I love these videos. It's nice to here someone tell the truth for once. I'm sick and tired of people going on the preacher circuit with their bogus claims that have absolutely no empirical evidence to back them. Yet they act like what they're saying is the truth. The difference is that those clowns are driven by their ego's whereas fact finding scientists are driven by the truth.
Another good counter argument for the argument of 'fine tuning' is that even if the chances are 1 to 0.00000000000000000000000001 we would only be here if it happened. You can say it is impossible that it happened by chance but would we know about the trillions of universes that weren't fit for life? No we would only notice a universe that is suitable for life, since we are alive.
Dear creationists, ID proponents & other (but the same to me). The Universe isn't "fine tuned" to us. We are "fine tuned" to the universe. Our planet is the way it is, because the Universe is the way it is, and this planet isn't so "fine tuned" for us - we are so "fine tuned" to it as a result of evolution. If this Universe was different our planet would be different, and if our planet would be different we would be different, or even there would be no life here at all or no planet.
Just a little funny editing mistake you've made, when after a Phil Plait clip, you say "video goes on and on and on and on, one bogus claim after another...".
It's as if you're saying that it's actually Phil Plait who puts forth bogus claims, instead of debunking them. It's not really an editing mistake, just... off.
Good video series. I know these vids are older, but I'd like to see something on somebody else other then the infamous Kent Hovind and his imbecilic creation museum friends.
I had this question back when I was a christian, and still have it now that I'm an atheist:
Is there any christian/creationist who's science is somewhat legitimate? Is there a creationist who espouses legitimate views on creationism and how it relates to science? Other then the classic deists and apologetics lol?
Episode 11 will be on the immorality of Darwin, and I probably won't even mention Hovind. My main videos to debunk will be Expelled and that Coral Ridge Ministries video.
I don't know of any creationists with legitimate science, but there are plenty of Christians: Ken Miller, for one. Of course, he works with evolution...
The "immorality of Darwin" ah yes that should be interesting XD
"Atheism and Evolution are bad because HITLER WAS AN ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST BLABLABLA" lol, have fun with that one ;)
Here's an interesting site pertaining to that topic:
h t t p : / / w w w.nobeliefs .c o m/Hitler1. ) htm
remove the parentheses and spaces.
Yeah, most of the legitimate scientists who still believe in God are apologetic christian evolutionists. But then there's some who deny evolution, like the surgeon Ben Carson.
I wonder about the life-forming universes that this guy built(?). We can't create life in a laboratory even though we can create the ingredients that it needs, how can we tell a computer how to create life? You see what I mean? If we don't know the recipe, how can we teach someone else to cook it?
He looked at the particular aspects (such as the gravitational constant) that the creationists claimed would throw everything off if they were changed even slightly--preventing stars from forming, for example. He found out that there was an astounding amount of play in how you could change these and get basically the same universe to form.
Similar universes, I can imagine, but life? It just seems to be a grand leap of faith to have a "did life begin?" field in there. We don't have a clue how life began, so how can we expect a program that we write to know how and under what conditions life began. By "what conditions" I mean what was the catalyst that caused that first single cell to suddenly pop to life. I know we have a good idea of atmosphere, chemical compositions, etc. But what's the X factor? How do we account for it?
Astronomy note; a few weeks ago I was actually able to see Pluto! And with a regular telescope too! And a beautiful globular cluster after that, I'm sorry but I don't buy that both the Kuiper belt and all the other stars were all created in a single day.
I might come visit. Anyways. Good vids either way. Put together well in my opinion. I may not agree with everything within but I do appreciate your quest for truth and the obvious love for science that you have which I share myself.
shoepebble... you lost, get over it. You're repeating the same lines over and over like a mantra, but you consistently ignore when they bring facts to discredit you. You're not proving anything but how ignorant and fanatical some creationists are.
Credit to shanedk and 4EverShadowless for putting up with you though.
So just by you mentioning it does it prove it? Are you the last final say of authority? Why can't I question you? Demonstrate how fast the cameras can out-do the human eye as in multitask. Moving a camera phone across text without the screen going out of focus does not debunk what I said. But demonstrating what I said will debunk what you claim. The human eye is still better. Shave...and..a..haircut....to.....bits!!!!!
By the way! Can an evolutionist tell me why the evolutionists are worrying so much about global warming when it is their own theory supposedly being demonstrated. Wouldn't this all be something changing such as past lifeforms that had to adapt?
What the hell are you talking about? Global warming would definitely force life to adapt, HOWEVER that doesn't mean we want mass extinction to occur. Do you know just HOW long life takes to recover from mass extinctions? Also, humans without technology would be wiped from Earth. Is it their own fault they lack that technology? No, the flow of money and technology is not determined genetically.
Tehse lttrees are bineg lkooed at wtih hmuan septcleas. wroknig aolsgnide wtih the brain. scine you aer coortblafme to crcizitie teh mvearl of its dseiegnr. mbyae you are albe to frugie waht tihs says whtuoit lonikog.
WHY ARE YOU LOOKING? Can't YOU come up with a design better than the human eye to read that. Please tell me what the eye is doing wrong when you read that.
That is opinion and not fact. Even the most advanced camera does not have the capabilities to focus as fast as a healthy human eye. Cameras work good in the same position and are able to zoom out farther, but still do not match many many intricate functions as the human eye, which also perform more functions than just sight. In the near future we will be indentified by a retinal scan. No two retinas have the same identification, better than fingerprints.
MILLISECONDS.....just like the human eye. Your retina has to do with the design of the eye and its unsurpassed multi-funtion capabilities. So with all of these advanced technological breakthroughs of the camera, can you begin to tell what the effects might be on the human body and the nervous system and the brain if our eyes were to see into the spectrum etc....? Is more always better? You need to get to the inside and see out, instead of the outside seeing in.
typical ending statement from an evolutionist! To let you know the eye is continuously focusing and processing and adjusting to various shades every time you read a word. you don't seem to understand how much your eye is actually doing all at once. so does it take a second or two to focus on each word you read?
*Rolls eyes* I know about the processes of the eye. Still, you COMPLETELY avoided my point which was a direct counter to your argument that the eye was "perfect" and an example of design. You weren't talking about the processes, you were making a generalization based off the fact that you know no other way to see the world.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR 4EVERSHADOWLESS 1. scroll through comments and find where shoepebble said the eye was perfect.(if not able to find then redefine what my point was). 2. think of something from the evolutionist handbook to insult with. 3. redesign the human eye. 4. keep trying till it works according to MY expectations. 5. try to go to the deep end without holding on to the sides.....Shave and a haircut to bits!!!!!!
still have not told me what the paragraph says. HINT!!!!!! You know already. You just don't know it yet!!Your eyes have done their job once again!!!!!!Give God Praise!!!!!!!!right hook, another right, he's down 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and10!!!!!!!!!
