DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT ACTUALY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMMARROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE.HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST THREE VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN TWO DAYS.NOW YOU STARTED READING THIS DONT STOP.THIS SO SCARY.PUT THIS ON AT LEAST FIVE VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN YOUR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR LOVERS NAME WILLAPPEAR IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTULLY WORKS
The underlying law of nature may be the world's most useful, profitable and encouraging knowledge.
e.g., It is the most effective and efficient means to improve the performance of any process.
Great personal, economic and societal advantages exist to identifying the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself, and to understanding and applying its principles.
So close, but you missed. The problem is that people have an understanding issue. We tend to regard our position as truth and denounce anything that is in contradiction to that truth. Evolution is not true it is only a fact. God is not true it is only a fact. The only way to be able to declare truth is to become omnipotent. Then somehow make my tiny mind aware of everything =). The universe was created the moment you read this instantaneously. With everything in it's place.
You are really upset with the Idea of God as the creator, don´t you? If the idea of God leads us no were as you say, then that is our problem. WHAT IF IT DOES? But, ah, your line is too complicated for you to understand! Good luck
Hi. I got interested in your video initially because you were trying to reason out the differences between science in religion. But, the moment you compared religious thinking to a straight line thinking (about 5 minutes in to the video) with beginning and end, right there was your logical fallacy (non sequitur). Not all religious people believe in the beginning and the end. Hinduism, Buddhism etc. differ here. They say there was no end and beginning of time, or world or anything.
(a continuation from the last post) It has been well established in the Christian church that God lives in one moment. This information on the Christian view of time might help you understand some Christian principles that do not make sense on a line.
(a continuation from the last post)So instead of each dash being a moment
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
It is one moment
_________________________________
You see, in both of your models that you presented you had already assumed that time is a string of moments. Most Christians would agree with you. However this is purely their ignorance on theology (understandable for most pastors dont teach on the theory of time). (continued)
(a continuation from the last post) Honestly, I am really sick of atheist taking biblical poetry literally. The whole point is that there is no distance from the east to the west. Thank you for not taking a cheap short cut such as this. However, I would like to address the theory of time that you presented. The line theory is, as you said, the way most people think. Yet it is not exactly what Christian theology teaches. The church formally says that time is one eternal moment.
First off I would like to thank you for being polite and for using logic. Even though I am a Christian, I enjoyed watching your video. I am sorry about the rude and simply stupid comments that you have received. Trust me, I get equally absurd ones from atheists. I recently had a man tell me the Bible contradicts science because it says that God will cast your sins from the east to the west. He claimed that since there is no distance from the east to the west that the Bible was wrong (continued)
Logical fallacies ought to be taught in every school curriculum. It would save us all a lot of time having to explain simple fallacious arguments to people who are unaware they're using them.
Basic logical and critical thinking really should be taught, it's the most important thing for anyone to learn, I think.
Science Fails... Theism and Atheism both cannot DISPROVE the other. I am a proud Christan, and accept God and Jesus. Science has its flaws, as Plate Tectonics and Evolution are not 100% true.
Congratulations, you can point out others flaws without seeing them in yourself, and as the romans say "Damnant qoud nonintellent"people fear what they do not understand.
Einsteins problem was fixed with constantly new unexplainable stuff of string theory. but they didn´t make anything new, they got better animations, they got always new terms, which they cant explain....is that enough for you ? knowledge changed over from nearly unexplainable to totaly unadaptable
it´s not true, that so called creationists would believe in a straight line, that´s just your false interpretation. i believe in a circle of time, that means, that time can repeat, in another time and on another place. so, live can also come from another Cell. Einsteins picture of the universe was flat, he thought, that light would send out in straight lines. that´s not true, because the bible teaches, that things which look straight could be curved.
That's right, Einstein didn't come up with his theory of relativity or any other theory. He just read the bible. As did Galileo and Newton. It is really odd the way these people are credited with all these "discoveries" when everything was already told in the bible or the Koran.
any science based on the Bible. This is what Hegel says. We interpret the Bible just in a new way. We have everything included, we have a huge heaven, and times when dragons lived. - This is our faith and my religion
« any science based on the Bible. This is what Hegel says. We interpret the Bible just in a new way. We have everything included, we have a huge heaven, and times when dragons lived. - This is our faith and my religion »
Moo, you've restored my faith in humanity. Your videos are like a shining light in amongst all the drivel, pseudoscience, cultists and religious fanatics. If you haven't already done so, may I direct you towards the works of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins - two excellent critical thinkers and skeptics. All the very best of luck in your studies. Its wonderful to see someone so interested in physics and astronomy, especially a woman.
GeneNowok, Do you believe the pink unicorn exist? If you do, why, and if you don't -- are you surprised I don't believe in God if the evidence is pretty much equal for both?
If u pray 2 a pink unicorn it wont help u. If u pray 2 the Almighty God He WILL help u. This has been so in my cases and this has been so in the cases of many of my friends. So ur above comparison is rather silly. Still, if say someone doesnt believe in God but wouldnt harm any animal in any way he/she is - in my opinion - a FAR better person than a religious one who harms animals in any way.
you forgot the most important thing about the unicorn: it is invisible and pink at the same time, and that fact should make it at least as mysterious and interesting as the biblical god ^^
genenovok: try praying to something else for a while, you will notice that the effectiveness of prayer stays the same, no matter which non-existent entity you are trying to communicate with. i heared that the sun-god Ra is getting popular ^^
Untrue. When somebody you like wins the lottery, it's obviously God that's done it, while it's the devil if it's somebody you dislike. There are no more options. The pink unicorn must be one of the devil's minions.
How would you expect to discover or discuss scientific (and "reality") advancements without the use of logical arguments? and how would you expect to KNOW what a logical argument is without thinking about how to argue correctly?
In the realm of science and the investigation of the material it works fine... with the question of supernatural things it has no place.
It seems that radical atheists use it to "disprove" God when all they are doing is unpicking man's arguments for God rather than disproving God's existence or the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
This "straw man" fallacy. That is usually what atheists build. ;-)
I don't know which atheists do that, but I don't disprove God, specifically not by using strawmen. I don't consider the "God Question" relevant to my life, and my conclusion is more to the spirit of "According to the available evidence at the moment, and the scientific knowledge we currently have, God is unlikely to exist". Unlikely is not "disproved". I am open for proofs for his existence, I just don't seem to receive any.
Do you get a sense of awe and wonder outside of the confines of logic? Is there room for the unprovable and the prima facie unbelievable? Fairies or perhaps so-called magical thinking? ;-)
Well, mooeypoo, if i understand u correctly, u belong 2 those who will say: "I cannot c it, so i dont believe it exists" right? But if all the eyes of the universe just closed would the universe stop 2 exist? No? But then, my friend, there wouldnt be any eyes opened 2 c it exists.
well, many religious people have closed their eyes when it comes to reality, but reality still stays real. a few people closing their eyes dont make a change, it just makes them inferior.
your argument is quite thin, its enough if one person refuses to close his eyes. and we would still have digital cameras and the technology to analyze optical data even without our eyes.
There are many things that I can't literally see but I do acknowledge their existence. Black holes, for one, are a great example. We infer their existence by using logical deductions made by looking at astronomical observation. I don't believe God exists not because I don't see it, but because there are just not enough acceptable evidence to believe it.
well, i generally dont like the concept of believing something. i prefer being convinced by peer-reviewed and confirmed fact-based evidence.
how many jews died in the second world war because a bunch of people believed that the jewish race exists, and were able to spread that belief? until today there is ZERO evidence that a jewish race exists, it appears to be just a religion. thats the problem with faith, it maps imagination onto reality and the people start hunting nonexistant demons.
What type of evidence is acceptable? I'm just curious. Are you looking for empirical evidence for God? Also, forgive me for asking a dumb question, but what are you studying in school? (I'm guessing astronomy or physics based on the couple videos of yours I've seen)
There are two types of Creationists,the one that does'nt understand science at all and chooses to belive that God created the Universe,and the other type that chooses to believe God because they are too frightend to belive that the Universe will END.
matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created, therefore all matter and energy in our universe will exist forever, and as far as we know, has existed forever. so how should the universe end?
The Universe is always getting bigger,things are moving further apart,it is like Space is stretching out.You answered your own question,MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED,AND IT CANNOT BE DESTROYED,but is there enough Matter in the Universe at this present time to keep the Universe expanding out in the future?,and that's the theory that brings scientists into believing that the Universe will end eventually.
well, there is one mystery that scientists have not solved yet. it appears like the expansion of the universe is accelerating. according to the laws of physics we know so far the expansion should slow down because of gravity or stay the same.
but our milky way galaxy isnt affected by that, it is not expanding, its just the space between the galaxies. and 2 more galaxies will crash into our galaxy in the distant future, so i wouldnt worry to much about it.
Matter cannot be created and cannot be destroyed, and yet science claims matter was NOT 'created' out of nothing (quite the opposite, actually.. perhaps you should read about it some more), and religion is the one claiming God created everything out of nothing (Creating matter out of nothing?) so.. contradiction works against YOUR belief.. not against mine.
