept such a single cell could not have spontaneously began
You missed the point of what Dawkins was trying to say, mostly I would guess because of film editing. Dawkins does not believe an alien race seeded this planet anymore than he believes in a god. He was giving another explanation for I.D. that is just as logical as the one he was presented with.
"Because of the recently understood complexity of the human cell, DNA, etc", no one has yet to come close to proving the complexity arguement, and there is no such thing as an evolutionist.
She was taking part in a debate between atheists who believe in evolution and christians who do not, that is why she calls the atheists present 'evolutionists'. I would disagree there is a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution. On the contrary isn't any none. There is not one piece of transition fossil evidence. Watch my video 'Intelligent Design V Darwin 6 of 6' where you will see a leading darwinist talk about aliens. Evolution is long since disgarded by science as a real theory.
Yes I saw expelled. What exactly is your point by saying "where you will see a leading Darwinist talk about aliens". Do you understand the point he was actually trying to make?
"Evolution is long since discarded by science as a real theory." Do you actually have any evidence you can provide to back this claim up? As far as I know the Theory of Evolution has never been falsified.
Whether you're an atheist or not, if you reject evolution you either don't understand the theory or you're willfully ignorant. Empirical evidence is not in the realm of personal opinion.
the arguments that christians put forth are so ill conceived that no rational person would even consider the possibility that the average christian is of sound mind. why are christians so fucking stupid? somebody please answer that nobel prize qualifying question.
your right man i totally agree as a cristian an athiest may just not believe in any theory of creation and just live which is in a way admirable.
Alage1 1 year ago
Why would you want to reject the greatest love there is ....the greatest love that will ever love you.. the love that gave His life for you!!! No matter how long you don't belive in Him....no matter how much you try to persude yourself....God exists...and Jesus is your Savior if you will let Him be....why give up this gift?
InTheHeartOfChrist 1 year ago
@InTheHeartOfChrist
That is a really persuasive arguement. The lack of actual evidence was amazing. You simply argued that somehow I am missing some great love and it made it true. The blunt statement "god exists" without proving it to be true, wow.
dataloreforever 1 year ago 6
@InTheHeartOfChrist That love doesnt even exist... its in your head, you might need his love cuz you feel like you cant get any one elses.. thats all this sounds like to me.
garagan1992 1 year ago
@InTheHeartOfChrist Wait... so He is dead?
funningincircles 10 months ago
Do I have to state all the reasons to point 2? It has absolutely no relevance to today's society. It's all assuming that you cannot live happily knowing this fact. Sounds to me as though it's another brainwashing attempt by Christians to scare innocent children, and keep them from changing their minds. THIS IS NOT a new tactic, he has simply repeated what has been preached for thousands of years.
AiDwFl 1 year ago
PASCALS WAGER? lol That is your response to Atheism? I will say 2 obvious flaws with it. 1) It only applies to the Christian faith, Pascal stated that he observed all religions and concluded that Christianity as the right one. Christians have the arrogance to say this even today, even though 49% of the rest of the world believe in other things. 2) His core argument is: if you live your life assuming there is a God, you will not go to hell, so why not believe in him? Ummmmm, for many reasons.
AiDwFl 1 year ago
No he said if you make decisions in life as though there were a God you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Yes, but he also listed reasons to support this statement, and to disprove it. The second point I made is taken from an excerpt in his wager. An example of how ridiculously often he contradicts his own theory and analysis. He states that if you believe in God (On the topic of the afterlife), and you die, and you go to heaven, or not go to heaven, it doesn't matter. Either way you win. I cannot think of a reason to HAVE faith if nothing happens when you die. That's the whole point. FLAWED.
AiDwFl 1 year ago
The part you missed is that he considered living a good life a reward in and of itself. Most poeple will relate to this except those of a sociopathic bent.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Then why is it necessary to believe in God to live a full and happy life? Do you not see how illogical this is? His wager is more of a scapegoat tactic just in case Atheism is wrong. It doesn't have any evidence disproving Atheism, only insurance for scared people who fear death.
AiDwFl 1 year ago
By living according to a moral compass one would naturally come to recognize and pursue the idea of an ultimately virtuous being. If you don't believe me just try it. Humans are born with a moral compass-why do we blush? why is it difficult to take a human life? because we have a moral compass.Not to be nit picky but I think you mean an escape tactic not a scapegoat tactic in this case.He deemed it impossible to prove or disprove atheism by reason without faith.Fact is nothing can be save ideas.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
So, once again morality comes into the argument. Typical. But nevertheless, morality can also be explained by science as well, through observation. Since the beginning of time animals have been working in communities to accomplish things (food, survival etc) and obviously realized that working together and treating each other right had a greater affect than not treating each other right. Chimps and other species have been observed doing this today by scientists. So we can dispute that point.
AiDwFl 1 year ago
It might sound cheesy but that's the reality of the situation. It's a well observed fact in scientific terms. Chimps, Elephants (especially elephants), Lions, Any species really. They aren't religious. So what makes us any different? Because a few people write down a few rules 4,000 years ago, makes them solely responsible for moralities explanation? Ok...I don't get it.
AiDwFl 1 year ago
Why contend when we agree. Virtues will manifest in nature that is the nature (for lack of a better word) of virtue.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
It still doesn't prove that a God created anything, including morality.