1. You implying that it has no flaws is the same as calling it perfect. 2. I have not once insulted you. I have only asked for an actually relevant argument. 3. WTF? Um, sorry sugah, but life doesn't work the way you want. Also, I just LOVE your attempts to fit me into your 'ebul ebulutionist' sterotype. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them as asshat. Can't say the same about you though. 5. I'm guessing this is supposed to be a sick burn...yeah, try again.
Me having a masters degree in O.G.K.L. from Bullard State University have done my homework and have fun with evolutionists, being that evolution is s scientific fantasy. You have no idea who you are up against pal.
How in ANY way are your 'credentials' an argument? Also, I've dealt with people with much more impressive resumes and who are five times my age. Internet debate and IRL debate are my specialties. I doubt I 'don't know who I'm up against'
We've got cameras that see more of the light spectrum. We've got cameras that can see more detail even in the visual range. We've got cameras that can see much smaller things than our eye can resolve. We've got cameras that can see much further away than our eyes can evolve. We've got cameras that can show things happening in incredibly small time spans that our eyes can't handle.
By EVERY objective measurement, there are cameras out there better than our eyes.
But is it the eye that is figuring out what your paragraph means? No, they take an image in, but even so they do not in ANY way help me to decipher what I do see. I don't see how that explains the marvel of eyes so much as the brain for making out what you are saying.
Without a brain, I could see this but I would not understand nor know what the letters mean. What good is seeing them then if I cannot interpret. Bring relevant example plz.
Look at something far away. Now look at something near. See how long it takes your eye to focus.
You're a deluded moron.
And the brain evolved along with the eye, idiot. If we'd had a better eye, seeing in more detail, and a greater range of the spectrum, our brain would have evolved to deal with that.
Get ANY camera-EVEN A CHEAP CAMERA PHONE. Point it at the palm of your hand, then point it at a bird flying by. You are an intelligent created being you are!!Now pinpoint zoom in and focus. shave and a haircut to bits!!!!!
YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! **YOU** were the one talking about tracking words on a paper and how it was a miracle our eyes could do it!
I've ALREADY MENTIONED cameras that can focus near to far in MILLISECONDS! Our eyes can't do that--that's why you had to desperately resort to the word-tracking thing!
There are lots of things that weve designed that perform better than a human can. The computer itself can process certain things at a way faster rate than we can but no one in their right mind would claim that a PC right now is more complex than a human brain. I just dont believe that blind simple processes could ever result in a fully functional "mind" that processes things the way we do, feelings emotions, love, gets angry, etc.... I cant prove it empirically but it just doesnt seem logical.
It's useless to try to compare complexities of a PC and a brain. Their respective designs work on entirely different principles in every fundamental way. It's really comparing apples and accordions.
And what you believe is irrelevant. Reality is not constrained to the limits of your imagination.
Thanks for reminding me that what I believe is irrelevant. I understand that reality doesnt stem from my imagination. WTF? Why did you even say that as I never alluded to that at all. I said myself that I CANT PROVE IT thus admitting that I could be wrong about a great deal of things. I was merely pointing out that its also apples to oranges to compare a camera to an eye in MANY regards in the same way that its stupid to compare a computer a brain even though people do so very often.
Just because reality is not constrained to my imagination does mean that it is inherently false or that it doesnt follow a certain logical argument based on observation and certain things that appear to consistently true. I dont just make shit up and say its true because I thought it up. Again, I COULD be wrong, as could anyone else about ALOT of things that most consider TRUE. My feeling is that regardless of what people believe, truth will eventually show itself in the end whatever that maybe.
When it flies in the face of the evidence--and ESPECIALLY when it's based on a false premise, as yours was--we ABSOLUTELY can consider your belief to be false.
A false premise? Give me a break. MANY people believe in design not because they are idiots,they do so because it appears that way to them. Yes, it could be false, but it could be true. There are many intelligent people with very good credentials who have know the evidence question and doubt many aspects of what you believe. And thats perfectly OK. This sort of conflict is contained in every branch of science. One wonders why its so shunned upon with regards to man's origins.
And 400 years ago, I could have said, "MANY people believe in geocentricism not because they are idiots, they do so because it appears that way to them." What's the difference?
I actually totally agree with that. I just apply it to everything. And the difference lies in that they could still be right about design today. I happen to think that 400 years from now one could possibly be saying the same thing about evolution, Intelligent design or a lot of other theories for that matter. I realize there are certainties and than many things are testable, repeatable and observable which makes things more "definite" or "factual" but history also shows that things do change.
Also,my premise WAS NOT based on my computer analogy.I was simply comparing the computer/brain analogy to the previously used camera/eye analogy in that there are too many "different" aspects of each to really make a fair comparison with regards to using it in an argument.For the record,I dont have any issues with YOU in particular, just the idea that evolution is undeniable fact. You disagree as do many others and thats fine. I do however enjoy your other videos especially the moon hoax videos.
To make a minor correction, the earth was spinning considerably faster during earth's formation, we didn't start with the current 24 hour day, due to Tidal Acceleration.
No big, just wanted to clarify that one, but it wasn't the point of your argument. By the way, how can I get all of these Bogosity episodes on DVD or something, your website reference gives me a 404.
how do u know that?, because it's a theory so it can fit with evolution... and by the way life cannot form with oxygen, and it cannot form without it :)
I think the user Andromeda'sWake has a video about the early earth and its 15 hour day.
Just because they are both theories doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another.
As for the origins of life please look into a video by CDK007 on Abiogenesis. Sorry about not directly answering your question but it can be very difficult to explain with 500 characters. The users and their respective videos are very informative and should answer your questions.
Interesting Darwin said "having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one". I am an atheist and never heard this. It is apparent to me that Charlie understood how life develops but to explain the origin of life itself he believed in a creator. For me it's enough to say I don't know. I guess in his day, religious dogma was such that even Charlie couldn't fully escape it. But then how do you explain RG Ingersoll, a younger contemporary of his with such agnostic views?
It's the God of the Gaps. God has always been invoked as explanation for mysteries. When the gaps are filled in, God has grown weaker and weaker. Yes, even Darwin as a religious man had to ponder God as an explanation but you have to remember that Darwin knew nothing of DNA as it had yet to be discovered in his lifetime.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That Phil guys awesome and don't say Pluto isn't a planet its been considered one for far to long for someone to just go and strip its status of a planet away and turn it back into just an asteroid i mean how would you feel if someone did that you huh?
Thank you, that was a really fast reply :). Also I love the Bogosity series, thank you so much for making it, also is there any chance of it being available on dvd?
Yes, I'm familiar with the Chick tracts. If you ask me, they debunk themselves.
I've been keeping up with all the info about Expelled. A NYT reporter has seen the movie and just did a scathing review of it (much to the chagrin of the filmmakers). I'm sure I'll get a Bogosity episode out of it.
shanedk I think your 'intelligence' is tainted and that to say that man is badly designed shows how small your god is. If you think your lame evidence is enough go ahead and keep your head in the sand..