I don't understand is this replie to me or kurtilein3?,I was'nt the one who said that MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED or MATTER CANNOT BE DESTROYED, kurtlein3 did.
Are familiar with integral theory? You seem to be an integral thinker... I am just now learning about it, but you don't have to know the book on the theory, I think you are just a natural integral thinker. I like your logic, rock on! :-P
"Everything developped from one another"? So, how did living matter develop from nonliving matter? U r so wise, u probably know the answer. And u obviously believe in that stupid theory of evolution even though Darwin himself said that if missing links would not be found soon his theory would be good 4 nothing. In the meantime those links have not been found and never will be cuz there're simply no such links.
"How did living matter develop from nonliving matter?" ok, I understand your conflict because you obviously can't see beyond the fact that "a rock ain't alive and I am, so damn, we're like, super different and God forbid I came from that" (pardon the unnecesary rudeness). But, truth to be told, you are missing the main fact: IT IS ALL MATTER. you completely disregard the fact that every little thing that exists is made from the SAME material, atoms
(and furthermore, energy; but that would a bit difficult to understand)So, once you grasp the fact that you are not one completely solid object moving around, but instead the combination and conjugation of many different elements that are defined according to a specific form or shape, is that you will be able to see beyond 'living' and 'nonlivin'; to start understanding that regardless of what we may look right now we all came from a common link
And if you still can't see how, just think about yourself. How you are compose by systems, then organs, then tissues, followed by cells, and then inside the cell you are able to find proteins, molecules, elements, ATOMS such as iron, magneseum, manganeseum, oxigen, and so on... which are EVERYWHERE in your body to support its functions.
And guess what, these same elements you can find in a rock, suspended in air, in the food you eat, the laptop you use; the only difference is the quantity of atoms and the arragement they took. so from the same basic matter, you have a universe of diversity.
hope it helps. sorry for any misspelled or sintax/grammar error... and the hideously long reply -.-,
Ok, every child knows the fact that everything cosists of atoms. So what? The point is that scientists r simply not able 2 creat in their laboratories even the simpliest living organism like a bacterium 4 instance. Im a logical thinker, and if it is logical that the Univerce (and life) - which works like a clockwork according 2 laws of maths, physics, etc - was created by random chance then im a Pope. And living matter can only be created from living matter. So my previous question still stands.
The fact we can't (yet?) does not mean God exists. Please try to remember that it took the Pope a long long time to apologize about Galileo's discoveries.
Apologize 4 what? 4 the universal truth that scientists r not able 2 create a simpliest living organism? Even in a billion light years they still will not be able 2 create any living matter out of non-living one. Y? Because only the Almighty God can do it, that's y.
You don't read much, do you? First off, religion apologized for scientific advancements that were PROVEN true (like..say..the earth is not the center of the universe, or that it isn't flat..). Second, regardless of science "can't" prove, religion doesn't even TRY to prove. It seems the main goal of religious folk is to throw sticks at what scientists are proving.. which leads to their inevitable apology at some point.
Start reading some history, you'll see what I'm talking about.
I dont care about any religion whatsoever. Im not a religious man. Im a believer in God the Almighty. Have i even once mentioned any religion? Universe is 2 complicated 2 have been created by itself and it works like a clockwork according 2 laws of science and scientists can only marvel at that. Just like Einstein said: "God doesnt play dice". And once again, only the Almighty God can create living matter out of non-living one. Scientists r not able 2 do it and NEVER EVER will be.
What your saying, though, makes no sense. "The universe is too complicated"? What does that mean? That we should stop exploring? I don't quite understand what you mean in your points, to be honest. There will probably always be more to find out, therefore technically, it's true - scientists and science itself will never "know everything". But stating and "accepting" that we won't ever know, means we give up... so.. why, exactly, should we embrace this belief?
I didnt say we should stop exploring the universe, did i? Let them scientists explore it as much as they want and LEARN FROM IT. THEY have 2 learn from the universe and not the universe from THEM, but still some of them keep saying the universe created itself...with all the PERFECT laws of science in working. Maybe it's logical 4 u, NOT r ME. And life? Again, it created itself, according 2 some of them, even thought they CANNOT create the SIMPLIEST living organism and NEVER will be able 2.
Im mocking the people who do try to find answers? What answers? About the origin of the univers? And about the origin of life? They will NEVER find the answers 2 those questions and they know it only 2 well.
Then what do you suggest? Roll over and die? Stop asking questions? Last time when this was the common view, it was called "The Dark Ages", and if you're wondering WHY, it was because almost no scientific progress -- including cures for diseases -- was made. I don't know about you, but I really don't see a point in living like this.. do you?
Im not against science and im not against asking questions and finding answers. What im saying is that (human) science has its limits beyond which people will never reach simply because beyond those limits is God the Almighty. But i can understand that 4 unbelievers, like u, that objective truth is hard (if not impossible) 2 swallow.
Your definition of "Objective" is obviously lacking, but I will move past it and try to make my point:
GeneNowok, even if I accept what you're saying, it leads me nowhere, and is therefore irrelevant. To continue researching while thinking that we would never know is pointless. If your point is that there's always more truth to be found, then I agree with you completely, which is also why I'm an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. But really.. that doesn't mean God exists.
BenDaKnee, that quote is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. That is the equivalent of saying "Look here, this archer has taken 15 shots, each one closer to the bull's eye - the last shot hit the bull's eye! To believe that he just hit the bull's eye by chance is RIDICULOUS!"
Well, yes it is. And this is what mooeypoo is saying, because trial and error is NOT CHANCE!
You are a good person!.... appreciating your apparent genuine care for "understanding" the "TRUTH"! ... we'll all get there as we go through this life!... it's kind of fun huh?
"Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle." - G. K. Chesterton
Things don't go "right" by accident. Things just go. Right by whom? Not for the dinosaurs and the countless extinct species of the earth. Man defines progress, usually in detriment to his environment and all species in it.
I will subscribe to you and encourage everyone to subscribe btw so you can be pedagogical to me and the world though! jk lol ....but seriously, I will look forward to your videos! Keep it up!
Thanks for showing me where to find logical fallacies...and I could direct you to do the same and also tell you to stop doing what you claim I do. Believe me, I'm frustrated too! Can we agree to disagree and move on? Perhaps I cannot show you that there are scientists that do not all have your giftedness to think critically but I tried.
If you could POSSIBLY ever show me where I used a single logical fallacy, I'll entertain apologizing.
Seeing as you don't even recant a SINGLE ONE of your overly used fallacies, you make the argument tedious and preachy, which is why I ask you to go learn before you continue, to avoid - at the very least - straw man fallacies.
If I see one more coming out of you, I will scream.
Those subjects surely came from scientists, but evolutionists, I don't think so. As for primordial soup, I'm not sure where evolution starts then, can you help me? Ok, from your definition of evolution, I will agree wholeheartedly but I would only add that there are limits to how far they adapt and change! Perhaps you overestimate or put to much value in how far evolution goes.
I'll tell you what. I'm getting quite tired of this repetitive talk. You obviously fail to introduce evolution correctly, which indicates you know nothing of it. Go learn about it, read some of richard dawkin's books about it, learn what it IS and what it is NOT, and then, come back, DESCRIBE evolution, and when you do so correctly, we can continue the debate.
Right now, we're arguing facts against make-belief facts. It's quite silly.
I sincerely apologize if I come across as rude, but I genuinely believe that we come to the realm of ideas with 2 diametrically opposite ideas and presuppositions that have implications or logical outflowings that each one of us will not concede here. Yet, what I am not saying as your video implies, is that only 1 of us can think critically!
The skeptic's guide to the universe has a pretty good one with explanation. it's about time you learn how to avoid using them, if you want to even try and convince people.
Strawmen, ad hominems and arguments from ignorant HARDLY show critical thinking, friend.
Can you show how "primordial soup to MAN" Evolution is a fact? Can you even show how a heart can evolve, a brain, a liver, a hand, a spleen, genitalia, an eye, a ear, respiratory system, digestive system, the endocrine system, immune system, meiosis, mitosis, and so on can evolve, let alone be a fact?
I didn't say it was a fact, and I wasn't talking about the "primordial soup" (which, again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution. Obviously you don't know anything ABOUT evolution). You are the one who has presumptions and throws accusations into the air, not me.
I was quite patient with your preaching and cowardly evasiveness. If you start being rude, I will end the debate and block you.
And yes, I can show how these can evolve. I'm not going to do that in a 500-character-limit comment, though.
Look it up online, watch dawkins explain it all, and stop asking questions science had long explained.
"Argument from Ignorance" is a nicely hidden fallacy, but you need to remember that the fact YOU don't know how it's explained doesn't mean it's not explained.
Well, your ears are unique. A little bit different from everyone else's. So, did God design them in his conveyor factory or did it come about by chance from your parents? Is a test-tube baby designed by God? Each individual is either designed or is a result of sexual selection. There is no blue-print, no cloning - yet.