AiDwFl 1 year ago
You won't prove or disprove anything that isn't abstract thought. There will always be a reason to doubt if one chooses. That goes for atheism like any other belief.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
"No he said if you make decisions in life as though there were a God you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. " As if which god exists? Do you follow ever rule of every religion? If Pascals Wager is right then you must live like every god proposed is valid.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
Actually pascal was speaking of the Christian God of the Bible if I'm not mistaken.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Yes I am aware of that. However, he did not prove that the Christian god is anymore valid then any other god or gods.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
As I said before it is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of God without employing faith.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
I agree god and religion are faith and faith alone.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
You are mistaken.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
I am mistaken for agreeing with you, ok.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
@Criterionx9
Evolution has been proven. Many times over.
There has never been any SCIENTIFIC evidence against it either.
Not accepting evolution is not a legitimate excuse anymore, regardless of your faith. Denying it is just plain ignorant, and is definitely a form of mental illness.
AiDwFl 1 year ago
FYI there are no proofs in science. In science evidence is analysed and interpreted.Proof is a mathematical term
Criterionx9 1 year ago
dataloverforever,
Pal you are so far off base on this its embarassing to have to correct you.
She can say atheists have been lied to about evolution if they believe ev. or not. A lie is still a lie wether you believe it or not!
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Yes I agree she can say that till the cows come home, unfortunately it does not make it true. I did not feel I needed to offer any evidence sense she actually did not offer any at any point either. However I have talked about some of the evidence in other videos, due to time I could not in the video. The problem you both seem to have is most atheists, at least the ones I know, do not base their atheism off of science. So even if she could show evolution to be a lie it would not matter.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
Ok now we're getting to the nitty-gritty.If you're an atheist and don't believe in evolution-How do you think we got here?
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Actually I except what science has to say about the subject. However it does not actually matter how we got here, nor does religion actually answer the question. If you make something up to answer a question is the question really answered? As for evolution, yes like any scientific law, theory, or hypothesis it could be wrong. However, unlike religion it actually tries to validate these ideas and/or falsify them.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
You accept what science has to say but you don't accept evolution?What a load.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Who said I do not accept evolution, in fact I just stated the opposite of this just 3 minutes ago, or "Actually I except what science has to say about the subject." I also except what science says about gravity. I except that a lot of things I enjoy today, like having this conversation from the convince of my home, is because of science. The car I drive, the house I live in, etc. SCIENCE.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
Furthermore showing evolution to be a lie does not show her religion or the answers it pretends to give to be correct. Another words, I can't believe I have to explain this to you, even if evolution could be shown to be wrong (which it has yet to be) that does not make creation the right answer by default.
So yes pal you are and she are so far off base it is embarrassing. Why we are talking about embarrassing you will notice I actually spelled it correctly, sorry I had to correct you.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
You say evolution has yet to be proven wrong? It still has yetto be proven correct! Its only a theory and one with plenty of holes in it too.Granted micro-evolution is observable but macro-evolution is a different story. By the way proving evolution doesn't disprove Intelligent design.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Yes in science they try to actually prove these ideas wrong, as they have done over and over with the theory of evolution. No one has accomplished it yet. They also make predictions and do experiments. I would beg to differ that evolution has more than been show to be the predominate theory at this time.
"By the way proving evolution doesn't disprove Intelligent design." When did I say it did?
dataloreforever 1 year ago
Just going tit for tat with you on that one-"showing evoluiton to be a liedoes not show her religion ...etc"
Criterionx9 1 year ago
OK. you seem not to understand basic things. She is claiming if you accept evolution you are an atheist. This is not a true claim.
She is also claiming evolution is a lie. This is a falsified claim in that she provides no evidence to back up her claim nor has she falsified evolution in the scientific arena.
I never made the claim that evolution some how falsifies creation or I.D.
Do you see the difference?
dataloreforever 1 year ago
She never claimed if you accept evolution you're an atheist! She says that atheists have been lied to about evolution!
In her opinion evolution is a lie, she has a right to that opinion.Evolution certainly hasn't been proven in the scientific arena or any other for that matter.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
So the evolution that theists accept is different then that atheists accept? Again you need to talk to a biologist if you wish to argue over the validity of evolution.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
I never posted here to argue the validity of evolution. Ijust pointed out that the young woman wasn't saying what you thought.
If you wanted to talk about atheism I have a couple of words for you-PASCAL'S WAGER- ever heard of it?
Criterionx9 1 year ago
I have no idea what she was thinking when she made this video, nor do you. However we can determine what she means from the sentences she speaks. She clearly equates evolution with atheism. She clearly believes they are related subjects. She clearly believes that somehow she can disprove evolution. She clearly thinks this will somehow dismantle atheism. She is wrong on every account.
Yes I have heard of the flawed PASCAL'S WAGER.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
Pascal's wager is flawed? There you go with the empty claims. Care to back that up by pointing out the flaw?Oh sorry i forgot you're just full of hot air.
Equates evolution with atheism? Thats where you're off base. She said "all you atheists have been lied to about evolution" where does that equate atheism and evolution?
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Pascal's wager leaps over the fact that people believe in different gods, or that there are more than one god to choose from. Also when I did go to church I remember a sermon on truly believing. If you only believe to be safe or out of fear do you not think the creator would know this. It's biggest flaw most likely is that it actually does nothing to prove a god or gods actually exist in the first place. It is the same as claiming you will get presents if you believe in Santa Claus.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
I guess in my interpretation of the wager I accounted for the natural moral compass inate in humans (if you take pschology to be a science-there is scientific evidence of this).About the sermon I think it is wrong(if you go by the Chritian belief)-reading in proverbs:" the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom"There really are no proofs per se in religion or science. Proof is a mathmatical term. Science only evaluates evidence and interprets it according to the accepted postulates.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Actually there are proofs in science as well, however yes they are mathematical proofs.