All right, then: YOU explain why it's a good thing to have the retinal artery in front of the retina instead of behind, resulting in not only blind spots but in certain cases retinal tearing resulting in blindness.
YOU explain the appendix, an organ which does nothing except blow up and kill the person every now and then.
YOU explain cancer, where normal human cells go crazy and start killing the person.
You explain the amazment of your brain. The fact that you can see at all, smell, touch, hear, reason,imagine, reproduce,adapt to conditions around us, the human spirit to survive, the human need for hope and love. The NEED for answers to big questions.Your not intelligent by critisising what you CANNOT explain!Radiation and a lot of man made explanation create cancer.
ALL of the things you mentioned are easily explained by evolution.
And you have DISHONESTLY ignored the criticisms. You go from the eye being "perfect" to "it's a miracle that you can see at all." If the eye was designed, it was designed by a DOOFUS who should have been bumped back to the assembly line. That's a FACT.
YOur a manipulator, I didn't say that.. the issue is you speak as though anyone even a doofus could make an eye,what have you or could you possibly make like an eye that is engineered to work wth the brain so well.The smartest man alive couldnt and hasn't made anything so productive as the eye.You look at the spek but can't see the LOG!
"The smartest man alive couldnt and hasn't made anything so productive as the eye."
Actually, we've made cameras that work a lot better. We actually have to make our cameras work LESS well so that they better match what we see with our eyes!
True! Cameras can see inferred. MOST digital cameras do. My WEBCAM can see inferred from a Wiimote or the Wii sensor bar. (4 inferred lights/sensors on each side.) If a human being can see these 4 little lights in a Wii sensor bar, then they've quite literally evolved to do so. Although I see little reason to evolve such a trait. Then again, many creatures don't need eyes at all. Then AGAIN, evolution explains this.
As a person who will likely suffer from retinal detachment later in life I find it laughable to suggest that our eyes are so perfectly designed. If they were so wonderful and great we wouldn't have such a limited view, we'd see further into the various spectrum and certainly there wouldn't be such a need for eye doctors :P
what would be the effects of seeing further into the spectrum. Is it better we don't? Maybe it is that way for a reason. Just because your eye(s) will not last forever does not mean the design in less awesome. You cannot even list all of the funtions a human eye is capable of within a fraction of a second. Even with retinal detachment they will continue to perform many tasks for you.
If the eye does not last forever then your 'design' is imperfect. If God is perfect and we are created in his perfect image then the eye FALSIFIES your claim!
If you think these wonders of mans body are easily explained then explain them.. and show me an answer thats better than a 'doofus'.By the way your disrespect for mu God says little about you. Your 'science' or God blaming is pretty watery and weak.
All you have are insults and platitudes. There are BOOKS full of descriptions of exactly how evolution results in ALL of these things. You're willfully ignorant, and completely closed to learning. You bleat on and on about the brain, yet you refuse to use yours.
For all who think the BIble isn't true be aware that we are in the last days as the Bile has said.The prophecies in the BIble have come and will come to pass. 2/3 of the Bible has come to pass and soon the rest will. All that is to come, one world order, antichrist, mark of the beast, tribulation, peace treaty, building of the temple, is all to happen and is in planning NOW!!! ITs not a airy tale but REAL so repent of your sins and follow Christ.
II Kings 2:23-24: "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
Deuteronomy 25:11-12: If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Yes, love the children, peace, justice, and love for all mankind...yeah, right.
Oh, wait, let me guess: I've taken these out of context, right? In WHAT context is it POSSIBLY okay to sell your daughter into SLAVERY???
They lived under harsh laws, which is about justice. But Justice isn't about grace. Go to court, if you break the law is the judge allowed to show grace if the evidence is clear? Under the new covernant, Jesus Blood made atonement for our sins and we are no longer saved under law but grace, BUT Jesus said He has not come to abolish the law.We MUST still live under the commandments and obey them.
"We MUST still live under the commandments and obey them."
So, then, do you stone to death disobedient children? Or people who go to church with acne? Or people who wear clothes made of two different types of fiber?
Concerning maid-servants, whom their parents, through extreme poverty, had sold, when they were very young, to such as they hoped would marry them when they grew up; if they did not, yet they must not sell them to strangers, but rather study how to make them amends for the disappointment; if they did, they must maintain them handsomely, v. 7-11.
\it is set up for the servants protecion so she does not be a bused by a stranger
I was wondering if there was any pictures or any scientific data of any accidental deformed evolving species. Today we have all the technology that we need to perform the cloning process, and with all of our knowledge and understanding still come out with some errors. (But of course they only show the pretty ones). How much more of a chance of errors of the evolving process do you think there was over millions of years with organisms with no brain as ours?
How about fossils of any evolved species among the same kind that somehow started to form new parts as adaptation was necessary? Are there any that evolved halfway? Seems strange that evolutionists happen to find only the complete versions of any evolved species as examples. If this process was millions of years in the making, there should be many more examples, I and probably many others would think. What about the disadvanted deformity examples?
See, that's the very thing I was mentioning in the video. There's nothing whatsoever in evolution that requires "incomplete" or "halfway" parts.
Is an eye without a lens, seen in many fish, any less of an eye than ours? We see slow developments of the eye--each one complete and functional in itself--throughout the animal kingdom.
Creationists not only don't understand evolution, they refuse to understand when you try to teach them.
You mean different variations, not slow developments. They were specifically designed for each species purposes. Evolutionists not only don't understand creation, they refuse to understand when you teach them.
No, we understand creation perfectly, and that's why we know it's BOGUS.
Why do so many species in the same niche with the same "purpose" have so many different features? Going back to Darwin: why are the birds unique to each island even though the islands are identical in terms of climate, predators, etc.?
Evolution explains. Creationists just assert. We have evidence; you don't.
No, SCIENCE does that. Science is always asking more questions and hoping to learn more things. You just repeat the same crap over and over again with no regard for the fact that it was completely rebutted decades ago.
The disadvantaged deformities would be naturally selected against in that the organism would either be disallowed reproduction by the opposite sex, or would not survive to reproduce. The key is does the deformity inhibit reproduction or survival? If so, it will never be submitted into the gene pool.
Technically, EVERY species is "deformed." The only difference is whether or not the particular deformity happens to be an advantage or disadvantage (or neither) in the organism's current environment.
Does this apply to the human species as well? 2 arms not 3, imangine 3 arms, that would be a disadvantage. 5 toes for each foot(advantage), a very advanced human brain(advantage)also more advanced than even the most intelligent life form on land or in the sea. The disadvantages actually could be looked at as advantages. The people in the North Pole have not started to grow any fur as far as I can see.