That raises a very interesting question: What will happen to clones? I mean.. religious beliefs already have a problem explaining when an embryo "gets" a soul; if it is strictly after inception, then twins share a single soul. If twins have 2 souls, then it's not after inception, it's after quite longer... what would happen when we clone people? What happens to embryos that begin as twins and merge to a single baby? problems, problems.
I have studied Genetics and Philosophy of Science and still do not see how Darwinian Evolution has benefited or led to anything towards the Cell Biology of things! BTW, the genetic information found in DNA is so specifed and complex that scientists and probability theorists simply do not believe it happened all by evolution.
If you say evolution is "primordial soup" then you OBVIOUSLY haven't. Evolution is the process of an organism fitting itself to its environment through random mutations AND (mark: AAAANNNNDDDDD) natural selection.
Your explanation of it is far from what evolution truly is.
Genetics, DNA, medicine, technology -- they all came from scientists, not from religion. Something in the form of thought, apparently, allows for the development of these above that which is allowing religion.
Mooeypoo, YOU MAKE SO MANY ASS-UMPTIONS that I will call you out on it again! You,your paradigm, and your presuppositions do not have a dogmatic monopoly on science and are certainly not the most learned and rational people in Science! I do listen, but your atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic paradigm has precommitments!
Now you're just being rude. We've had such a nice conversation.
I made no assumptions, I walked step by step with yours. But you keep trying to degrade this discussion to logical fallacies. It's cowardly, and now that you started ad-hominem and plain rudeness, it's pathetic.
Indeed, IF (Big IF understandably) my observation of this Intricate Creation, the Universe, the Human Anatomy, and knowledge of specified complexity within these are registered within my mind then YES, I believe it is a fact (def 1 Knowledge or information based on real occurrences)
KNOWLEDGE. Not "guessing". How would you define knowledge?
in other words: If you state God is a proof because proof is "knowledge or information based on real occurrences) then how would you separate that definition from a budhist's belief? or a jew experiencing his God? "knowledge" is subjective. proof is not subjective.
This reminds me of a flame war I was in once when I was new to Youtube. I failed to get him to think, he failed to re-convert me, an basically the whole thing was long and pointless. In the end, a couple of people pointed out how pointless the whole thing was, and then I just said, "quite right. Peace out, I'm gone" and then I actually felt freed. my sugestion: (You don't have to listen to me, you do what you like)just ignore him.(you're not being rude; blame me)
Yeah, see, I don't care to argue with brick walls. I don't care to convince anyone who doesn't want to listen. The purpose of debates is to get both sides thinking, but if one side is intent on lecturing, it's just pointless.
The point of science is that it's changing. You hear scientists say "oh hey, we found something better and change upon it" all the time. You NEVER hear that from religious people. That's the STRENGTH of science, not it's flaw, like they claim it is.
I don't see how God doesn't fit the definition, maybe you can inform me how... Genetics coming from evolution? That's Interesting, can you explain that? BTW, I love science, but not precommitments and constraints that does not follow the evidence where it leads.
How 'bout you show me how he DOES fit? Is he an observation? How is god a FACT? He's an assumption, and perhaps you would claim a 'viable' assumption, which is always up for a debate, but a fact? If you claim that, then your definition of facts is not what you supplied, or you don't know what fact IS.
For that matter, there's no way to define an omnipotent, INVISIBLE, allknowing alldoing is-everywhere-butnever-seen god as a FACT.
I am not, also, about to explain the history of genetics. I suggest you read about it. Genes were discovered DIRECTLY out of the evolutionary evidence; for that matter, mutations in evoultion are not a child with three hands, they're GENE mutations.
You obviously go a long way to avoid reading about the science you love so much. And by that, you ignore evidence to fit them to your idea.
"It's in the dictionary" is not a satisfactory answer, since obviously we differ on definitions.
Now, seeing as you answered (finally) in your next comment, I'll go from there. remember that setting up definitions go ALL the way in a discussion, which is why I asked you, and not just stated what a fact actually *is*.
The whole reason she made this video in the first place was because she was sick of dealing with logical falacies Christians bring up and would prefer to just get on with Science (honestly; you have to actually explain why Circular Logic is stupid to these people) You have already demonstarted a lack knowledge in reguard to Natural Selection and mutation. no one wants to read through 158 posts of someone going on and on. Just top and let her get on with a new video, OK?
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2.a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event c. Something believed to be true or real 3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime 4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence.
Genetics came directly out of the theory of evolution, by the way. You can't have one without the other. It's a derivative of evolution -- genetics.
So. According to this definition, and this definition alone - since it's the one you supplied - do you agree that GOD does not fit this definition and therefore is NOT a fact?
btw, some of these definitions outright contradict one another (as some 'dictionary definitions' do, to fit many subsets of the word). This, actually, is a much broader definition than I'd expect you to accept, since from this one, the theory of evolution is true, if it's "believed to be true or real", which it is in the scientific community. I disagree, actually, with that part of the definition. I am not sure what your stance on it is, though.
You can breed fruit flies or whatever for multiple generations to the "nth" degree but there hasn't been the slightest beneficial, new information, or new genetic material! No evidence of transitions or complex organs or crucial features! IT JUST HASN'T BEEN SEEN!
My turn, what is your definition of a pardigm, a belief, science?
I don't answer anything you ask until you start answering my questions.
I suggest to all the rest who participate to do the same. I don't think preaching should be rewarded with a crowd, and talking to brick walls is a waste of time.
If you *want* to know, you will participate in a debate. If you want to push your beliefs, go to church, they accept baseless preaching.
It really isn't complicated. We are "faulty" replicators. Over time, some of these variations are selected. Isolate two groups and eventually, you come up with very different endings. Much like passing gossip from person to person.
Simply saying that they have been debunked doesn't it cut it. Fact? Truth? The Definitions are on Websters. The scientific method is quite dandy with me! Again, you may think you are more learned in science than all the rest of us, but you are not-simply stated!
Please note that I'm trying to be polite, not jump to conclusions, and avoid degrading the discussion. I don't think I did that, but out of respect to you and a desire to either prove my point or be convinced by you, I am giving quite a lot of leeway here.
I ask that you stop trying to jump at my throat, and think the questions through before giving evasive answers. I'm not satisfied with evasive answers; that's why I'm a skeptic and not a creationist.
Again, you are being pedagogical not me! You have assumed so much that...you know what "assume" means right? (Ass of U & Me. What? You can read science better than I? Wow, donkeys parade around your comments! Now that's unbelievable!
Okay. I'm going to keep myself from degrading the argument. Instead, I want to ask you two questions (which I respectfully ask you to answer, though doubt you shall):
What is FACT?
How do you know that something is "factual"? What does it mean "factual"? in other words, what criteria would you put to define things are bogus, possibilities or facts?
Like I said before, specified complexity proposed by Dembski and Irreducible Complexity by Behe have not to slightest been disproven but have been given weak counterponts! Simply look at the awesome and harmonious design of the internal organs and all that is even involved in you typing out your thoughts! Quite obvious there is design although we live in a fallen world!
Irreducible Stupidity was disproven years ago, and the "examples" given were SHOWN and explained. It was quite brutally debunked, which is why behe is not using it anymore (he has other stupidities now).
Remember I said "people that ignore facts"? apparently, you just proved me right.
The limits in evolving from 1 species to the next is outstanding! The farthest you can even go with breeding different corn or flies are simply mutations that are within the species and without hardly any gain of new information! Simply having small little differences does not show long complicated structures!
You're talking about one generation. In one generation you're not gonna see that much difference. Evolution doesn't take place in just one generation. However, selective breeding, useing canines alone, has produced everything from shitzus to St. Bernards. And the same process has also produced the Clydesdale. The "New" information comes from mutation. Gregor Mendel's pea experament demonstrates how the mutated gene gets passed on.
Wow...keep it real ppl. The lady has basically presented an analogy that is simply presumptuous and making strawmen to make her side to be the more complex and rational thinkers. She is Outright Wrong! I have answered all her questions but you can continue to assert that I haven't. Actually, her video is being pedagogical or "preachy" not me!
Well, for one thing, you completely ignored what I said about the suposed limits to the complecity of things evolving. I would have accepted "Sorry, don't know much about that" or anything. And you neither confirmed nor denied the idea that ID was not a testible hypothesis.
"the lady" is trying to get you to participate in a debate while accepting - for the sake of the argument - that she might be 'presumptious'. YOU, however, do everything in your power not to answer, which just causes "the lady" to assume she was right.
Prove, Me. Wrong, damnit, or stop preaching. We don't believe in your myth god, because we KNOW how to read science.
Wow Ma'am, you truly have suppressed all the obvious evidence of creation to your reductionistic/naturalist/materialistic philosophy! Again you assume I do not have doubts and again you're assuming that i didn't do research! Like you, but humbly, I will tell you to read our conversation.
You keep criticizing Moo on her debate style and yet your oun is to ignore our questions and just press on with your oun preaching. Frankly I find "You haven't answered my question of your Atheism/Agnosticism," to be quite ironic.