Pascals Wager says nothing about psychology, nor does psychology prove that humans have anymore of a moral compass then animals do.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
Oh wait did I just crush you, I thought I was only full of hot air. I guess not.
So what did her video have to do with atheism then? Exactly what talking point did she make about atheism? If you are right she had no talking points on atheism at all. So why is he video titled "If U want to stay an Atheist don't watch this video" if she was not actually going to talk about atheism? You have pretty much single handed show she is an idiot. Good job.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
if evolution were proven right that doesn't show creationism to be wrong
Criterionx9 1 year ago
"if evolution were proven right that doesn't show creationism to be wrong "
When did I say this was the case? I am in complete agreement.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
Funny how you say there are mountains of evidence for evolution yet you mention none.Truth is that all that evidence is subject to interpretation.That is all evolution amounts to interpretation not proof.
Try getting anywhere in the scientific community while claiming to be religious-pretty obvious the jusy is no longer out with the scientific community when it comes to beliveing in a higher power of any kind.
Maybe you should learn more about what youre' talking before you throw stones.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
Most of the scientific community is actually religious, to claim evolution is an atheistic theory or science is controlled by atheists is asinine.
I would suggest you spend a little time learning anything.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
The proponents of evolution are always the atheists just look for any debate on the subject.If you're trying to insinuate I'm claiming theres an atheist "conspiracy" you're wrong again the 2 ideas just seem to go hand in hand.
Your picture belongs in the dictionary next to the word asinine.
I suggest you spend alot of time sitting on the nearest toilet-its apparent you're full of it right over the top.
Criterionx9 1 year ago
It does not matter if atheists debate about evolution or not, some atheists have a strong interest in science. Just because they are interested in the subject does not mean it is somehow part of anything else. Prove to me atheism has anything to do with evolution.
"Your picture belongs in the dictionary next to the word asinine." "I suggest you spend a lot of time sitting on the nearest toilet-its apparent you're full of it right over the top. "
What are you 3?
dataloreforever 1 year ago
You nor she has a leg to stand on when you claim atheism is based on science. It just goes to show you no nothing about atheists, and she has clearly shown a lack of knowledge about science as well. If you truly want to debate evolution you should find someone with a biology degree to talk to. I am an atheist, not a biologists. I am sure there are a few atheist biologists if you need to find someone who is both.
dataloreforever 1 year ago
RE: guydecervens
lol... look at him go... loggin in and out of his accounts to down thumb me... he's up to 3 so far... just cos I pointed out he was lying...and where he was lying... as if giving me the downthumb makes his 'bearing of false witness' go away.... hahahahaha they are the silliest people I've ever corresponded with... seriously!
Hey guydecervens should I report all those logins to my friends in Google? lol I'm sure one of them will delete all those accounts you have there!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
It's looks like MumblingMichey is on one of his bipolar manic phases. I guess that answers my question, "what sort of crazy people troll for atheism?" And why are they all so damn ugly?????
lonergalliz 2 years ago 4
Yer sister thought I was okay there while I was filling her with a little evolution of my own guydecervens!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
This must be the channel for fat sweaty four eyed faggoty evolutionists........ LOL....
guydecervens 2 years ago
Or even one for idiots who breech their YT T&C by having more than one account.... whats say we see what YT have to say about that.... ??? hmmmm...
Seriously...the second you have to LIE to prove your beliefs...is the same second you lose!
Remember now... your lying... that's bearing false witness... ohhh the pain... of burning in hell... God won't be pleased... you'll have to explain it on Judgment day...to God and Jesus...and Probably to Arnold Schwarzenegger too....
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
i think that the religious and scientific education in the US needs to be improved because she sounded like she was brainwashed from an early age
nice response
shukb84 2 years ago
@dataloreforever
Shes supposed to have once been atheistic?
The levels of education in the US must be at an all time low for anyone to accept any of this bullshit of being relevant!
Whats more her ideas require the 'absence' or willful 'suspension' of reason... so she can never have been a reasoned person ......its not like she had an ability to 'reason' and it went away!
I think what I'm trying to say... in a nice way...datalore is she's too 'stupid' to be an atheist!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
I completely agree MumblingMickey
dataloreforever 2 years ago
nice user name dude. hahaha
H0B0J03 2 years ago
i am a Christan that believes in evolution i know god can not be proven and evolution is close to being completely proven.... i think something had to start it and that god started the big bang off and let it go with small influences.... we are in his image is what it says.... that dose not mean we did not evolve into his image i hate when someone says you cant believe in both what your saying is right and atheists are smart i know that. iv never met a stupid atheist, so thats my opinion thanks
erogoth2 2 years ago
Thanks for the comment erogoth2.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
I saw that vid too, and I wanted to make a comment about all fossils being transitional fossils, but of course that person disabled ratings and comments. That always seemed to me to be the youtube equivalent of somebody putting their fingers in their ears and saying 'la la la I can't hear you, la la la'
SirGriefALot 2 years ago
the girl has no idea what atheism or evolution is. It's much easier to dismiss both if you insert a strawman, right ?