But the people in the North Pole have much different wether conditions as we have. Appears they have not evolved any different than those of us here in the much warmer climates. And we haven't started mutating towards the water with signs of any fins or gils for us to adapt from the warmer climate. Why haven't our advantages and disadvantages started some form of the continuing evolution process? Or do we have to wait for the ????billion year process?
Because we invented this stuff called "scuba gear."
Why aren't we developing these things? Because there's no selective pressure to do so. And if you knew the FIRST thing about evolution, you'd know that you need selective pressure for a feature to get expressed.
Maybe because we have these things called "coats"?
And there is a mutation--not really that rare--that causes someone to be born with six fingers. Since it doesn't give the person much of a survival advantage, it never gets expressed in the population, but those people like quite normal, happy lives--at least as much as anyone else.
I love these videos. It's nice to here someone tell the truth for once. I'm sick and tired of people going on the preacher circuit with their bogus claims that have absolutely no empirical evidence to back them. Yet they act like what they're saying is the truth. The difference is that those clowns are driven by their ego's whereas fact finding scientists are driven by the truth.
pantherhawk40 1 month ago
I wonder if the terrorist bomb that created a rollex watch was just a bogometer that exploded in your hand after detecting that quote?
TheHandgunhero 2 months ago
Another good counter argument for the argument of 'fine tuning' is that even if the chances are 1 to 0.00000000000000000000000001 we would only be here if it happened. You can say it is impossible that it happened by chance but would we know about the trillions of universes that weren't fit for life? No we would only notice a universe that is suitable for life, since we are alive.
philateliceun 1 year ago
something about you makes you look like a creationist
khoavuong 1 year ago
That quote was so beautiful...
StaraptorEmpoleon 1 year ago
lol again. the Christian made film is jacking U.S Marine Commerical Music lol.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
Dear creationists, ID proponents & other (but the same to me). The Universe isn't "fine tuned" to us. We are "fine tuned" to the universe. Our planet is the way it is, because the Universe is the way it is, and this planet isn't so "fine tuned" for us - we are so "fine tuned" to it as a result of evolution. If this Universe was different our planet would be different, and if our planet would be different we would be different, or even there would be no life here at all or no planet.
UserNr001 1 year ago 2
Just a little funny editing mistake you've made, when after a Phil Plait clip, you say "video goes on and on and on and on, one bogus claim after another...".
Retardretroguy 2 years ago
What's the mistake?
shanedk 2 years ago
Cut of from context, it seems like your calling Phil Plait's stuff bogus. It's nothing serious, just a funny thought.
Retardretroguy 2 years ago
@shanedk
"What's the mistake?"
It's as if you're saying that it's actually Phil Plait who puts forth bogus claims, instead of debunking them. It's not really an editing mistake, just... off.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@shanedk He's saying that you put that after the phil plait thing rather than the creationist thing.
RaustBD 3 months ago
Good video series. I know these vids are older, but I'd like to see something on somebody else other then the infamous Kent Hovind and his imbecilic creation museum friends.
I had this question back when I was a christian, and still have it now that I'm an atheist:
Is there any christian/creationist who's science is somewhat legitimate? Is there a creationist who espouses legitimate views on creationism and how it relates to science? Other then the classic deists and apologetics lol?
seanthedonconsidine 2 years ago
Episode 11 will be on the immorality of Darwin, and I probably won't even mention Hovind. My main videos to debunk will be Expelled and that Coral Ridge Ministries video.
I don't know of any creationists with legitimate science, but there are plenty of Christians: Ken Miller, for one. Of course, he works with evolution...
shanedk 2 years ago
The "immorality of Darwin" ah yes that should be interesting XD
"Atheism and Evolution are bad because HITLER WAS AN ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST BLABLABLA" lol, have fun with that one ;)
Here's an interesting site pertaining to that topic:
h t t p : / / w w w.nobeliefs .c o m/Hitler1. ) htm
remove the parentheses and spaces.
Yeah, most of the legitimate scientists who still believe in God are apologetic christian evolutionists. But then there's some who deny evolution, like the surgeon Ben Carson.
seanthedonconsidine 2 years ago
Haha, the bogometer blew up :D
coladict 2 years ago 5
I wonder about the life-forming universes that this guy built(?). We can't create life in a laboratory even though we can create the ingredients that it needs, how can we tell a computer how to create life? You see what I mean? If we don't know the recipe, how can we teach someone else to cook it?
pyrobryan 2 years ago
He looked at the particular aspects (such as the gravitational constant) that the creationists claimed would throw everything off if they were changed even slightly--preventing stars from forming, for example. He found out that there was an astounding amount of play in how you could change these and get basically the same universe to form.
shanedk 2 years ago
Similar universes, I can imagine, but life? It just seems to be a grand leap of faith to have a "did life begin?" field in there. We don't have a clue how life began, so how can we expect a program that we write to know how and under what conditions life began. By "what conditions" I mean what was the catalyst that caused that first single cell to suddenly pop to life. I know we have a good idea of atmosphere, chemical compositions, etc. But what's the X factor? How do we account for it?
pyrobryan 2 years ago
See the work of Dr. Jack Szostak for an answer. I provide a detailed summary in my upcoming book.
shanedk 2 years ago
Astronomy note; a few weeks ago I was actually able to see Pluto! And with a regular telescope too! And a beautiful globular cluster after that, I'm sorry but I don't buy that both the Kuiper belt and all the other stars were all created in a single day.
VisitingXenoc133 2 years ago
Apologies for my grammatical errors. I find myself typing to fast and at the same time skimming certain words out to fit the text into the box
Hustada 2 years ago
If you want to discuss this without the 500-character limit, then come on over to the forums at Bogosity . TV.
shanedk 2 years ago
I might come visit. Anyways. Good vids either way. Put together well in my opinion. I may not agree with everything within but I do appreciate your quest for truth and the obvious love for science that you have which I share myself.
Hustada 2 years ago
shoepebble... you lost, get over it. You're repeating the same lines over and over like a mantra, but you consistently ignore when they bring facts to discredit you. You're not proving anything but how ignorant and fanatical some creationists are.
Credit to shanedk and 4EverShadowless for putting up with you though.
hiorka 2 years ago
So just by you mentioning it does it prove it? Are you the last final say of authority? Why can't I question you? Demonstrate how fast the cameras can out-do the human eye as in multitask. Moving a camera phone across text without the screen going out of focus does not debunk what I said. But demonstrating what I said will debunk what you claim. The human eye is still better. Shave...and..a..haircut....to.....bits!!!!!
shoepebble 2 years ago
not a compilation! but a demonstration!
shoepebble 2 years ago
By the way! Can an evolutionist tell me why the evolutionists are worrying so much about global warming when it is their own theory supposedly being demonstrated. Wouldn't this all be something changing such as past lifeforms that had to adapt?
shoepebble 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about? Global warming would definitely force life to adapt, HOWEVER that doesn't mean we want mass extinction to occur. Do you know just HOW long life takes to recover from mass extinctions? Also, humans without technology would be wiped from Earth. Is it their own fault they lack that technology? No, the flow of money and technology is not determined genetically.