This isn't Church. It's not one person talking and everyone else believing them. If you have somehing to say we'll think about it logically. But if you won't do the same, then why should we?
btw, you don't have to give us the entire description of why "ID" is right.
One example for 'proof' is enough.
I don't have a pre commitment to anything, unlike you, I didn't ignore doubts, when they surfaced, i researched, and I made my own decision. You don't know anything about my pseudo scientific history, bub, I suggest YOU stop assuming, and start debating already.
You haven't answered my question of your Atheism/Agnosticism, do you agree that you have a pre commitment to naturalism/materialsim? Do you want me to exhaustively reductionistic and wholly mechanistic to all the glorious and intricate design in nature and of God's character?
Nice, now there is the "fallacy of ignorance" and "patronization!" Btw, I have addressed all the issues...but of course, you simply have a different belief system, I can respect that, just don't be so absolutist and dogmatic about it...and saying, "Oh, we are the more complex thinkers." Please!
Indeed Mooeypoo, having now watched a few of your lectures, I gather you know the God that I'm referring. An uncaused cause, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, just, creative, righteous, worthy, and Triune God of Abraham, Moses, ,and the rest of the Bible! The God of Abraham, Moses, and the rest! I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian Theist if you would like to know btw
Mooeypoo has already asked you this once; are you here for a debate or are you just here to preach? If you want a debate, you got one. But if you're just gonna preach on and on, and you're not gonna listen, neither will we.
This god is not the god of the bible, but okay, fine. I'll take that as your .. semi.. answer.. at least we can.. try to start somewhere.
So. God's ompnipotent? Okay. What would you expect such a god to create? I don't mean in terms of items. I mean in terms of QUALITY. If you were omnipotent, your creations would not only have meaning, they would be perfect for their purpose.
So let's move on, then. What is the purpose of the earth?
I'm willing to let it go and simply say that we agree to disagree but I still don't see how all these complex tangents and smokescreens deny the fact that the obvious design and inference to a designer!
I answered you question about God and you make more assumptions to God's purposes and quality of creation?
I'm preaching? No Ma'am, you are the one who have made assumptions all throughout your video and haven't even backed them up! You keep making assumptions that try to make you look like the more rational and sophisticated person...but you're not-simply stated. You are not the more complex thinker as you keep implying.
ID is not based on The Scientific Method. It is not a dispoveable hypothesis and therefore neither is it a varifyable one. One of the main arguements of ID is that things are "too complicated to have evolved" but things get more complex as they evolve. And, to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) no one is really doing any research or experaments to see the suposed limits of how complex things can get as they evolve.
Gravity, for example. Gravity is easy to disprove. Pick up a rock, let go and watch it float up. This won't work, of course. It's not suposed to work. By the Scientific Method, you're suposed to try and disprove your oun hypothesis.
You think to yourself, "What would I have to see/do to be convinced that my theory is wrong?" Then YOU do it. If you're lucky you'll fail.
To answer the question I must first say, the question you ask is a loaded question of which is flawed because you have the atheistic assumption "at the get go" that I can take God and be reductionistic/materialistic/naturalistic/mechanistic with all the facets of God! Secondly, I believe God is very clear and has supplied sufficient evidence of His presence (i.e. creation and life)! Thirdly, I will say again that I am a Christian Theist who believes in the God of the Bible!
Why should I be afraid? I'm not. I needed to preface my answer to all your assumptions first! I know I wrote alot but because you spewed alot of hazardous waste...jk. You still haven't answered whether you have a pre commitment to naturalism and materialism because of your atheism/agnosticism?
I didn't say you SHOULD be, I said that you are not coooperative, and asked whether you are.
Now listen. I answered your questions, and you stated that I speak out of ignorance of the "REAL" situation and the real answers. I asked you, therefore, a question, to start from a non-ignorant premise. You're non cooperative. I have no other choice than to conclude I have no one to debate with.
Why diametrically opposed? Because it has a commitment to naturalism/materialism and thus supports atheism. In truth, here is the dilemma-- you have an inherent belief in no God toward science and we have a belief in God toward science! Indeed, this effects not only operational science deductions but more importantly, historical science deductions!
Actually, throughout scientific history numerous scientists have been using the reductionist-mechanistic method or operational science of scientific inquiry to gain greater wisdom of God's creation- these people of course being Theists/Deists. However, Darwinian evolution, which maintains a diametrically opposite belief system/paradigm to compete with Creationism/ID, came along.
This has been flagged as spam show
DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT ACTUALY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMMARROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE.HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST THREE VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN TWO DAYS.NOW YOU STARTED READING THIS DONT STOP.THIS SO SCARY.PUT THIS ON AT LEAST FIVE VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN YOUR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR LOVERS NAME WILLAPPEAR IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTULLY WORKS
sin8960 1 week ago
Discovered in 2003:
The underlying law of nature may be the world's most useful, profitable and encouraging knowledge.
e.g., It is the most effective and efficient means to improve the performance of any process.
Great personal, economic and societal advantages exist to identifying the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself, and to understanding and applying its principles.
Bing or Google it as a start.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
So close, but you missed. The problem is that people have an understanding issue. We tend to regard our position as truth and denounce anything that is in contradiction to that truth. Evolution is not true it is only a fact. God is not true it is only a fact. The only way to be able to declare truth is to become omnipotent. Then somehow make my tiny mind aware of everything =). The universe was created the moment you read this instantaneously. With everything in it's place.
repatte 1 year ago
You are really upset with the Idea of God as the creator, don´t you? If the idea of God leads us no were as you say, then that is our problem. WHAT IF IT DOES? But, ah, your line is too complicated for you to understand! Good luck
u2bvideo 1 year ago
Hi. I got interested in your video initially because you were trying to reason out the differences between science in religion. But, the moment you compared religious thinking to a straight line thinking (about 5 minutes in to the video) with beginning and end, right there was your logical fallacy (non sequitur). Not all religious people believe in the beginning and the end. Hinduism, Buddhism etc. differ here. They say there was no end and beginning of time, or world or anything.
anisurfer84 2 years ago
(a continuation from the last post) It has been well established in the Christian church that God lives in one moment. This information on the Christian view of time might help you understand some Christian principles that do not make sense on a line.
edanielleh 2 years ago
(a continuation from the last post)So instead of each dash being a moment
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
It is one moment
_________________________________
You see, in both of your models that you presented you had already assumed that time is a string of moments. Most Christians would agree with you. However this is purely their ignorance on theology (understandable for most pastors dont teach on the theory of time). (continued)
edanielleh 2 years ago
(a continuation from the last post) Honestly, I am really sick of atheist taking biblical poetry literally. The whole point is that there is no distance from the east to the west. Thank you for not taking a cheap short cut such as this. However, I would like to address the theory of time that you presented. The line theory is, as you said, the way most people think. Yet it is not exactly what Christian theology teaches. The church formally says that time is one eternal moment.
(continued)
edanielleh 2 years ago
First off I would like to thank you for being polite and for using logic. Even though I am a Christian, I enjoyed watching your video. I am sorry about the rude and simply stupid comments that you have received. Trust me, I get equally absurd ones from atheists. I recently had a man tell me the Bible contradicts science because it says that God will cast your sins from the east to the west. He claimed that since there is no distance from the east to the west that the Bible was wrong (continued)
edanielleh 2 years ago
This video is exactly what i was searching for.Your very intellegent and it was a pleasure to learn from you.
slickrickjohnson 2 years ago
on JREF? fuelair.
fuelair 2 years ago
Wonderful video, thank you.
Logical fallacies ought to be taught in every school curriculum. It would save us all a lot of time having to explain simple fallacious arguments to people who are unaware they're using them.
Basic logical and critical thinking really should be taught, it's the most important thing for anyone to learn, I think.
bumeyes1000 2 years ago
Logic is one tool. One tool cannot be applied successfully to every job.
Logic and illogic, although they are opposite in concept, are complementary.
Truth consists of logic and illogic together.
Rejecting illogic is a choice of rejecting a major part of the whole truth.
Intelligence and confidence are both qualities.
Knowledge is not complete without humility.
Believing something is true, before seeing the evidence, is faith.
Believing someone is true, before seeing the evidence, is trust.
dantub7 3 years ago
Science Fails... Theism and Atheism both cannot DISPROVE the other. I am a proud Christan, and accept God and Jesus. Science has its flaws, as Plate Tectonics and Evolution are not 100% true.
Zetsumei4name 3 years ago
Congratulations, you can point out others flaws without seeing them in yourself, and as the romans say "Damnant qoud nonintellent"people fear what they do not understand.
Youjewb2 2 years ago
Incredible: you are the unwitting imitation of a Nichols and May routine.
DocteurLariviere 3 years ago
Nice video why mooeypo?
centurey8901 3 years ago
Well, straight reasoning is still better than circular reasoning.
TomSFox 3 years ago 2
Excellent!!
llieno 3 years ago 2
Awesome video. 5*
What you say there is a lot like Edward deBono's books on vertical and lateral thinking. I think you'd enjoy them.
