Intelligant entity? Oh no of course not. He is ALL KNOWING not just intelligant you dumbass of course intelligant design is wrong it is ALL KNOWING DESIGN. Duh.
@Jimmie95Dean Yeah they are called mutations :/ Still doesn't explain shit if you understand how the fundemental laws of science work... Cell Theory, and Thermo Dynamics. Nough' said.
This argument is rubbish simply because it does not take into account that information can degrade. Current state characteristics are no counter-argument against initial state characteristics. Rubbish
Anything that a majority of americans believe in is bullshit. Just find out how many americans believe in something to see if it's bullshit or not, hehe: )
If your intent was to strengthen the position of evolution and trash ID or creationism, you have failed. This proves nothing other than your ignorance. I imagine a Nazi would appreciate your joke. You see this person as inferior and therefore equate this as proof of your position. I was looking for evidence not opinion, there's already too much biased opinion on any side of this debate. Science requires an open-mind. I won't believe any side until I see solid proof untainted by assumptions.
If your intent was to strengthen the position of evolution and trash ID or creationism, you have failed. This proves nothing other than your ignorance. I imagine a Nazi would appreciate your joke. You see this person as inferior and therefore equate this as proof of your position. I was looking for evidence not opinion, there's already too much biased opinion on any side of this debate. Science requires an open-mind. I won't believe any side until I see solid proof untainted by assumptions.
that was very mean but i still laughed, i think hed look cute if he smiled i think. still couldnt help but have the thought what if they used my picture. lol
every religion is just a failed way of trying to explain everything that exists, being to awesome to have been created by chance in the believers eyes. if there is a god, this being my opinion, than he only created the laws of science that govern the universe and all the existing matter today nothing more. just that allowing nature to take its course
I think he tries to say that if God is perfect and his design is inteligent, there wouldn't be humans with mental retardness. I dunno who the guy at the end is, but being a student in health science I can see distinctive traits of down syndrom. Corect me if I'm wrong !
God is real. If you don't believe me ask Him. If you don't want to know Him you won't. If you seek Him He will reveal himself to you. Seek Him before it's to late!
... XD Haha, I really like the sense of humour in this video. Because I think, sadly enough, you are right. Humans are stupid. I really started to dislike my own species when seeing so many dumb and stupid and easily controllable people around...
Why was this a featured video. It's complete nonsense. The maker should actually try reading the Bible and he will find the answer to why he is wrong.
wow. Way to make kids with disabilities feel wanted. Mentally retarded people are the most loving and caring, GODLY people i know...and they are here for a special reason. compassion.
please don't define what Christianity is, and yes i am a Christian even if you think you know me and you stalk me and you understand and read my mind, you are wrong, i am a Christian ;) thanks for thinking you know what i am even though you aren't me though, have fun pretending to be other people in the future.
Second, I do not believe humans are the masters of knowledge and all that. If we were, we would have fucking telepathy and be creating our own new universes. I'm tired of hearing people say that their they have a Ph. D. in this, and when you ask them how big the universe is, or what started the universe, they would start blowing theorys out the ying yang. HUMANS WILL NEVER KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, only somethings.
@TheBBQribs what do you think video games are? are they not universes we have created, basically mirroring what god did to create us. Could you imagine a video game building itself all simply by chance? of course not, so how could you expect a human being to build themselves with absolutely no direction or design?
Are you talking about some theory of the first man made of sand 6000 years ago through magic with a talking snake causing all humans to be born as sinners?
@ThinkingBetter I don't really care anymore about what you think, I don't really care about what atheists think, and I really don't fucking care about some kid that got hit with the ugly stick, and thinks "Wow, there's no god. Oh poor me."
@ThinkingBetter But, no; immediatly when some scientist comes up with some new theory, you get all hard over it, and tell anyone that believes in god that they're wrong. So, your kind would rather kill us all in the name of 'truth', and say that there won't be any violence anymore.
@TheBBQribs You seem to take this very personal. Why? I didn't attack you, did I?
Science works and is not imaginary; that's the difference. Of course you can imagine what you want. I don't care. Your PC is not the result of "creation science"...absolutely nothing is...including you...
@ThinkingBetter I didn't say it was imaginary. I didn't say that god created the computer, and internet, and flung it down to earth from his seat. No, you have to create your own idea, and tell me this is what I (and everyone else) believes in.
@ThinkingBetter Have you been out in space? No. Have you seen the edge of the universe? No. Neither have I.
So, your telling me that based on Theories that have never been completely proven are true without physical evidence, just because some scientist says so. Science is basicly doing what religion does, making assumptions without any real, physical proof.