4EverShadowless 2 years ago
Tehse lttrees are bineg lkooed at wtih hmuan septcleas. wroknig aolsgnide wtih the brain. scine you aer coortblafme to crcizitie teh mvearl of its dseiegnr. mbyae you are albe to frugie waht tihs says whtuoit lonikog.
shoepebble 2 years ago
WHY ARE YOU LOOKING? Can't YOU come up with a design better than the human eye to read that. Please tell me what the eye is doing wrong when you read that.
shoepebble 2 years ago
MANY cameras have been designed a LOT better than the human eye.
Heck, even a CHILD knows not to put the CCD in the wrong way around!
shanedk 2 years ago
Comment removed
shoepebble 2 years ago
That is opinion and not fact. Even the most advanced camera does not have the capabilities to focus as fast as a healthy human eye. Cameras work good in the same position and are able to zoom out farther, but still do not match many many intricate functions as the human eye, which also perform more functions than just sight. In the near future we will be indentified by a retinal scan. No two retinas have the same identification, better than fingerprints.
shoepebble 2 years ago
"Even the most advanced camera does not have the capabilities to focus as fast as a healthy human eye."
That is absolutely untrue. There are cameras out there that measure ability to adjust focus in MILLISECONDS.
"No two retinas have the same identification, better than fingerprints."
And that has WHAT to do with anything?
shanedk 2 years ago
MILLISECONDS.....just like the human eye. Your retina has to do with the design of the eye and its unsurpassed multi-funtion capabilities. So with all of these advanced technological breakthroughs of the camera, can you begin to tell what the effects might be on the human body and the nervous system and the brain if our eyes were to see into the spectrum etc....? Is more always better? You need to get to the inside and see out, instead of the outside seeing in.
shoepebble 2 years ago
the next reply will be by shanedk!!!!!!!!!!
shoepebble 2 years ago
"MILLISECONDS.....just like the human eye"
No, the human eye isn't anywhere near that fast. It takes a second or two for the eye to focus on something new.
So, you're a complete ignoramus. Figures.
shanedk 2 years ago
typical ending statement from an evolutionist! To let you know the eye is continuously focusing and processing and adjusting to various shades every time you read a word. you don't seem to understand how much your eye is actually doing all at once. so does it take a second or two to focus on each word you read?
shoepebble 2 years ago
he's thinking!!!!!!
shoepebble 2 years ago
Are you going to answer my post or not? I posted it two minutes before you posted this.
shanedk 2 years ago
*Rolls eyes* I know about the processes of the eye. Still, you COMPLETELY avoided my point which was a direct counter to your argument that the eye was "perfect" and an example of design. You weren't talking about the processes, you were making a generalization based off the fact that you know no other way to see the world.
*Still waiting for an actual argument*
4EverShadowless 2 years ago
INSTRUCTIONS FOR 4EVERSHADOWLESS 1. scroll through comments and find where shoepebble said the eye was perfect.(if not able to find then redefine what my point was). 2. think of something from the evolutionist handbook to insult with. 3. redesign the human eye. 4. keep trying till it works according to MY expectations. 5. try to go to the deep end without holding on to the sides.....Shave and a haircut to bits!!!!!!
shoepebble 2 years ago
still have not told me what the paragraph says. HINT!!!!!! You know already. You just don't know it yet!!Your eyes have done their job once again!!!!!!Give God Praise!!!!!!!!right hook, another right, he's down 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and10!!!!!!!!!
shoepebble 2 years ago
1. You implying that it has no flaws is the same as calling it perfect. 2. I have not once insulted you. I have only asked for an actually relevant argument. 3. WTF? Um, sorry sugah, but life doesn't work the way you want. Also, I just LOVE your attempts to fit me into your 'ebul ebulutionist' sterotype. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them as asshat. Can't say the same about you though. 5. I'm guessing this is supposed to be a sick burn...yeah, try again.
4EverShadowless 2 years ago
Me having a masters degree in O.G.K.L. from Bullard State University have done my homework and have fun with evolutionists, being that evolution is s scientific fantasy. You have no idea who you are up against pal.
shoepebble 2 years ago
How in ANY way are your 'credentials' an argument? Also, I've dealt with people with much more impressive resumes and who are five times my age. Internet debate and IRL debate are my specialties. I doubt I 'don't know who I'm up against'
4EverShadowless 2 years ago
We've got cameras that see more of the light spectrum. We've got cameras that can see more detail even in the visual range. We've got cameras that can see much smaller things than our eye can resolve. We've got cameras that can see much further away than our eyes can evolve. We've got cameras that can show things happening in incredibly small time spans that our eyes can't handle.
By EVERY objective measurement, there are cameras out there better than our eyes.
shanedk 2 years ago
But is it the eye that is figuring out what your paragraph means? No, they take an image in, but even so they do not in ANY way help me to decipher what I do see. I don't see how that explains the marvel of eyes so much as the brain for making out what you are saying.
Without a brain, I could see this but I would not understand nor know what the letters mean. What good is seeing them then if I cannot interpret. Bring relevant example plz.
4EverShadowless 2 years ago
Look at something far away. Now look at something near. See how long it takes your eye to focus.
You're a deluded moron.
And the brain evolved along with the eye, idiot. If we'd had a better eye, seeing in more detail, and a greater range of the spectrum, our brain would have evolved to deal with that.
So you're an ignorant nincompoop as well.
shanedk 2 years ago
Hey!!!!You can post a video and demonstrate!!!!!!!!Show us!!!!!Please show us!!!!!
shoepebble 2 years ago
Show you what???
Get ANY camera--EVEN A CHEAP CAMERA PHONE. Move it across the text. There is NO FOCUSING PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER.
Deluded idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago
Get ANY camera-EVEN A CHEAP CAMERA PHONE. Point it at the palm of your hand, then point it at a bird flying by. You are an intelligent created being you are!!Now pinpoint zoom in and focus. shave and a haircut to bits!!!!!
shoepebble 2 years ago
YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! **YOU** were the one talking about tracking words on a paper and how it was a miracle our eyes could do it!
I've ALREADY MENTIONED cameras that can focus near to far in MILLISECONDS! Our eyes can't do that--that's why you had to desperately resort to the word-tracking thing!
ALL creationists are FILTHY DESPICABLE LIARS!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
There are lots of things that weve designed that perform better than a human can. The computer itself can process certain things at a way faster rate than we can but no one in their right mind would claim that a PC right now is more complex than a human brain. I just dont believe that blind simple processes could ever result in a fully functional "mind" that processes things the way we do, feelings emotions, love, gets angry, etc.... I cant prove it empirically but it just doesnt seem logical.