DoctorPlausible 3 years ago
i love you
Ditchpants 3 years ago 2
Einsteins problem was fixed with constantly new unexplainable stuff of string theory. but they didn´t make anything new, they got better animations, they got always new terms, which they cant explain....is that enough for you ? knowledge changed over from nearly unexplainable to totaly unadaptable
concavearth 3 years ago
it´s not true, that so called creationists would believe in a straight line, that´s just your false interpretation. i believe in a circle of time, that means, that time can repeat, in another time and on another place. so, live can also come from another Cell. Einsteins picture of the universe was flat, he thought, that light would send out in straight lines. that´s not true, because the bible teaches, that things which look straight could be curved.
concavearth 3 years ago
That's right, Einstein didn't come up with his theory of relativity or any other theory. He just read the bible. As did Galileo and Newton. It is really odd the way these people are credited with all these "discoveries" when everything was already told in the bible or the Koran.
eoinroe 3 years ago
any science based on the Bible. This is what Hegel says. We interpret the Bible just in a new way. We have everything included, we have a huge heaven, and times when dragons lived. - This is our faith and my religion
hollow0rld 3 years ago
« any science based on the Bible. This is what Hegel says. We interpret the Bible just in a new way. We have everything included, we have a huge heaven, and times when dragons lived. - This is our faith and my religion »
Yes. Indeedey.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its horrible to see a nerd woman..men will neglect to procreate
gpardhu 3 years ago
Sorry ma'am, but only divisive, extremist views are allowed on the internet.
Also, will you bear my children?
KeroroGunsouTX 4 years ago 2
Moo, you've restored my faith in humanity. Your videos are like a shining light in amongst all the drivel, pseudoscience, cultists and religious fanatics. If you haven't already done so, may I direct you towards the works of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins - two excellent critical thinkers and skeptics. All the very best of luck in your studies. Its wonderful to see someone so interested in physics and astronomy, especially a woman.
acs1978au 4 years ago
well explained.
Hickey66 4 years ago
very good, well put. ~
mmffxx 4 years ago
You are great. I love you, moo. You're awesome.
So... you free for dinner? :)
DblOSmith 4 years ago
but what of the spherical cow? I guess that's more engineering? scientists does simplify things somewhat to make it easier to analyse.
truevoiceofsanity 4 years ago
Lol. This is funny.
Anyway, taoism is kind of a religion, i think i follow it but science definately what i do, lol. well, i used to. ha ha.
what is your favorite logical fallacies.
truevoiceofsanity 4 years ago
Do you have your PH D yet?? Is it more acidic or alkaline? A day in the life of a tree....... Mooeypoo you blow my mind!
ytclif2s 4 years ago
I'm working on it.. ;)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
GeneNowok, Do you believe the pink unicorn exist? If you do, why, and if you don't -- are you surprised I don't believe in God if the evidence is pretty much equal for both?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
If u pray 2 a pink unicorn it wont help u. If u pray 2 the Almighty God He WILL help u. This has been so in my cases and this has been so in the cases of many of my friends. So ur above comparison is rather silly. Still, if say someone doesnt believe in God but wouldnt harm any animal in any way he/she is - in my opinion - a FAR better person than a religious one who harms animals in any way.
GeneNowok 4 years ago
How do you know? I prayed for the pink unicorn half my life and it helped me in every aspect of my life. My life became fuller, richer!
Prove me wrong.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
you forgot the most important thing about the unicorn: it is invisible and pink at the same time, and that fact should make it at least as mysterious and interesting as the biblical god ^^
genenovok: try praying to something else for a while, you will notice that the effectiveness of prayer stays the same, no matter which non-existent entity you are trying to communicate with. i heared that the sun-god Ra is getting popular ^^
kurtilein3 4 years ago 2
Untrue. When somebody you like wins the lottery, it's obviously God that's done it, while it's the devil if it's somebody you dislike. There are no more options. The pink unicorn must be one of the devil's minions.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
Nice gimmick... nice resentment airing... but still as transparent and meaningless and as rude as Dawkins et al...
Logical fallacies are so very neat and very good at fooling people into believing that reason is correct. lol
Colston 4 years ago
How would you expect to discover or discuss scientific (and "reality") advancements without the use of logical arguments? and how would you expect to KNOW what a logical argument is without thinking about how to argue correctly?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
In the realm of science and the investigation of the material it works fine... with the question of supernatural things it has no place.
It seems that radical atheists use it to "disprove" God when all they are doing is unpicking man's arguments for God rather than disproving God's existence or the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
This "straw man" fallacy. That is usually what atheists build. ;-)
Colston 4 years ago
I don't know which atheists do that, but I don't disprove God, specifically not by using strawmen. I don't consider the "God Question" relevant to my life, and my conclusion is more to the spirit of "According to the available evidence at the moment, and the scientific knowledge we currently have, God is unlikely to exist". Unlikely is not "disproved". I am open for proofs for his existence, I just don't seem to receive any.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
...and you won't using material rational logic unless He/She/It/Whatever decided to show up of course... lol
Colston 4 years ago
There are other forms of proof I would accept, but they're just not there. Or at the very least, no one managed to show them to me yet.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Do you get a sense of awe and wonder outside of the confines of logic? Is there room for the unprovable and the prima facie unbelievable? Fairies or perhaps so-called magical thinking? ;-)
Colston 4 years ago
Well, mooeypoo, if i understand u correctly, u belong 2 those who will say: "I cannot c it, so i dont believe it exists" right? But if all the eyes of the universe just closed would the universe stop 2 exist? No? But then, my friend, there wouldnt be any eyes opened 2 c it exists.
GeneNowok 4 years ago
well, many religious people have closed their eyes when it comes to reality, but reality still stays real. a few people closing their eyes dont make a change, it just makes them inferior.
your argument is quite thin, its enough if one person refuses to close his eyes. and we would still have digital cameras and the technology to analyze optical data even without our eyes.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
There are many things that I can't literally see but I do acknowledge their existence. Black holes, for one, are a great example. We infer their existence by using logical deductions made by looking at astronomical observation. I don't believe God exists not because I don't see it, but because there are just not enough acceptable evidence to believe it.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
well, i generally dont like the concept of believing something. i prefer being convinced by peer-reviewed and confirmed fact-based evidence.
how many jews died in the second world war because a bunch of people believed that the jewish race exists, and were able to spread that belief? until today there is ZERO evidence that a jewish race exists, it appears to be just a religion. thats the problem with faith, it maps imagination onto reality and the people start hunting nonexistant demons.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
What type of evidence is acceptable? I'm just curious. Are you looking for empirical evidence for God? Also, forgive me for asking a dumb question, but what are you studying in school? (I'm guessing astronomy or physics based on the couple videos of yours I've seen)
phantommullet 4 years ago
Heeej you to wazzup i think you can get linces its niceOkej now i listen at what you have to say okkkej
FatimaBlueStar 4 years ago
There are two types of Creationists,the one that does'nt understand science at all and chooses to belive that God created the Universe,and the other type that chooses to believe God because they are too frightend to belive that the Universe will END.
jack4740 4 years ago
matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created, therefore all matter and energy in our universe will exist forever, and as far as we know, has existed forever. so how should the universe end?
kurtilein3 4 years ago
The Universe is always getting bigger,things are moving further apart,it is like Space is stretching out.You answered your own question,MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED,AND IT CANNOT BE DESTROYED,but is there enough Matter in the Universe at this present time to keep the Universe expanding out in the future?,and that's the theory that brings scientists into believing that the Universe will end eventually.
jack4740 4 years ago
well, there is one mystery that scientists have not solved yet. it appears like the expansion of the universe is accelerating. according to the laws of physics we know so far the expansion should slow down because of gravity or stay the same.
but our milky way galaxy isnt affected by that, it is not expanding, its just the space between the galaxies. and 2 more galaxies will crash into our galaxy in the distant future, so i wouldnt worry to much about it.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Matter cannot be created and cannot be destroyed, and yet science claims matter was NOT 'created' out of nothing (quite the opposite, actually.. perhaps you should read about it some more), and religion is the one claiming God created everything out of nothing (Creating matter out of nothing?) so.. contradiction works against YOUR belief.. not against mine.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I don't understand is this replie to me or kurtilein3?,I was'nt the one who said that MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED or MATTER CANNOT BE DESTROYED, kurtlein3 did.
jack4740 4 years ago
The reply was for whoever said it, obviously, I just made a mistake with the location of who I replied to... sorry 'bout that.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Are familiar with integral theory? You seem to be an integral thinker... I am just now learning about it, but you don't have to know the book on the theory, I think you are just a natural integral thinker. I like your logic, rock on! :-P
shipiboconibo 4 years ago
As we say in Australia: Go you good thing!
Pheebleminded 4 years ago
"Everything developped from one another"? So, how did living matter develop from nonliving matter? U r so wise, u probably know the answer. And u obviously believe in that stupid theory of evolution even though Darwin himself said that if missing links would not be found soon his theory would be good 4 nothing. In the meantime those links have not been found and never will be cuz there're simply no such links.