knappydanny 2 years ago
shouldnt have taken you longer than one sentence to say much of that.. learn to be more efficient with language
bakayurei 2 years ago
And not only that, dataloreforever, she is,
with her ignorant ass, talking to those people as if she were an "authority" on the
subject. Pretty much everything she said is glaring flawed--completely missleading
all those people who are more ignorant than her. All that fallacy is passed on and reinforced as true "knowledge." That is a travesty.
pedrom41 2 years ago
I agree pedrom41
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Abiogenesis is not part of evolution? Then why bring it up? Please have a point when commenting. It is embarrassing to watch you reply.
g4macdad 2 years ago
My point exactly, if abiogenesis is not part of evolution then why bring it up and act like it is. I think my point has been clear from the beginning. It only seems to be you that does not get it. So I guess if you examined the evidence that would mean the problem must be you. No embarrassment here, but I am not you, so I have nothing to be embarrassed about.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
bra you said thers evidence but some wouldnt believe the evidence [in evolution] evidence is a solid thing so if it where evidence TRUE evidence it would be no room for doubt... theres only theories and assumptions im not bias to either side jus making a point.... most and all ideas of origin are jus theories for the most part..
LoVeInADiUniVerSe 2 years ago
Is there an such thing as TRUE evidence? The problem is that no matter how good the evidence is we have a choose to believe it or not, regardless if it is right or wrong. Those who truly study the evidence for things like the theory of evolution have found the evidence to be more than conclusive. Those who decide not to believe the evidence do so for no better reason generally that they personally choose to. Most of these people have not studied the evidence nor the theory.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Comment removed
2cool2behere 2 years ago
Great vid except you missed one thing. If I recall correctly she also went on a tangent about Abiogenesis calling it evolution... Which are two separate things, lol.
UberN3rdDillon 2 years ago
Did I miss that, I have said it so many times before how could I forget to say it here? Yes I completely agree they are not the same things.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Oh I don't doubt that you know they are separate things, I was just stating that SHE did not know. You seem very knowledgeable and this is why I respect you. Good videos.
UberN3rdDillon 2 years ago
I thought maybe I actually did forget to mention that in this video. I was not trying to say you are accusing me of not knowing this. I agree she seems to have no clue that there are separate theories in science, let alone multiple fields.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Lol, yes, and this is why she makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time. I sincerely wish there were less people like her in this country. Unfortunately, there are not and this country is dominated by them.
UberN3rdDillon 2 years ago
i agree.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
And...? She said they were 2 separate things? NO you did. She criticized both. You have NO valid point whatsoever. She wins hands down.
g4macdad 2 years ago
Are you saying that she did say they are not the same thing? If she did please give me the time frame in which she said it g4. Yes, I do have a valid point, atheism has nothing to do with science and only the ignorant like this and you thinks it does. So no she did nothing but fail, just as you have g4.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
How is it relevant? What is your argument? If she says atheism has nothing to do with science, you somehow WIN? You are really, really, really dumb. You should delete your response and videos to avoid further embarrassment.
g4macdad 2 years ago
It has nothing to do with winning or losing. The truth is the truth, and the truth is atheism has nothing to do with science or the other way around. If evolution was shown to be false tomorrow it would not change my reasons for being an atheist. I can't speak for all atheists, but I see no connection between the two subjects.
Insults from ignorance, wow could I expect more.
You should stop leaving comments so you do not further embarrass yourself.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
It is relevant because abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
Her entire arguement is that evolution and abiogenesis are somehow wrong so that means atheism is wrong as well. She has not falsified evolution or abiogenesis, but even if she could it would not effect atheism in the least.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
I did say they are two separate things, because I, unlike her, and probably unlike you, actually at least somewhat look into something before arguing against it or making a decision pertaining to it. There is no way she wins anything except for ignorant moron of the year. In that case, yes, you are right, she does win hands down. I actually DID have a valid point, whether or not you or her are capable of understanding it is not the question.
UberN3rdDillon 2 years ago
Is this g4macdad's other account?
dataloreforever 2 years ago
uberN3rDillon I am confused you sent this reply to me but it sounds like you are talking to G4macdad.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Yeah, wasn't talking to you, sorry if it shows up that way :/ He replied to something I said so my intent was to reply to him. Sorry for the mix up. Also, I recommend you give up on the argument with him... I have read quite a bit of it and he seems hopeless.
UberN3rdDillon 2 years ago
A youtube glitch. I blocked him after his last comment, so yes I have pretty much given up on him saying anything intelligent. Sorry for the confusion, I thought he had come back with a different account, but his comment made no sense. After reading twice I realized it must not be him.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
You nailed it bro. Such ignorance.
Emack420 2 years ago
typicall 'No true Scotchman fallacy'
The definition of 'atheist' is:
1: Does not believe in a god
As far as i know this :
2: Believes in evolution.