@TheBBQribs Science is all about using data/evidence. Telescopes of all sorts providing images from our universe in various wave lengths, colliders measuring properties of particles etc. are providing evidence to support the theories. For example; LHC in Geneva is a huge particle accelerator that allow us to investigate the physical properties right after Big Bang. Science is not any different in how it makes conclusions when it is about matters that your religion made up some fantasies about.
@ThinkingBetter Oh, I guess Math is supposed to save the day once again. Sure, it works alot, but if some alien comes down from space, walks over to the chalkboard, and says "That's wrong."
What are we going to do then, tell an advanced space faring species that they're wrong, and we're right?
@TheBBQribs Science is all about having an open mind for new data. If aliens landed here with new scientific data the first people to listen to them would be scientists. Assuming they came with a positive intend; it would be great for science. You see, nothing is more appreciated among scientist than growing true knowledge. The best scientists are those who define new knowledge. Any scientist who just repeat what others have said is nothing better than the typical creationist. Think about it.
@ThinkingBetter I'm just trying to figure out why everyone is hostile to religion. Sure, we have screwed up alot of things, but does believing in god affect everything? It's more of a moral compass than it is a way of explaining the universe.
@TheBBQribs People are hostile to the business of religion that brainwashes people with the aim of capturing more followers who can provide money into their business. In the USA today religion is all about business. Make your imaginary relationship with Jesus but don't forget to donate to your local Christian radio station, the church and buy some Christian books too...those people behind it are all business people and spread their endless lies in the name of making more money.
@ThinkingBetter: Seriously? What you just said to me was like saying All Blacks are responsible for crime, or that every german is a Nazi because of World War 2
@TheBBQribs I did not talk about anyone else. I just mentioned how religion generally works in the USA. Even religious people admit corruption is too common within Christianity (e.g. rich televangelists and fake healers).
@ThinkingBetter I was trying to point out that you were making everyone in the whole religion ( priests) sound money grubbing. Sure, there is alot of corruption in Christianity, but it doesn't make everyone corrupt.
@TheBBQribs True, possibly not all Catholic priests are touching kids sexually. Possibly some televangelists are not corrupt. But all healers are surely fake with no exception. On the other hand; the average pastor is possibly all good.
@ThinkingBetter: That whole "touching kids" is just another thing the church needs to smake it's self over. I'm not saying that's not true, but they just need to make sure, and get ride of those kind of people
@TheBBQribs Of course the church must be firm and quick every time someone is doing immoral sexual acts on kids. There should be absolutely no permission to get "born again" for such sick people. You touch kids sexually = you go to hell...no second chance. Period.
Just to compare with a rule of God concerning the well being of kids, Exodus 21:17 (King James Version):
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
@ThinkingBetter Sure, alot of the religion now is about money. You can't really run a venue without money. Oh, and I'm guessing your going to say that the Salvation Army is brainwashing people into giving clothes to the poor, since they're a evil organization that only wants money?
First of all, let's take into context that the idea "Man was created in God's Image" was not in physical image, but in spirtual. If some guy is throwing homosexuals off bridges and kicking homeless people in the face, he's not living in god's image.
there is no motive by scientists all throughout history and currently around the world to lie about geology, cosmology, and biology. but there is a definitive reason for churches and religions to lie about such things. if the church cannot cover the truth, their religion is invalidated and they lose income. greed is what keeps the churches lying. but the scientists don't get paid to lie, there is no payment for telling the truth how it is.
@greycloud24 Your 1st statement is naive; every person has motive, whether religious or irreligious. I was speaking science, & you turned to bashing religion, which is a form of ad hominem attack. If you think that scientists don't get paid to lie, you're either unaware of the pharmeceutica/biotech/tobacco/dairy industries, or you've got your head in the sand. It's called grant money. It's called tenure. Deeper than that, it's called pride. Neither scientists nor priests are immune.
@KnightofMotley can you give me an example where thousands of people from different nations with differing agendas all agree on some massive conspiracy and back each other up in a field of study to mislead the masses? i do realize that some scientists get paid to lie, but those people have reason, they are getting payed to lie. there is no conspiracy that involves the entire scientific community. radiometric dating is reliable to a degree, and we understand and accept that.
@greycloud24 You assume that for me to be right, it must be an unlikely vast conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy at all; it's a very frank, open agenda that says that humans can explain things w/out God. It is a case of extreme bias, just as the Catholic church or "Fundies" have extreme bias.
If there is no God, then we are accountable only to ourselves. If then this is true, then Man = Top Dog; he'll fight against anything that ousts him of that role. It's intelllectual pride run amok, is all.