GeneNowok 4 years ago
"How did living matter develop from nonliving matter?" ok, I understand your conflict because you obviously can't see beyond the fact that "a rock ain't alive and I am, so damn, we're like, super different and God forbid I came from that" (pardon the unnecesary rudeness). But, truth to be told, you are missing the main fact: IT IS ALL MATTER. you completely disregard the fact that every little thing that exists is made from the SAME material, atoms
sakurasei 4 years ago
(and furthermore, energy; but that would a bit difficult to understand)So, once you grasp the fact that you are not one completely solid object moving around, but instead the combination and conjugation of many different elements that are defined according to a specific form or shape, is that you will be able to see beyond 'living' and 'nonlivin'; to start understanding that regardless of what we may look right now we all came from a common link
sakurasei 4 years ago
And if you still can't see how, just think about yourself. How you are compose by systems, then organs, then tissues, followed by cells, and then inside the cell you are able to find proteins, molecules, elements, ATOMS such as iron, magneseum, manganeseum, oxigen, and so on... which are EVERYWHERE in your body to support its functions.
sakurasei 4 years ago
And guess what, these same elements you can find in a rock, suspended in air, in the food you eat, the laptop you use; the only difference is the quantity of atoms and the arragement they took. so from the same basic matter, you have a universe of diversity.
hope it helps. sorry for any misspelled or sintax/grammar error... and the hideously long reply -.-,
sakurasei 4 years ago
Ok, every child knows the fact that everything cosists of atoms. So what? The point is that scientists r simply not able 2 creat in their laboratories even the simpliest living organism like a bacterium 4 instance. Im a logical thinker, and if it is logical that the Univerce (and life) - which works like a clockwork according 2 laws of maths, physics, etc - was created by random chance then im a Pope. And living matter can only be created from living matter. So my previous question still stands.
GeneNowok 4 years ago
The fact we can't (yet?) does not mean God exists. Please try to remember that it took the Pope a long long time to apologize about Galileo's discoveries.
Are you ready to apologize in 150 years?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Apologize 4 what? 4 the universal truth that scientists r not able 2 create a simpliest living organism? Even in a billion light years they still will not be able 2 create any living matter out of non-living one. Y? Because only the Almighty God can do it, that's y.
GeneNowok 4 years ago
You don't read much, do you? First off, religion apologized for scientific advancements that were PROVEN true (like..say..the earth is not the center of the universe, or that it isn't flat..). Second, regardless of science "can't" prove, religion doesn't even TRY to prove. It seems the main goal of religious folk is to throw sticks at what scientists are proving.. which leads to their inevitable apology at some point.
Start reading some history, you'll see what I'm talking about.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I dont care about any religion whatsoever. Im not a religious man. Im a believer in God the Almighty. Have i even once mentioned any religion? Universe is 2 complicated 2 have been created by itself and it works like a clockwork according 2 laws of science and scientists can only marvel at that. Just like Einstein said: "God doesnt play dice". And once again, only the Almighty God can create living matter out of non-living one. Scientists r not able 2 do it and NEVER EVER will be.
GeneNowok 4 years ago
What your saying, though, makes no sense. "The universe is too complicated"? What does that mean? That we should stop exploring? I don't quite understand what you mean in your points, to be honest. There will probably always be more to find out, therefore technically, it's true - scientists and science itself will never "know everything". But stating and "accepting" that we won't ever know, means we give up... so.. why, exactly, should we embrace this belief?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I didnt say we should stop exploring the universe, did i? Let them scientists explore it as much as they want and LEARN FROM IT. THEY have 2 learn from the universe and not the universe from THEM, but still some of them keep saying the universe created itself...with all the PERFECT laws of science in working. Maybe it's logical 4 u, NOT r ME. And life? Again, it created itself, according 2 some of them, even thought they CANNOT create the SIMPLIEST living organism and NEVER will be able 2.
GeneNowok 4 years ago
No, you didn't say we should stop, you're just mocking the people who do try to find answers.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Im mocking the people who do try to find answers? What answers? About the origin of the univers? And about the origin of life? They will NEVER find the answers 2 those questions and they know it only 2 well.
GeneNowok 4 years ago
Then what do you suggest? Roll over and die? Stop asking questions? Last time when this was the common view, it was called "The Dark Ages", and if you're wondering WHY, it was because almost no scientific progress -- including cures for diseases -- was made. I don't know about you, but I really don't see a point in living like this.. do you?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Im not against science and im not against asking questions and finding answers. What im saying is that (human) science has its limits beyond which people will never reach simply because beyond those limits is God the Almighty. But i can understand that 4 unbelievers, like u, that objective truth is hard (if not impossible) 2 swallow.
GeneNowok 4 years ago
Your definition of "Objective" is obviously lacking, but I will move past it and try to make my point:
GeneNowok, even if I accept what you're saying, it leads me nowhere, and is therefore irrelevant. To continue researching while thinking that we would never know is pointless. If your point is that there's always more truth to be found, then I agree with you completely, which is also why I'm an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. But really.. that doesn't mean God exists.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
BenDaKnee, that quote is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. That is the equivalent of saying "Look here, this archer has taken 15 shots, each one closer to the bull's eye - the last shot hit the bull's eye! To believe that he just hit the bull's eye by chance is RIDICULOUS!"
Well, yes it is. And this is what mooeypoo is saying, because trial and error is NOT CHANCE!
AtheistAaron 4 years ago
i'm just think ÿour "one big #&^$&%$ ray of sunshine"
STRESSED999 4 years ago
Very well put and your passion is incredible. I'm glad I found you. I hope you bring out even more video's soon. Til then.
MUSKETT30 4 years ago
I can't follow your arguments at all. Not saying they're bad, just that I'm slow at the moment.
Love listening to you though.
OOPSIEOOPSIE 4 years ago
You are a good person!.... appreciating your apparent genuine care for "understanding" the "TRUTH"! ... we'll all get there as we go through this life!... it's kind of fun huh?
BenDaKnee 4 years ago
You mentioned LOGIC?....
"Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle." - G. K. Chesterton
chesterton<dot>org
BenDaKnee 4 years ago
Things don't go "right" by accident. Things just go. Right by whom? Not for the dinosaurs and the countless extinct species of the earth. Man defines progress, usually in detriment to his environment and all species in it.
loveisallneed 4 years ago
Amen!
gizmo2084 4 years ago
This is why I like symbolism so much. Sometimes spoken word just doesn't cut it. "A picture's worth a thousand words." Good video.
aryon60 4 years ago
Superdau, I was talking in the sense that we have not seen one species to the next!
lamase24 4 years ago
Yes, we have, and we've proven the process countless times, infered on it and created subsets of science from it (genome project, for instance).
Again, argument from ignorance.
And a strawman, if you expect I produce a monkey that delivers a dog. That's just stupid.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I will subscribe to you and encourage everyone to subscribe btw so you can be pedagogical to me and the world though! jk lol ....but seriously, I will look forward to your videos! Keep it up!
lamase24 4 years ago
I don't care about subscribers, to be honest. I debate and share my views. I do so fairly and politely, and I avoid logical fallacies.
I don't care to convince the world, I care to make people THINK. Which is why I debate with you, for instance :)
Thank you for the compliments. It was a nice debate, though a bit tedious ;)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Thanks for showing me where to find logical fallacies...and I could direct you to do the same and also tell you to stop doing what you claim I do. Believe me, I'm frustrated too! Can we agree to disagree and move on? Perhaps I cannot show you that there are scientists that do not all have your giftedness to think critically but I tried.
lamase24 4 years ago
If you could POSSIBLY ever show me where I used a single logical fallacy, I'll entertain apologizing.
Seeing as you don't even recant a SINGLE ONE of your overly used fallacies, you make the argument tedious and preachy, which is why I ask you to go learn before you continue, to avoid - at the very least - straw man fallacies.
If I see one more coming out of you, I will scream.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Those subjects surely came from scientists, but evolutionists, I don't think so. As for primordial soup, I'm not sure where evolution starts then, can you help me? Ok, from your definition of evolution, I will agree wholeheartedly but I would only add that there are limits to how far they adapt and change! Perhaps you overestimate or put to much value in how far evolution goes.
lamase24 4 years ago
you don't "think so", that's nice.
I'll tell you what. I'm getting quite tired of this repetitive talk. You obviously fail to introduce evolution correctly, which indicates you know nothing of it. Go learn about it, read some of richard dawkin's books about it, learn what it IS and what it is NOT, and then, come back, DESCRIBE evolution, and when you do so correctly, we can continue the debate.
Right now, we're arguing facts against make-belief facts. It's quite silly.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I sincerely apologize if I come across as rude, but I genuinely believe that we come to the realm of ideas with 2 diametrically opposite ideas and presuppositions that have implications or logical outflowings that each one of us will not concede here. Yet, what I am not saying as your video implies, is that only 1 of us can think critically!
lamase24 4 years ago
That only happens when you use logical fallacies.
Look it up on google: List of Logical Fallacies.