Hustada 2 years ago
It's useless to try to compare complexities of a PC and a brain. Their respective designs work on entirely different principles in every fundamental way. It's really comparing apples and accordions.
And what you believe is irrelevant. Reality is not constrained to the limits of your imagination.
shanedk 2 years ago
Thanks for reminding me that what I believe is irrelevant. I understand that reality doesnt stem from my imagination. WTF? Why did you even say that as I never alluded to that at all. I said myself that I CANT PROVE IT thus admitting that I could be wrong about a great deal of things. I was merely pointing out that its also apples to oranges to compare a camera to an eye in MANY regards in the same way that its stupid to compare a computer a brain even though people do so very often.
Hustada 2 years ago
Just because reality is not constrained to my imagination does mean that it is inherently false or that it doesnt follow a certain logical argument based on observation and certain things that appear to consistently true. I dont just make shit up and say its true because I thought it up. Again, I COULD be wrong, as could anyone else about ALOT of things that most consider TRUE. My feeling is that regardless of what people believe, truth will eventually show itself in the end whatever that maybe.
Hustada 2 years ago
When it flies in the face of the evidence--and ESPECIALLY when it's based on a false premise, as yours was--we ABSOLUTELY can consider your belief to be false.
shanedk 2 years ago
A false premise? Give me a break. MANY people believe in design not because they are idiots,they do so because it appears that way to them. Yes, it could be false, but it could be true. There are many intelligent people with very good credentials who have know the evidence question and doubt many aspects of what you believe. And thats perfectly OK. This sort of conflict is contained in every branch of science. One wonders why its so shunned upon with regards to man's origins.
Hustada 2 years ago
And 400 years ago, I could have said, "MANY people believe in geocentricism not because they are idiots, they do so because it appears that way to them." What's the difference?
shanedk 2 years ago
I actually totally agree with that. I just apply it to everything. And the difference lies in that they could still be right about design today. I happen to think that 400 years from now one could possibly be saying the same thing about evolution, Intelligent design or a lot of other theories for that matter. I realize there are certainties and than many things are testable, repeatable and observable which makes things more "definite" or "factual" but history also shows that things do change.
Hustada 2 years ago
Also,my premise WAS NOT based on my computer analogy.I was simply comparing the computer/brain analogy to the previously used camera/eye analogy in that there are too many "different" aspects of each to really make a fair comparison with regards to using it in an argument.For the record,I dont have any issues with YOU in particular, just the idea that evolution is undeniable fact. You disagree as do many others and thats fine. I do however enjoy your other videos especially the moon hoax videos.
Hustada 2 years ago
Ummm, what? That wasn't my point at all...
4EverShadowless 2 years ago
I was talking to shoepebble.
shanedk 2 years ago
Ah ok, I was the one that got the email reply so it confused me ^^;
4EverShadowless 2 years ago
Thunderf00t debunked that "fine tuning" argument in his "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists" series.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
watch diss ullumiati man....he gots payed off man.....shit...
johnsmdm 2 years ago
To make a minor correction, the earth was spinning considerably faster during earth's formation, we didn't start with the current 24 hour day, due to Tidal Acceleration.
No big, just wanted to clarify that one, but it wasn't the point of your argument. By the way, how can I get all of these Bogosity episodes on DVD or something, your website reference gives me a 404.
NothingsAdvocate 2 years ago
You're right; it was about 15 hours initially, but there's only so much you can cram into stuff like this.
shanedk 2 years ago
how do u know that?, because it's a theory so it can fit with evolution... and by the way life cannot form with oxygen, and it cannot form without it :)
minime00 2 years ago
I think the user Andromeda'sWake has a video about the early earth and its 15 hour day.
Just because they are both theories doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another.
As for the origins of life please look into a video by CDK007 on Abiogenesis. Sorry about not directly answering your question but it can be very difficult to explain with 500 characters. The users and their respective videos are very informative and should answer your questions.
PikminDS 2 years ago
I love how Phil comments on how tiny and insignificant the Creationists' stone idol is.
TheBronzeDog 2 years ago 2
It's because they worship the bible and not God.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago 3
Interesting Darwin said "having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one". I am an atheist and never heard this. It is apparent to me that Charlie understood how life develops but to explain the origin of life itself he believed in a creator. For me it's enough to say I don't know. I guess in his day, religious dogma was such that even Charlie couldn't fully escape it. But then how do you explain RG Ingersoll, a younger contemporary of his with such agnostic views?
2eelShmeal 3 years ago 2
It's the God of the Gaps. God has always been invoked as explanation for mysteries. When the gaps are filled in, God has grown weaker and weaker. Yes, even Darwin as a religious man had to ponder God as an explanation but you have to remember that Darwin knew nothing of DNA as it had yet to be discovered in his lifetime.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
how is he breathing
Zombiefisting 3 years ago
creationists were fine tuned to be laughed at
TheProf1988 3 years ago 13
I'm stealing this phrase.
jrparri 2 years ago
His name is Kirk Cameron, not Kurt Cameron.
cang00 3 years ago
BEAUTIFUL! An evolutionary God is an awesome God!
jamesjeffreypaul 3 years ago 2
I often thought the "Anthropic Principle" is kind of like saying; if you stub your toe, it was fine-tuned to BE stubbed.
Thanks for these shandek, great series ;)
bshieldsbb01 3 years ago 3
Phil
IS
AWESOME!!
AncelDeLambert 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That Phil guys awesome and don't say Pluto isn't a planet its been considered one for far to long for someone to just go and strip its status of a planet away and turn it back into just an asteroid i mean how would you feel if someone did that you huh?
nemesisnick66 3 years ago
You can call it a planet if you want, but it still formed along with the Kuiper Belt objects and not the other planets. That's the point.
shanedk 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's a Planet.
nemesisnick66 3 years ago
Then what's Eris?
shanedk 3 years ago
Huh?
nemesisnick66 3 years ago
Eris is a Kuiper Belt object larger and more massive than Pluto.
shanedk 3 years ago
Ah, Eris x)
Haha, Nemesis just got pwned :'D
FelleAndersson 3 years ago 6
nemesisnick66: pluto is just a ball of rock, It doesn't have feelings.
robokill387 3 years ago 2
Technically, a ball of ice and rock, but your point is still valid.
WitnessmyPerfectio 2 years ago
I know that. we both know that the point is that pluto is an inanimate body.
robokill387 2 years ago
How do u know and what if it did.
nemesisnick66 2 years ago
"...but Pluto and Venus rotate backwards, while Uranus is tipped on its side."
What are they trying to say? That God is a crappy designer who can't even get his solar system right?
What's the point of even having other planets in the first place, and why make them "unique" if they serve no purpose to man and are uninhabitable?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago 4
Might I quote this?
Herufaia 3 years ago
Sure.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
plus stupid one PLUTOS ON IT'S SIDE AS WELL IT'S EVEN MORE ON IT'S SIDE THAN URANUS IS!!!!!