Is not needed for being an atheist.
jankuiper3422 2 years ago
Really good point this video...I agree completely.
jcantlie 2 years ago
Many scientists dissent from the modern evolutionary synthesis and many hundreds have dissented from the theory. You will find them if you search "a scientific dissent from darwinism" or "Dissent From Darwinism". The first two search results on Google take you to a site where you can see their names under "download the list". There were just under 800 respected scientists on that list over a year ago and the number is growing all the time. It is you who are arguing with good science.
guydecervens 2 years ago 3
I am interested in a few thing, if you actually could show me that modern science is somehow wrong, to what end? What will change if the Theory of Evolution is proven wrong? What will take it's place and what will that mean for man kind? What degree in science do you hold?
dataloreforever 2 years ago
I find this arguement interesting, but lacking substance, if not evolution then what? What is the theory they wish to replace it with and where is the evidence to support it. I think if you look back I have never once claimed evolution to be anything more than the best theory we have at the time. It could be wrong, just as gravity could be wrong, or any other theory could be wrong. However trying to discredit evolution as a theory does not credit any other theory as true.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Does there have to be 'a theory'? Can we not just follow the evidence wherever it leads? What are people defending? A theory or a worldview? Think of the political and sociological implications of discarding the old theory. Not to mention the careers that are nailed to it's mast. I can't offer a contradictory theory but I would say research should be allowed to progress and neo Darwinists should step out of the way of progress. Could Darwinism become the first acedemic transitional fossil?
guydecervens 2 years ago 3
So why do we need an science at all? You should probably get rid of your computer, stop driving a car, move out of your house with its indoor plumbing, etc., after all that is where science leads. What a load of crap. There is more and more research into evolution everyday. There is evidence to support it regardless if you expect it or not. The fact that not one person or scientist has been able to falsify it adds to its strength. Someday someone may falsify it, but that day is not today.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
So truthfully why do you argue about the validity of evolution but not gravity, thermal dynamics, string theory, etc? It can't be that you simple do not believe this one scientific theory, you either trust no science or you have a special reason for not expecting this one theory. How about the big bang and expansion, do you except them? You have already mentioned I.D., so obviously you except that as being factual. If you do where is the scientific data supporting it as fact?
dataloreforever 2 years ago
I never said we don't need science. What we don't need is bad science trying to distort the evidence to fit a flawed theory. Gravity is not in question, it is a fact. Evolution is not proven and is very much in question. Yes, I accept some form of intelligence as being responsible for the cell. It is observable. This much at least I agree on with the modern evolutionists. I do not however believe in aliens so I would sooner keep an open mind and follow the evidence than sign up to some UFO club.
guydecervens 2 years ago 4
Is gravity a fact? How do you know that it is not bad science? How do you know the evidence has not been distorted to fit a flawed theory? You say Evolution is not proven and is in question, but evolution has more evidence to support it as fact than gravity does, so how can you justify your statement? How can you make the claim there is an intelligence behind the cell when there is no evidence to support that statement. I.D. is far from proven as even close to factual.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Back to aliens. We have agreed that no where in the theory of evolutions are aliens mentioned, so why are you trying to discredit evolution with aliens again? The complexity arguement is far from provable, and if it was you would have to except alien intelligence to be just as likely as any other explanation. After all that is exactly what the claim of god creating everything is a story about an alien creating life.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Now take the time to go back and answer my questions, after all I have answered every question you have asked me.
By the way if I have not said it already evolution is just as proven as gravity is. There have been plenty of experiments performed that have supported evolution as fact. They would be observable as well. You should do a little more research into the subject matter. Especially sense you keep returning to this idea that somehow aliens are tied to the Theory of Evolution.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
I can only address one issue at a time so if I have not adequately answered all your questions it is because you ask too many at one time. Yes, evolutionary theory is tied in with aliens. That is a fact even though evolution itself is not. As I said Directed Panspermia, a theory used by evolutionists to explain the complexity of the cell, states that aliens seeded life on earth. I will return to this idea as long as you question it's centrality to modern neo Darwinism and evolutionary theory
guydecervens 2 years ago
It is really pointless that we continue this conversation. You have shown you lack a bases in reality. Aliens have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. If you wish to continue under this premise please provide we with evidence of one evolutionary biologist that has published a paper on aliens as they pertain to evolution. I have already said that i do not believe Dawkins actually believes this to be true nor have you provide evidence to prove he does.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
As for addressing one issue at a time. I am done with this conversation unless you answer my questions. How is evolutionary theory tied to aliens if evolution is not? So if you believe in I.D. what do you believe the intelligence behind it is? Also if you believe god created anything then you believe Directed Panspermia.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Modern evolutionary synthesis which forms a logical account of evolution has as one of it's strongest pillars Directed Panspermia - the theory that aliens seeded life on earth. This is their evolutionary theory for evolution! ID is observable and that is why evolutionists have developed the 'alien' aspect of directed panspermia. What it ID? I think some of the Vedic philosophies may come closest to explaining it. They call it 'Creative Intelligence'. But you would have to talk to a philosopher.
guydecervens 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Panspermia is not part of the theory of evolution. its a hypothesis in its own right and was one of the first ideas to explain the origin of life in the first place.
We have actually found the chemicals responsible for life along with basic replication material and a huge chunk of organic material on meteorites (in space not on earth) this does add evidence but not to evolution to Abiogenisis!
Alien simply means 'not of this earth'. So the moon is alien yet devoid of life (as far as we know)
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Hovever directed panspermia is not touted by ANY evolutionists or Abiogenisits... it has nothing whatsoever to do with science... it might have something to do with science fiction though!
Evolutionists did not create the idea of panspermia... abiogenisists did... and again...just so you understand directed panspermia was invented by 'Hollywood'
If you know different supply the peer reviewed paper on 'directed panspermia' since you think its true...you must have some evidence...!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now francis crick made a point that HUMANITY could use directed panspermia to colonise other worlds with living organisms from earth... is that what your touting?
Nobody believe this crap you guys spout...except yourselves...and since you do no research you're being sidestepped...