The skeptic's guide to the universe has a pretty good one with explanation. it's about time you learn how to avoid using them, if you want to even try and convince people.
Strawmen, ad hominems and arguments from ignorant HARDLY show critical thinking, friend.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Can you show how "primordial soup to MAN" Evolution is a fact? Can you even show how a heart can evolve, a brain, a liver, a hand, a spleen, genitalia, an eye, a ear, respiratory system, digestive system, the endocrine system, immune system, meiosis, mitosis, and so on can evolve, let alone be a fact?
lamase24 4 years ago
I didn't say it was a fact, and it has nothing to do with evolution.
Again you and your strawmen. Evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis. Those are DIFFERENT issues.
Nice try.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
by the way:
I didn't say it was a fact, and I wasn't talking about the "primordial soup" (which, again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution. Obviously you don't know anything ABOUT evolution). You are the one who has presumptions and throws accusations into the air, not me.
I was quite patient with your preaching and cowardly evasiveness. If you start being rude, I will end the debate and block you.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
And yes, I can show how these can evolve. I'm not going to do that in a 500-character-limit comment, though.
Look it up online, watch dawkins explain it all, and stop asking questions science had long explained.
"Argument from Ignorance" is a nicely hidden fallacy, but you need to remember that the fact YOU don't know how it's explained doesn't mean it's not explained.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Well, your ears are unique. A little bit different from everyone else's. So, did God design them in his conveyor factory or did it come about by chance from your parents? Is a test-tube baby designed by God? Each individual is either designed or is a result of sexual selection. There is no blue-print, no cloning - yet.
loveisallneed 4 years ago
That raises a very interesting question: What will happen to clones? I mean.. religious beliefs already have a problem explaining when an embryo "gets" a soul; if it is strictly after inception, then twins share a single soul. If twins have 2 souls, then it's not after inception, it's after quite longer... what would happen when we clone people? What happens to embryos that begin as twins and merge to a single baby? problems, problems.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
This is why religious people are against cloning. OMG! The Chamber of Guf is empty! OH NOES! APOCALYPSE!!1!!ONEONEONE! *shakes head sadly*
AtheistAaron 4 years ago
I have studied Genetics and Philosophy of Science and still do not see how Darwinian Evolution has benefited or led to anything towards the Cell Biology of things! BTW, the genetic information found in DNA is so specifed and complex that scientists and probability theorists simply do not believe it happened all by evolution.
lamase24 4 years ago
I doubt you have.
If you say evolution is "primordial soup" then you OBVIOUSLY haven't. Evolution is the process of an organism fitting itself to its environment through random mutations AND (mark: AAAANNNNDDDDD) natural selection.
Your explanation of it is far from what evolution truly is.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
and one more thing:
Genetics, DNA, medicine, technology -- they all came from scientists, not from religion. Something in the form of thought, apparently, allows for the development of these above that which is allowing religion.
Wouldn't you say?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Mooeypoo, YOU MAKE SO MANY ASS-UMPTIONS that I will call you out on it again! You,your paradigm, and your presuppositions do not have a dogmatic monopoly on science and are certainly not the most learned and rational people in Science! I do listen, but your atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic paradigm has precommitments!
lamase24 4 years ago
Now you're just being rude. We've had such a nice conversation.
I made no assumptions, I walked step by step with yours. But you keep trying to degrade this discussion to logical fallacies. It's cowardly, and now that you started ad-hominem and plain rudeness, it's pathetic.
Once more, and I'll block you. Keep it civil.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Indeed, IF (Big IF understandably) my observation of this Intricate Creation, the Universe, the Human Anatomy, and knowledge of specified complexity within these are registered within my mind then YES, I believe it is a fact (def 1 Knowledge or information based on real occurrences)
lamase24 4 years ago
KNOWLEDGE. Not "guessing". How would you define knowledge?
in other words: If you state God is a proof because proof is "knowledge or information based on real occurrences) then how would you separate that definition from a budhist's belief? or a jew experiencing his God? "knowledge" is subjective. proof is not subjective.
See the problem with your definition here?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
This reminds me of a flame war I was in once when I was new to Youtube. I failed to get him to think, he failed to re-convert me, an basically the whole thing was long and pointless. In the end, a couple of people pointed out how pointless the whole thing was, and then I just said, "quite right. Peace out, I'm gone" and then I actually felt freed. my sugestion: (You don't have to listen to me, you do what you like)just ignore him.(you're not being rude; blame me)
dechha1981 4 years ago
Yeah, see, I don't care to argue with brick walls. I don't care to convince anyone who doesn't want to listen. The purpose of debates is to get both sides thinking, but if one side is intent on lecturing, it's just pointless.
The point of science is that it's changing. You hear scientists say "oh hey, we found something better and change upon it" all the time. You NEVER hear that from religious people. That's the STRENGTH of science, not it's flaw, like they claim it is.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I don't see how God doesn't fit the definition, maybe you can inform me how... Genetics coming from evolution? That's Interesting, can you explain that? BTW, I love science, but not precommitments and constraints that does not follow the evidence where it leads.
lamase24 4 years ago
How 'bout you show me how he DOES fit? Is he an observation? How is god a FACT? He's an assumption, and perhaps you would claim a 'viable' assumption, which is always up for a debate, but a fact? If you claim that, then your definition of facts is not what you supplied, or you don't know what fact IS.
For that matter, there's no way to define an omnipotent, INVISIBLE, allknowing alldoing is-everywhere-butnever-seen god as a FACT.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I am not, also, about to explain the history of genetics. I suggest you read about it. Genes were discovered DIRECTLY out of the evolutionary evidence; for that matter, mutations in evoultion are not a child with three hands, they're GENE mutations.
You obviously go a long way to avoid reading about the science you love so much. And by that, you ignore evidence to fit them to your idea.
Now you see what I mean with linear thinking.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Ma'am, I have been answering your questions, it's just you don't like the implications! Keep it real, don't keep saying that!
lamase24 4 years ago
"It's in the dictionary" is not a satisfactory answer, since obviously we differ on definitions.
Now, seeing as you answered (finally) in your next comment, I'll go from there. remember that setting up definitions go ALL the way in a discussion, which is why I asked you, and not just stated what a fact actually *is*.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
The whole reason she made this video in the first place was because she was sick of dealing with logical falacies Christians bring up and would prefer to just get on with Science (honestly; you have to actually explain why Circular Logic is stupid to these people) You have already demonstarted a lack knowledge in reguard to Natural Selection and mutation. no one wants to read through 158 posts of someone going on and on. Just top and let her get on with a new video, OK?
dechha1981 4 years ago
Fact-
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2.a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event c. Something believed to be true or real 3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime 4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence.
lamase24 4 years ago
Okay now.
Genetics came directly out of the theory of evolution, by the way. You can't have one without the other. It's a derivative of evolution -- genetics.
So. According to this definition, and this definition alone - since it's the one you supplied - do you agree that GOD does not fit this definition and therefore is NOT a fact?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
btw, some of these definitions outright contradict one another (as some 'dictionary definitions' do, to fit many subsets of the word). This, actually, is a much broader definition than I'd expect you to accept, since from this one, the theory of evolution is true, if it's "believed to be true or real", which it is in the scientific community. I disagree, actually, with that part of the definition. I am not sure what your stance on it is, though.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
You can breed fruit flies or whatever for multiple generations to the "nth" degree but there hasn't been the slightest beneficial, new information, or new genetic material! No evidence of transitions or complex organs or crucial features! IT JUST HASN'T BEEN SEEN!
My turn, what is your definition of a pardigm, a belief, science?
lamase24 4 years ago
"It's in the dictionary."
I don't answer anything you ask until you start answering my questions.
I suggest to all the rest who participate to do the same. I don't think preaching should be rewarded with a crowd, and talking to brick walls is a waste of time.
If you *want* to know, you will participate in a debate. If you want to push your beliefs, go to church, they accept baseless preaching.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Google: Scientists 'see new species born'
It really isn't complicated. We are "faulty" replicators. Over time, some of these variations are selected. Isolate two groups and eventually, you come up with very different endings. Much like passing gossip from person to person.
loveisallneed 4 years ago
He doesn't believe in anything not written by a religious person, liveisallneed, obviously, since he ignores it all so flatly.
I liked the analogy, though :) Gossip.. a bit too vague to my taste, but i didn't think about it hehe nice one :)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
"IT JUST HASN'T BEEN SEEN!"
Wrong -> Argument from Ignorance
superdau 4 years ago
Simply saying that they have been debunked doesn't it cut it. Fact? Truth? The Definitions are on Websters. The scientific method is quite dandy with me! Again, you may think you are more learned in science than all the rest of us, but you are not-simply stated!
lamase24 4 years ago
Please note that I'm trying to be polite, not jump to conclusions, and avoid degrading the discussion. I don't think I did that, but out of respect to you and a desire to either prove my point or be convinced by you, I am giving quite a lot of leeway here.