Fucking mudwitted dipshit.
Herufaia 3 years ago
M. Behe rules!
konkord3 3 years ago
What's the name of the song that plays through the credits, it's beautiful.
KameWaOni 3 years ago
That's "White" by Kevin MacLeod. You can get it at incompetech dot com.
shanedk 3 years ago
Thank you, that was a really fast reply :). Also I love the Bogosity series, thank you so much for making it, also is there any chance of it being available on dvd?
KameWaOni 3 years ago
I've been thinking of putting a DVD together when time allows.
shanedk 3 years ago
Hey, Shane! I just came across this site for those "educational" flyers that portrays religion as the end-all be-all.
Google this: "chick big daddy".
I'd love to see you point out all the flaws in this flyer and others like it!
Also, Ben Stein is coming to Tallahassee with the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" to show to our legislature.
Google "Florida legislature getting Expelled" for more info. We could use you here to debunk it!
Keep up the good work!
MultiSteveB 3 years ago
Yes, I'm familiar with the Chick tracts. If you ask me, they debunk themselves.
I've been keeping up with all the info about Expelled. A NYT reporter has seen the movie and just did a scathing review of it (much to the chagrin of the filmmakers). I'm sure I'll get a Bogosity episode out of it.
shanedk 3 years ago
Uranus??? Ur anus???? spoo...oooky...
FreeAtheist 3 years ago
I guessing Bullshit! has the swears copyrighted?
Eldxale 3 years ago
Nah, I'm trying to keep it classroom-friendly.
shanedk 3 years ago
shanedk I think your 'intelligence' is tainted and that to say that man is badly designed shows how small your god is. If you think your lame evidence is enough go ahead and keep your head in the sand..
jiminiflix 3 years ago
All right, then: YOU explain why it's a good thing to have the retinal artery in front of the retina instead of behind, resulting in not only blind spots but in certain cases retinal tearing resulting in blindness.
YOU explain the appendix, an organ which does nothing except blow up and kill the person every now and then.
YOU explain cancer, where normal human cells go crazy and start killing the person.
I can keep going if you want.
shanedk 3 years ago
You explain the amazment of your brain. The fact that you can see at all, smell, touch, hear, reason,imagine, reproduce,adapt to conditions around us, the human spirit to survive, the human need for hope and love. The NEED for answers to big questions.Your not intelligent by critisising what you CANNOT explain!Radiation and a lot of man made explanation create cancer.
jiminiflix 3 years ago
ALL of the things you mentioned are easily explained by evolution.
And you have DISHONESTLY ignored the criticisms. You go from the eye being "perfect" to "it's a miracle that you can see at all." If the eye was designed, it was designed by a DOOFUS who should have been bumped back to the assembly line. That's a FACT.
shanedk 3 years ago
YOur a manipulator, I didn't say that.. the issue is you speak as though anyone even a doofus could make an eye,what have you or could you possibly make like an eye that is engineered to work wth the brain so well.The smartest man alive couldnt and hasn't made anything so productive as the eye.You look at the spek but can't see the LOG!
jiminiflix 3 years ago
"The smartest man alive couldnt and hasn't made anything so productive as the eye."
Actually, we've made cameras that work a lot better. We actually have to make our cameras work LESS well so that they better match what we see with our eyes!
shanedk 3 years ago
True! Cameras can see inferred. MOST digital cameras do. My WEBCAM can see inferred from a Wiimote or the Wii sensor bar. (4 inferred lights/sensors on each side.) If a human being can see these 4 little lights in a Wii sensor bar, then they've quite literally evolved to do so. Although I see little reason to evolve such a trait. Then again, many creatures don't need eyes at all. Then AGAIN, evolution explains this.
AJComixII 3 years ago
Which might mean that the eye still can't be matched in design. Our eyes don't overwork for a reason.
shoepebble 2 years ago
it can't be matched in terms of SUCKAGE, that's true...
shanedk 2 years ago
As a person who will likely suffer from retinal detachment later in life I find it laughable to suggest that our eyes are so perfectly designed. If they were so wonderful and great we wouldn't have such a limited view, we'd see further into the various spectrum and certainly there wouldn't be such a need for eye doctors :P
/adjusts her glasses and sneers and the fool
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago
what would be the effects of seeing further into the spectrum. Is it better we don't? Maybe it is that way for a reason. Just because your eye(s) will not last forever does not mean the design in less awesome. You cannot even list all of the funtions a human eye is capable of within a fraction of a second. Even with retinal detachment they will continue to perform many tasks for you.
shoepebble 2 years ago
"what would be the effects of seeing further into the spectrum"
We could look at someone and tell if they were running a fever. Imagine easily avoiding sick people!
Insects see in the ultraviolet, and they can see clues from plants that are poisonous. Imagine how many human lives that would have saved!
With retinal detachment, you're BLIND. What function is the eye going to serve for you then?
shanedk 2 years ago
They'd still maybe be a pretty blue!... Sorry that's the best I got.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago
If the eye does not last forever then your 'design' is imperfect. If God is perfect and we are created in his perfect image then the eye FALSIFIES your claim!
4EverShadowless 2 years ago
Sorry, I had to put on my glasses to read that....
johnycannuk 2 years ago
If you think these wonders of mans body are easily explained then explain them.. and show me an answer thats better than a 'doofus'.By the way your disrespect for mu God says little about you. Your 'science' or God blaming is pretty watery and weak.
jiminiflix 3 years ago
All you have are insults and platitudes. There are BOOKS full of descriptions of exactly how evolution results in ALL of these things. You're willfully ignorant, and completely closed to learning. You bleat on and on about the brain, yet you refuse to use yours.
shanedk 3 years ago
jiminiflix. Can i ask you a question?
Can god create a heavy rock that god him self can't lift?
ANSWER ME!
FreeAtheist 3 years ago
Here's a related question:
Can God make a universe so that even he can't tell both the position and the velocity of an elementary particle with precision?
shanedk 3 years ago
No & No. And why does this makes him less God?
konkord3 3 years ago
Why did you answer one question twice?
If he can't create such a universe, then he didn't create THIS universe, because that's how this universe operates.
shanedk 3 years ago
Why are those creationists so against evolution anyway?
Darwin obviously believed in a creator who created the first life!
TomSFox 3 years ago
I think you might be wrong when you say that earth always had a 24-hour rythm.
I heard that days used to be longer.
TomSFox 3 years ago
Not by much.
shanedk 3 years ago
Sure?
I heard it was by a few hours.
TomSFox 3 years ago
Yeah, a few. Not much on a cosmic scale.
Certainly not what creationists claim.
shanedk 3 years ago
That quote from Darwin's Origin of the Species moves me every time I read or hear it.
Tridhos 4 years ago 4
Shane, you are now officially one of my favorite people ever. Keep up the good work.