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
So you might like me to show you a guy who's using evolution to create life...and has already done so... would that fuck your sad little life up... should I ruin your little peace of mind there by showing you the US government giving him a grant and taking a 10% share in his company... which is now getting ready to start producing living organisms designed on a PC... would that fuck your head up? or should I leve you in blissful ignorance... which will it be pal... the blue pill or the red pill?
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
In fact the 'theory' has changed in the last 140 years... for one thing most people believe that there is a tree of life... TOL for short... well only ten years ago the TOL was replaced with the 'forest' of life after the discovery of cross species genetic interaction! However the original theory did not alter by a lot... it just got a massive injection of new data.
And that investigation started after one woman in the US gave rise to a new species herself. Its called Hela.
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Just so you know signing a petition is not the same as falsifying a theory. None of this scientists on the list give their reason for not accepting evolution nor has one of them falsified the theory.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Another of your proofs is that we are all made from the same elements? Another is the 'geographic distribution of species'. I don't know what sort of science would consider those as proofs of anything. Another is 'genetic changes over ages'. Small variations, adaptations and mutations do not prove a single origin for all species on earth. It only shows life adapts to it's environment. I am most interested in what you claim is the 'Molecular and anatomical' evidence. The 'lab work'? Ha ha ha!
guydecervens 2 years ago
Pleas fell free to give another theory that explains either of these things? Yes life adapts to it environment, or another word for that is evolves. Here is an idea do your own research. There is plenty of information out there on molecular and anatomical evidence for evolution. Come back when you have an actual arguement. Better yet come back when you have published your first paper falsify anything.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
lol... no... another proof is not that we are made from the same elements. Elements are are in the periodic table... you should look that up some time.
Evolutions goes further... it stated (in advance of the research mind you) that if it were to be true then all life will carry the same genetic encoding and same manner of coding.
This has in fact been proven... in the laboratory... you share 96% of your DNA with a chimp... 75% with your dog... and 33% with a tree! So erm... tough!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Your first 'proof' is Archaeopteryx (feathered dinosaur). This is a proven hoax. October 2000 edition of National Geographic admitted this. You say there are thousands of such transitional fossils but there are only a few and they are all false. For example, Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryxis are flightless birds, Sinosauropteryx and Sinocalliopteryx were dinosaurs with frayed colligen fibres, Microraptor gui was a gliding bird and Shuvuuia was a bird. None were transitional fossils. Any other?
guydecervens 2 years ago
Actually Archaeopteryx has never been shown to be a hoax, again you can choose to not except it, but it has not been falsified. As for National Geographic, I could not find the article, so if you wish me to believe you on that point send me the original article.
What degree in science do you hold?
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Archaeopteryx is a hoax... really... and you heard this where?
Ohh I see...you are getting confused with Archaeoraptor liaoningensis... which was a hoax... and later shown to be so by who now? creation scientists? nope as usual creation science didn't do any actual science! who proved it false? ... THOSE PESKY EVOLUTIONISTS!
It was shown to be a pretty crude hoax perpetrated to get the fossils which are worth money out of china! Whats more...this crap still goes on...its a disgrace!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
and BTW... simply sticking to the 'down thumb' when I point out the actaul facts of the matter... which are reported on CREATIONIST websites... is in fact again 'bearing false witness' and the punishment for that...as you know... is frying in hell with satan ramming his pitchfork up yer ass!!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
are you now logging in to down thumb me... lol... spot of lying for God ehh? remember... Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
So your walking the road to sin right there... it'll be terrible hot in hell btw!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
In fact Dawkins actually said it was possible aliens seeded life on earth. Why he said it is beside the matter. He said it and claimed it as a possible explanation for the first self replicating cell.
guydecervens 2 years ago
It is just as possible as the idea of a god creating everything.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Who mentioned God? Don't go changing the subject. The evidence for an intelligent design is obvious to anybody who firmly grasps the complexity of the cell. Darwin had no idea how complex the cell was or he would never have posited it developed by chance. As for God, I am not capable or interested in arguing his existence. I can only argue with regard to actual science and will gladly do so on any proof of such you think you have. You did say there was much proof. Shall we examine some of this?
guydecervens 2 years ago
I am not changing the subject, I am say that Dawkins when asked about the interview he gave said that the alien scenario was just as likely as the god creation Ben was proposing. He does not believe the alien scenario anymore than he believes go did it.
So what evidence do you have to support complexity?
dataloreforever 2 years ago
As for the theory of evolution it is not my evidence but the evidence provided by science in the field of biology. The theory of evolution has yet to be falsified nor the evidence proven wrong. You can argue with me all you want but it does nothing to falsify evolution. So until you get a biology degree and falsify the theory you arguements are worthless. Arguing with me, someone who does not have a degree in biology is pointless and proves nothing. I am not going to except you over science
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Actually Darwins theory has been disproved in many ways but the comment space here does not allow me to give you the full thesis. It would be better if you gave me say, just one 'proof', of this theory and I can tell you why that is not a proof. Surely it is not too difficult for you to point to just one single solitary 'proof' of evolution, this great theory that is so well proven. Just one.... anybody?
guydecervens 2 years ago
If you look at my other videos and you find one with this title "Theory of Evolution and evidence to support it", This would most likely answer your question.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Please link me to a scientific paper that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Just one little piece of scientific evidence that supports anything you are saying. As far as I know The Theory of Evolution has not yet been falsified by one person. Because if you actually have a piece of evidence that can do that you will be famous in the scientific community.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you idiots wouldn't know a thesis if it fell out of the sky and knocked your block off...