@KnightofMotley assuming there is a god, man must still rely on man. we still have to trust the people who wrote the bible. i don't think its an invalid agenda to explain things without god, the easter bunny, the invisible unicorn, or any other thing. i think my reliance on proven ideas such as scientific theory is well grounded and based upon observances of nature that i can see for myself.
i think leaning on the idea of "god" is a crutch. if a god does exist, i want that explained too.
@greycloud24 Well, that's really the rub, isn't it? If you assume there's no god, & I assume that there is a God, then those foundational points can never really meet. If you have compelling evidence for easter bunny, invisible unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., then I'd love to hear it. If I believed the Bible to be the work of men, then I wouldn't trust it, but I've seen overwhelming evidence & multiple instances that show me that it's of divine origin & not possibly the work of men.
@KnightofMotley care to explain the geneology conficts of mark chapter 1 and luke chapter 3? if you write out the geneaology of each you will find that they conflict and do not agree. if the bible is of divine origin than how does something like this occur? explaining it away and apology do not work. it is not a messup that could have occured with a perfect god.
@greycloud24 You mean Matthew & Luke. Ancient Greek has no word for son-in-law; since Luke traces the lineage back to Adam, he's obviously [to me] tracing the "seed of woman" from Genesis 3:15, the 1st messianic prophecy. Thus, Luke records the lineage of the seed thru Mary's father, Heli. If Heli had no sons, Joseph would have been called his descendent. Matthew traces Joseph's lineage; both he & Mary are descendents of David, through different sons. Jews are meticulous record keepers!
@greycloud24 You said, "i think leaning on the idea of "god" is a crutch. if a god does exist, i want that explained too." 1. If I could explain God, He wouldn't be God. I can, however, provide evidence FOR God who can explain things in the universe that I can't & we can verify it w/ observational science. 2. Crutches are for the crippled. You may not see man as intellectually crippled, but I do. We need revelation to fully understand this universe; without it, we're blinded by pride!
@KnightofMotley i see no evidence for god. i would be happy to an example of some solid evidence for god. but no test has been demonstrated that proves that a god exists, let alone a particular god. if such a test did exist, and did show the existance of a god, than i would not be an atheist.
@greycloud24 What sort of test would satisfy you? I'm not sure what kind of labwork could cover the existence of God. What do you need?
There is a wonderful test found in Isaiah 44:6-8. "If any other god can explain the past and predict the future in specifics, then let him show himself." We have literally hundreds of specific prophecies fulfilled that are verifiable in the historic record. Jesus alone fulfilled over 400; there are about 120 regarding Alexander the Great & the Greek Empire.
@KnightofMotley I love how you dont see the flaw in using the bible to verify what the bible says. But the bigger problem is that even if almost the entire bible were verified, that would not definetly prove that there is a god. This makes the entire endevour pointless.
@N3CR1S Here I'm not using the Bible as proof, but as a claim to pony-up regarding authority, that talk is cheap. God is putting His cards on the table, and saying, "I call; let's see 'em." You said "if almost the entire bible were verified, that would not definitely prove that there is a god." Would you explain that reasoning, and would you provide what criteria/basis by which you are defining proof? Thanks!
@greycloud24 If you are serious about solid evidences, send me a personal message, & I'll be more than happy to oblige you. I can do little in 450 characters.
ANYONE ELSE READING THIS: feel free to do the same. I'm happy to rationally discuss these matters. If you're only interested in throwing mud my direction, you'll hardly be the first & won't be the last.
Like the 9/11 Truth movement; this doesn't get press coverage, but after 9 years it's still growing because the truth will out.
@greycloud24 BTW, you said, "there is no motive by scientists all throughout history and currently around the world to lie about geology, cosmology, and biology."
Keep in mind that up until fairly recently, almost all scientists thought that the reason they could study the universe & science was precisely because there was a God who made things orderly, that there was a divine design in their studies. Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, and many others were Christians.
Evolution can NOT explain consciousness. Atoms moving about are just atoms moving about. Particles shifting around in space can't create what doesn't exist in the matter universe: conscious experience! i.e. color, pain, sound, taste, a sense of self, etc.
All physicists have EVER done is describe how particles interact with one another, and the rules of those interactions - that can NEVER explain conscious experience - even Einstein saw that!
LOL, evolutionists are the biggest idiots out there. Believing an explosion will create life forms and then this life forms will become more complex over millions of years. Here we are, thousand of years allready, and we could not even create 1 living cell with all our technology. Idiots!!!!