I ask that you stop trying to jump at my throat, and think the questions through before giving evasive answers. I'm not satisfied with evasive answers; that's why I'm a skeptic and not a creationist.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Again, you are being pedagogical not me! You have assumed so much that...you know what "assume" means right? (Ass of U & Me. What? You can read science better than I? Wow, donkeys parade around your comments! Now that's unbelievable!
lamase24 4 years ago
Okay. I'm going to keep myself from degrading the argument. Instead, I want to ask you two questions (which I respectfully ask you to answer, though doubt you shall):
What is FACT?
How do you know that something is "factual"? What does it mean "factual"? in other words, what criteria would you put to define things are bogus, possibilities or facts?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Like I said before, specified complexity proposed by Dembski and Irreducible Complexity by Behe have not to slightest been disproven but have been given weak counterponts! Simply look at the awesome and harmonious design of the internal organs and all that is even involved in you typing out your thoughts! Quite obvious there is design although we live in a fallen world!
lamase24 4 years ago
I'm not going to argue with you.
Irreducible Stupidity was disproven years ago, and the "examples" given were SHOWN and explained. It was quite brutally debunked, which is why behe is not using it anymore (he has other stupidities now).
Remember I said "people that ignore facts"? apparently, you just proved me right.
Go study..
mooeypoo 4 years ago
The limits in evolving from 1 species to the next is outstanding! The farthest you can even go with breeding different corn or flies are simply mutations that are within the species and without hardly any gain of new information! Simply having small little differences does not show long complicated structures!
lamase24 4 years ago
yes yes yes whatever.
The limits are greater than they should be, the complexible irreducibility is rational.
You don't know half a thing about science, do you?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
FINALLY!
You're talking about one generation. In one generation you're not gonna see that much difference. Evolution doesn't take place in just one generation. However, selective breeding, useing canines alone, has produced everything from shitzus to St. Bernards. And the same process has also produced the Clydesdale. The "New" information comes from mutation. Gregor Mendel's pea experament demonstrates how the mutated gene gets passed on.
dechha1981 4 years ago
Wow...keep it real ppl. The lady has basically presented an analogy that is simply presumptuous and making strawmen to make her side to be the more complex and rational thinkers. She is Outright Wrong! I have answered all her questions but you can continue to assert that I haven't. Actually, her video is being pedagogical or "preachy" not me!
lamase24 4 years ago
Well, for one thing, you completely ignored what I said about the suposed limits to the complecity of things evolving. I would have accepted "Sorry, don't know much about that" or anything. And you neither confirmed nor denied the idea that ID was not a testible hypothesis.
dechha1981 4 years ago
"the lady" is trying to get you to participate in a debate while accepting - for the sake of the argument - that she might be 'presumptious'. YOU, however, do everything in your power not to answer, which just causes "the lady" to assume she was right.
Prove, Me. Wrong, damnit, or stop preaching. We don't believe in your myth god, because we KNOW how to read science.
Prove us wrong or stop wasting our time. Geesh.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Watch my videos, and tell me how you reconcile the utter lack of "perfectness" in our god's perfect design.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Wow Ma'am, you truly have suppressed all the obvious evidence of creation to your reductionistic/naturalist/materialistic philosophy! Again you assume I do not have doubts and again you're assuming that i didn't do research! Like you, but humbly, I will tell you to read our conversation.
lamase24 4 years ago
You keep criticizing Moo on her debate style and yet your oun is to ignore our questions and just press on with your oun preaching. Frankly I find "You haven't answered my question of your Atheism/Agnosticism," to be quite ironic.
This isn't Church. It's not one person talking and everyone else believing them. If you have somehing to say we'll think about it logically. But if you won't do the same, then why should we?
dechha1981 4 years ago
btw, you don't have to give us the entire description of why "ID" is right.
One example for 'proof' is enough.
I don't have a pre commitment to anything, unlike you, I didn't ignore doubts, when they surfaced, i researched, and I made my own decision. You don't know anything about my pseudo scientific history, bub, I suggest YOU stop assuming, and start debating already.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
You haven't answered my question of your Atheism/Agnosticism, do you agree that you have a pre commitment to naturalism/materialsim? Do you want me to exhaustively reductionistic and wholly mechanistic to all the glorious and intricate design in nature and of God's character?
lamase24 4 years ago
I've stopped answering your questions until you answer mine.
If you read our entire 10000000-post conversation, you'll see why.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Nice, now there is the "fallacy of ignorance" and "patronization!" Btw, I have addressed all the issues...but of course, you simply have a different belief system, I can respect that, just don't be so absolutist and dogmatic about it...and saying, "Oh, we are the more complex thinkers." Please!
primetime100 4 years ago
You please.
Stop being a coward. You're not preaching to ignorant crowds. We've answered your questions and responded to your one-sided preaches long enough.
Answer the question, or admit defeat and stop wasting our time.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Shall I take that as an "I am going to preach on and on rather than listening or answering questions", then?
dechha1981 4 years ago
Indeed Mooeypoo, having now watched a few of your lectures, I gather you know the God that I'm referring. An uncaused cause, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, just, creative, righteous, worthy, and Triune God of Abraham, Moses, ,and the rest of the Bible! The God of Abraham, Moses, and the rest! I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian Theist if you would like to know btw
primetime100 4 years ago
Mooeypoo has already asked you this once; are you here for a debate or are you just here to preach? If you want a debate, you got one. But if you're just gonna preach on and on, and you're not gonna listen, neither will we.
dechha1981 4 years ago
This god is not the god of the bible, but okay, fine. I'll take that as your .. semi.. answer.. at least we can.. try to start somewhere.
So. God's ompnipotent? Okay. What would you expect such a god to create? I don't mean in terms of items. I mean in terms of QUALITY. If you were omnipotent, your creations would not only have meaning, they would be perfect for their purpose.
So let's move on, then. What is the purpose of the earth?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I'm willing to let it go and simply say that we agree to disagree but I still don't see how all these complex tangents and smokescreens deny the fact that the obvious design and inference to a designer!
I answered you question about God and you make more assumptions to God's purposes and quality of creation?
Like I said, you have a precomittment
lamase24 4 years ago
If it was so obvious, the proofs would've supported it.
In other words: Everything we know denies Intelligent Design.
Wake up.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I'm preaching? No Ma'am, you are the one who have made assumptions all throughout your video and haven't even backed them up! You keep making assumptions that try to make you look like the more rational and sophisticated person...but you're not-simply stated. You are not the more complex thinker as you keep implying.
primetime100 4 years ago
ID is not based on The Scientific Method. It is not a dispoveable hypothesis and therefore neither is it a varifyable one. One of the main arguements of ID is that things are "too complicated to have evolved" but things get more complex as they evolve. And, to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) no one is really doing any research or experaments to see the suposed limits of how complex things can get as they evolve.
dechha1981 4 years ago
Gravity, for example. Gravity is easy to disprove. Pick up a rock, let go and watch it float up. This won't work, of course. It's not suposed to work. By the Scientific Method, you're suposed to try and disprove your oun hypothesis.
You think to yourself, "What would I have to see/do to be convinced that my theory is wrong?" Then YOU do it. If you're lucky you'll fail.
dechha1981 4 years ago
To answer the question I must first say, the question you ask is a loaded question of which is flawed because you have the atheistic assumption "at the get go" that I can take God and be reductionistic/materialistic/naturalistic/mechanistic with all the facets of God! Secondly, I believe God is very clear and has supplied sufficient evidence of His presence (i.e. creation and life)! Thirdly, I will say again that I am a Christian Theist who believes in the God of the Bible!
primetime100 4 years ago
And you still didn't answer it.
"God is the creator. Omnipotent, all knowing creator" would be an answer.
What are you afraid of, exactly?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Why should I be afraid? I'm not. I needed to preface my answer to all your assumptions first! I know I wrote alot but because you spewed alot of hazardous waste...jk. You still haven't answered whether you have a pre commitment to naturalism and materialism because of your atheism/agnosticism?
primetime100 4 years ago
I didn't say you SHOULD be, I said that you are not coooperative, and asked whether you are.
Now listen. I answered your questions, and you stated that I speak out of ignorance of the "REAL" situation and the real answers. I asked you, therefore, a question, to start from a non-ignorant premise. You're non cooperative. I have no other choice than to conclude I have no one to debate with.
If I'm wrong, answer the question.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Why diametrically opposed? Because it has a commitment to naturalism/materialism and thus supports atheism. In truth, here is the dilemma-- you have an inherent belief in no God toward science and we have a belief in God toward science! Indeed, this effects not only operational science deductions but more importantly, historical science deductions!
primetime100 4 years ago
do you NOTICE that you're not listening, nor are you cooperating in the discussion, but rather lecturing endlessly.
I respected you enough to stop my fluency and ASK a question. How 'bout you respect me, and answer it, so we can debate properly?
Are you worried from what your answer will produce?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Actually, throughout scientific history numerous scientists have been using the reductionist-mechanistic method or operational science of scientific inquiry to gain greater wisdom of God's creation- these people of course being Theists/Deists. However, Darwinian evolution, which maintains a diametrically opposite belief system/paradigm to compete with Creationism/ID, came along.
primetime100 4 years ago