But I read Kent Hovinds lol
It starts like this 'Hello my name is Kent Hovind and I.....'
Lol whats more... even though he managed even to get the contents wrong.. he got his doctorate in theology From Nobody College, Nowhere!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
What you mean is YOU HAVEN'T read anything amounting to proof of evolution... and I'd agree with you on that... my guess is you find STOP signs tricky!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Comment removed
jezmundberserker 2 years ago
You missed the point. Dawkins said that it was a hell of a lot more logical to think aliens seeded life on Earth than to think an invisible guy in the sky did it.
jezmundberserker 2 years ago
And I agree with him.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
No he said it was 'probable' that aliens had seeded life on earth and went on to compare it with the creationist view. In fact this is not Dawkins' theory, it is one held by evolutionists and Sir Francis Crick in particular since the discovery of DNA in 1953. That is when they realised the cell was much to complex to ever have 'evolved' so they though of 'aliens' instead. About the same time all the UFO stories started coming out. Interesting or what?
guydecervens 2 years ago
First there is no such thing as an evolutionist, second the Theory of Evolutions says nothing about aliens. Please show me anywhere in that theory that mentions aliens.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
'Evolutionist'? You know the people who believe in evolution? When you say 'the theory' I'm sure you mean Darwins theory of evolution? You are correct of course, Darwin believed life began from the 'primordial soup'. As I said, it was Crick in 1973 who talked about 'directed panspermia' the theory that aliens seeded life on earth. That is what Dawkins and other evolutionists talk about today. Search here on YouTube for this video 'The Invisible Pink Unicorn' I think you will find it funny
guydecervens 2 years ago
"'Evolutionist'? You know the people who believe in evolution?" This would be were you are a little confused, you either except evolution as being a valid scientific theory or you do not, there is no belief involved. Does you thing that a scientist is only someone who believes in science? No, I mean the theory of evolution as it stands today. Darwin did not create the the idea of evolution, he simple expanded the information about it.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
I could care less if Dawkins believes in alien life seeding Earth, or people you claim are evolutionist claim it either, show me were it is in the Theory of Evolution. I am pretty sure you will not find it in there. Just because Dawkins may believe something does not mean it is biology. Now do I believe he actually believes that, NO. Do I believe you have a clue what you are talking about, NO. After all you think there is such a thing as an evolutionist, where are all the gravityists?
dataloreforever 2 years ago
I think we all agree on gravity. I must say this again: there is no mention of 'directed panspermia in Darwins theory of evolution. Darwin believed the first cells came about by lightning hittin the primordial soup. In the theory of 'Directed Panspermia' (please Google it) evolutionist biologists posit the first cells were seeded on earth by aliens. Again, this twist by the neo-Darwinists came about when they were faced with evidence from microbiology that the cell could not have 'evolved'.
guydecervens 2 years ago
Again just because Darwin believed something to be true does not mean it is part of the Theory of Evolution. Primordial soup is just the name given for a liquid rich in organic compounds, providing favorable conditions for the emergence and growth of life forms.
Regardless if some biologists believe in directed panspermia or not it does not mean it is attached to any theories. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean they can't have a belief system of their own.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
There also no evidence that the cell could not and did not evolve.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Regardless if we mostly accept a scientific theory or not, it does not make you a gravityist for accepting the Theory of Gravity anymore than it makes you an evolutionist for excepting the Theory of Evolution.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
First of all it is 'Darwins theory of evolution' so what he believed is pertinent. There is ample evidence the cell could not possibly have 'evolved' by virtue of it's compexity. This is why the acedemic censensus of evolutionist today is on Directed Panspermia as the only means to exlain this complex system. Evolution is not a 'fact' as it is not firmly supported by evidence. You said there was plenty of evidence? Can you show me just one piece of conclusive evidence for the theory? Just one?
guydecervens 2 years ago
Actually there is plenty of evidence in biology on how a cell can and most likely does evolve. This idea that a cell is to complex has and is not proven. Again as I have said my video "Theory of Evolution and evidence to support it" provides the evidence you keep asking for as well as do the other links I provided. I would assume you have no scientifically based arguement against these proofs sense you just continue to act like I have not provided you any.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
No science does not work that way, someone can create a scientific theory but that does not mean that every belief they hold is automatically attached to that theory. Darwin was supposedly a racist as well that does not make the Theory of Evolution racist as well. If you see some difference between "Darwin's theory of evolution" and the modern theory of evolution then it is most likely those ideas he had that turned out not to be valid no longer exist in modern science.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
I have provided you with plenty of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. You can not accept this evidence but that does little to invalidate it. Again you nor anyone else has falsified evolution as a theory. That may happen some day, and when it does a new theory with more evidence will replace it, but it has not happened yet.