ScrapyardApe 4 years ago 3
own3nd...
superpaus 4 years ago
For all who think the BIble isn't true be aware that we are in the last days as the Bile has said.The prophecies in the BIble have come and will come to pass. 2/3 of the Bible has come to pass and soon the rest will. All that is to come, one world order, antichrist, mark of the beast, tribulation, peace treaty, building of the temple, is all to happen and is in planning NOW!!! ITs not a airy tale but REAL so repent of your sins and follow Christ.
jiminiflix 4 years ago
Yep...almost verbatim. How very, very pathetic...
shanedk 4 years ago
But as the days of Noah were , so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Matthew 24:39-39 - KJV
(Matthew 24:39 KJV) And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
jiminiflix 4 years ago
Exodus 21:7-8: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."
Psalms 137:9: "Happy are those who seize your children and smash them against a rock."
shanedk 4 years ago
II Kings 2:23-24: "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
shanedk 4 years ago
Deuteronomy 25:11-12: If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Yes, love the children, peace, justice, and love for all mankind...yeah, right.
Oh, wait, let me guess: I've taken these out of context, right? In WHAT context is it POSSIBLY okay to sell your daughter into SLAVERY???
shanedk 4 years ago
They lived under harsh laws, which is about justice. But Justice isn't about grace. Go to court, if you break the law is the judge allowed to show grace if the evidence is clear? Under the new covernant, Jesus Blood made atonement for our sins and we are no longer saved under law but grace, BUT Jesus said He has not come to abolish the law.We MUST still live under the commandments and obey them.
jiminiflix 4 years ago
"We MUST still live under the commandments and obey them."
So, then, do you stone to death disobedient children? Or people who go to church with acne? Or people who wear clothes made of two different types of fiber?
shanedk 4 years ago
Concerning maid-servants, whom their parents, through extreme poverty, had sold, when they were very young, to such as they hoped would marry them when they grew up; if they did not, yet they must not sell them to strangers, but rather study how to make them amends for the disappointment; if they did, they must maintain them handsomely, v. 7-11.
\it is set up for the servants protecion so she does not be a bused by a stranger
jiminiflix 4 years ago
Then why is it okay to rape them?
shanedk 4 years ago
you owned that crumb
2eelShmeal 3 years ago
It is a tiny, pitiful, and barren room there, alone inside your preconceptions, tugging on your little cross.
Come outside and play, while the sun shines. It doesn't shine forever, or even every day.
splashingpopsicle 3 years ago
I was wondering if there was any pictures or any scientific data of any accidental deformed evolving species. Today we have all the technology that we need to perform the cloning process, and with all of our knowledge and understanding still come out with some errors. (But of course they only show the pretty ones). How much more of a chance of errors of the evolving process do you think there was over millions of years with organisms with no brain as ours?
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
Also why do the evolutionists only show the pretty examples? Surely there should be species mixed with species that just didn't work.
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
Species don't mix with species. By definition.
shanedk 4 years ago
How about fossils of any evolved species among the same kind that somehow started to form new parts as adaptation was necessary? Are there any that evolved halfway? Seems strange that evolutionists happen to find only the complete versions of any evolved species as examples. If this process was millions of years in the making, there should be many more examples, I and probably many others would think. What about the disadvanted deformity examples?
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
See, that's the very thing I was mentioning in the video. There's nothing whatsoever in evolution that requires "incomplete" or "halfway" parts.
Is an eye without a lens, seen in many fish, any less of an eye than ours? We see slow developments of the eye--each one complete and functional in itself--throughout the animal kingdom.
Creationists not only don't understand evolution, they refuse to understand when you try to teach them.
shanedk 4 years ago
You mean different variations, not slow developments. They were specifically designed for each species purposes. Evolutionists not only don't understand creation, they refuse to understand when you teach them.
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
No, we understand creation perfectly, and that's why we know it's BOGUS.
Why do so many species in the same niche with the same "purpose" have so many different features? Going back to Darwin: why are the birds unique to each island even though the islands are identical in terms of climate, predators, etc.?
Evolution explains. Creationists just assert. We have evidence; you don't.
shanedk 4 years ago
We just make questions out of your explanations.
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
Of course your explanations create more questions!
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
Then Ask.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
No, SCIENCE does that. Science is always asking more questions and hoping to learn more things. You just repeat the same crap over and over again with no regard for the fact that it was completely rebutted decades ago.
shanedk 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They only ask the questions they know they can answer within the bubble of evolution.
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
Please provide evidence for this slanderous assertion.
shanedk 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are right that Christians don't understand evolution. To tell you the truth even the evolutionists don't understand it.
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
The disadvantaged deformities would be naturally selected against in that the organism would either be disallowed reproduction by the opposite sex, or would not survive to reproduce. The key is does the deformity inhibit reproduction or survival? If so, it will never be submitted into the gene pool.
michamus 3 years ago 3
Technically, EVERY species is "deformed." The only difference is whether or not the particular deformity happens to be an advantage or disadvantage (or neither) in the organism's current environment.
shanedk 4 years ago
Does this apply to the human species as well? 2 arms not 3, imangine 3 arms, that would be a disadvantage. 5 toes for each foot(advantage), a very advanced human brain(advantage)also more advanced than even the most intelligent life form on land or in the sea. The disadvantages actually could be looked at as advantages. The people in the North Pole have not started to grow any fur as far as I can see.
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
But the people in the North Pole have much different wether conditions as we have. Appears they have not evolved any different than those of us here in the much warmer climates. And we haven't started mutating towards the water with signs of any fins or gils for us to adapt from the warmer climate. Why haven't our advantages and disadvantages started some form of the continuing evolution process? Or do we have to wait for the ????billion year process?
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Appears that there was a deigner who surpasses the abilities of our understanding. Even that of the evolutionists.
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
No, all we have are ignoramuses like you who keep pretending there are no answers to questions scientists answered decades ago.
shanedk 4 years ago
Because we invented this stuff called "scuba gear."
Why aren't we developing these things? Because there's no selective pressure to do so. And if you knew the FIRST thing about evolution, you'd know that you need selective pressure for a feature to get expressed.
shanedk 4 years ago
Maybe because we have these things called "coats"?
And there is a mutation--not really that rare--that causes someone to be born with six fingers. Since it doesn't give the person much of a survival advantage, it never gets expressed in the population, but those people like quite normal, happy lives--at least as much as anyone else.
shanedk 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Exactly! Bur wearing them. Not growing them.
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
Yes, we're wearing them, and as a result there's NO SELECTIVE PRESSURE TO GROW THEM.
Please TRY to understand something; change at least one tiny part of the plethora of misinformation that inhabits your brain.
shanedk 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You don't get it!!!!!!!
Jenniferwey 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ther'es a defensive evolutionist term(selective pressure)!
Jenniferwey 4 years ago