I have provided a lot of evidence, you on the other hand have provided none. You just repeat the same unproven baseless claims over and over again.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
In fact you have not provided one piece of proof to support the theory of evolution. Not one. Like all who cling to evolutionism you say there is ample evidence but never show any. I challenge you again, show me one piece of evidence or proof to support this theory of evolution. I feel you believe in evolution but you obviously don't have any proof. Can you consider you have been brainwashed? You believe something for which you have any proof. Show me why you are so convinced. C'mon, just one?
guydecervens 2 years ago
I do not need to prove any of the evidence to be factual, science has already done this. You are not arguing with me but with the scientific method. Am I going to believe you over science or over the scientific method? NO. Again I have provided this information in my other video. You can choose not to except it, but that does not make it wrong. Do I accept the evidence I provided, yes I do. Have I looked at the evidence in the fossil record, YES and I accept it. Have you?
dataloreforever 2 years ago
I didn't realise you meant the proof was in some other video, I assumed you meant in your discussion with me. I will of course look at this other video and consider your evidence for evolution. I am however arguing with you and not science. I am using science as my source as you may do. The fossil record? But there is no proof in the fossil record of any transitionary species. Do you mean the 'feathered dinasaur' that has been proved to be a hoax. Please state which fossil you find convincing.
guydecervens 2 years ago
I have only told you this several times, and provided you with the title to my video. I guess that depends on what you consider a transitional fossil and how well you understand speciation. Lets see the fact that the fossil record shows clearly simpler life forms to more complex ones as time passes.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
No you are arguing with science and the scientific method. This work is not mine it is the work of experts in the fields of paleontology, biology, etc. You are making the claim that these people wasted their educations and are frauds in the fields they excel at. You make claims that there work is not factual but offer no evidence to back up that claim. I assume you have not written a scientific paper trying to falsify evolution.
Do you have a degree any anything?
dataloreforever 2 years ago
You seem to think that we have some choose in what science reveals to use, that we need to personally be able to prove it true for it to be true. I have actually done a great deal of research into both evolution, I.D. and creationism. I see the evidence for evolution and except it. I do not see any evidence for I.D. or creationism.
You are arguing semantics here. I can't prove gravity any further than I can prove evolution, can you?
dataloreforever 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwin didn't BELIEVE it... he offered it as an explanation... we now know that replicators don't require vast quantities of energy and that its a chemical process!
And we know it... cos we are REPEATING IT! Science doesn't need to 'believe' it simply discovers stuff... what you do with that information... or the impact it has on your sad little theory of 'godidit!' is up to you!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I thought ID proponents believed in evolution... now he's saying he doesn't... which is odd...
How can they try to prove GOD has a hand in genetic mutation ...if they say that mutation doesn't happen...
The duality of the situation never ceases to amaze me!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
"'Evolutionist'? You know the people who believe in evolution? "
Ohh you mean the scientific community... and most school children! yes... hmmmm... are all these people also breakfastists.... I mean they all believe in a healty breakfast too!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
HE did not say it was 'probable' he said it was an old idea... and was 'highly unlikely' since replicating organisms that can withstand high amounts of radiation had yet to be discovered... since then they have!
There are no panspermia aliens... this again is bullshit science ID...claiming that evolution theory states this and that.. when it does nothing of the sort.... and you are out of your fucking depth....and in well above your head!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
He offered it as an explanation OUTSIDE any other... that was the question he was asked... IF LIFE DIDN'T START HERE... AND YOU COULD CONCEIVE OF ANY OTHER WAY IT COULD START.... which is why you ended that with 'why he said it is beside the matter'... no it fucking isn't... are you bearing false witness?
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
An atheist is a very simple thing, Only a fool believes in heart there is no God. And when atheists die they are no longer atheists. They talk very eloquently and are very educated however they have no education about spirit. They cannot understand spirit because they must use faith and since they have no faith they can not learn of the spirit so the devil sends them pride and arrogance to their own destruction but when they take thier last breath they learn.
tankheadstar 2 years ago
If you watch that video you will see Stephen Dawkins say, '.. at some earlier time, somewhere in the Universe, a civilisation evolved ... to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet........that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe".
Because of the recently understood complexity of the human cell, DNA, etc evolutionists themselves now accept such a single cell could not have spontaneously began
guydecervens 2 years ago
You missed the point of what Dawkins was trying to say, mostly I would guess because of film editing. Dawkins does not believe an alien race seeded this planet anymore than he believes in a god. He was giving another explanation for I.D. that is just as logical as the one he was presented with.
"Because of the recently understood complexity of the human cell, DNA, etc", no one has yet to come close to proving the complexity arguement, and there is no such thing as an evolutionist.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
She was taking part in a debate between atheists who believe in evolution and christians who do not, that is why she calls the atheists present 'evolutionists'. I would disagree there is a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution. On the contrary isn't any none. There is not one piece of transition fossil evidence. Watch my video 'Intelligent Design V Darwin 6 of 6' where you will see a leading darwinist talk about aliens. Evolution is long since disgarded by science as a real theory.
guydecervens 2 years ago
Yes I saw expelled. What exactly is your point by saying "where you will see a leading Darwinist talk about aliens". Do you understand the point he was actually trying to make?
"Evolution is long since discarded by science as a real theory." Do you actually have any evidence you can provide to back this claim up? As far as I know the Theory of Evolution has never been falsified.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Comment removed
guydecervens 2 years ago
No an athiest isnt someone who beleive in science either. Atheiests is those who dont beleive in a God.
peronkop 2 years ago
You can tell just how confident they are in their own argument by the way they disable ratings and comments.
Raptor302 2 years ago
Could not agree more.
dataloreforever 2 years ago
Whether you're an atheist or not, if you reject evolution you either don't understand the theory or you're willfully ignorant. Empirical evidence is not in the realm of personal opinion.
Sammaelhain 2 years ago 4
the arguments that christians put forth are so ill conceived that no rational person would even consider the possibility that the average christian is of sound mind. why are christians so fucking stupid? somebody please answer that nobel prize qualifying question.
sandrajeantaylor 2 years ago
Well put sir!
Assnilla 2 years ago