Another video that claims to "prove" there is no intelligent design again doesn't even come close. The picture you provided as proof just shows your insecurity. You must have frequently been made fun of growing up so that you do it to others. I'm sorry for that but something cannot come from nothing and the harmony and design of the cosmos and nature led Einstein, Galileo, and Sir Isaac Newton (to name but a few} to believe in Intelligent design. But I guess you are smarter than them.
@Yaweh1st something comes from nothing all of the time. you must not have heard of the higg's field or virtual particles. but let me ask you this. if two objects gain more energy the father they are apart from each other as potential energy as an expression of gravity, than where is that energy and how is it stored? science has an answer, but you seem ignorant of the fact that things do indeed come from nothing all of the time.
I doubt very highly that 50% of Americans believe in Intelligent Design. Probably half of Christians don't even believe this, & there are probably fewer than 20% of Americans who are actual, rather than nominal, Christians. CBS is just as bad as ABC or CNN. They are propaganda machines. But I used to believe in Theistic evolution, until the evidence convinced me to become a full-blown Creationist. But we're VERY rare these days. Dobson isn't even a Creationist.
Is that image a physical one or a spiritual one? I feel bad for the poor guy whose picture you put up; do you really judge his being made in the image of God by a facial expression? Or maybe it's a picture of you? All people born are created in God's image: Downs Syndrome kids, kids with birth defects, kids of all ethnic backgrounds. And you. And me. Regardles of how mean we are when we post videos.
@KnightofMotley if people were made in gods image we would all be invisible. if people do have gods image than we would be able to see god. there is a giant hole in your concept here.
@greycloud24 You're assuming that the image is a physical one; if we were all made in God's physical image, then we'd all look alike, which we don't. You correctly point out that God is not visible, thus the image must refer to something else. God is Spirit; it is our spirit that is in God's image, though we are fallen because of our rebellion.
@KnightofMotley what do you think "image" means? so if i say someone showed me the image of a pretty girl what would that mean? what if i said someone had a the image of wealth? in what way can an image be made that is not based upon physical characteristics? the word "image" has an intimate relation with phsyical characteristics, it fails to be an image if it does not include these.
@greycloud24 God is Spirit. What's a spirit look like? God isn't tied to the physical, to the molecular, to the temporal realm; He transcends it. Thus, it is illogical to limit God to a physical paradigm. Just because we are tied [for the moment] to the molecular & temporal doesn't mean we're permanently bound by or limited to it. We're trying to understand things that materialism & scientific discovery are unequipped to examine. There is much more to humans than the molecular structure.
@KnightofMotley oh but if we are made in gods image than should we not also transcend the physical world? or did god fail when he tried to make us in his image? but all of this assumes there is such thing as "transcends the physical" and the like. we have no evidence that this is even possible, and certainly an old book does not provide adequate reason to believe. now it is impossible to directly see an electron, yet we can prove they exist. too bad that can't be said for your spiritual god.
@greycloud24 I don't know who "we" is, but there's plenty of evidence for transcendence of the physical world; since the worldview of materialism precludes the possibility of such transcendence before it even examines evidence, maybe that's where the disconnect begins. You have faith in the electron because it doesn't threaten your worldview. I have as much evidence for God as you do for the electron. Darwin's book is old, too; hasn't stopped anyone from believing it. Is it reliable? I say no.
@KnightofMotley really? i can prove electrons exist to someone who does not believe in them. the proof is easy, i shock them. and if they deny that they were shocked i keep it up. now if you want to say that the way life changes and is formed is "god" than by all means do. but if you want to say that we did not evolve, well that can be shown to be false.
electrons exist, as demonstrated in your computer. please give me a measurable independently verifiable form of evidence for god.
@greycloud24 I can't prove God, but I can & have shocked many people w/ the plethora of evidences for God, specifically the God of the Bible. "Measurable independently verifiable form of evidence for God" is your materialistic criteria. Prophecy isn't measurable, but it's very compelling. Daniel gives over 120 detailed prophecies concerning the rise & fall of Medo-Persia & Alexander the Great & subsequent Greek history. Jesus fulfilled over 400 prophecies. Then there's the science...
@greycloud24 ...like the shape of the earth, the ocean currents, the fact that life is in the blood, and so on: stuff that no other ancient civilization had knowledge of, despite amazing technologies [Egypt's use of electricity and construction genius, Greece's napalm, etc.] But again, since your worldview already assumes that it's all false, I don't know what I can say to convince you. I can't open your mind if you're discounting anything supernatural before you've examined it.
@KnightofMotley "the fact that life is in the blood". this is a good reason to NOT believe. life is NOT in the blood. red blood cells do NOT have dna. i don't discard your prophecy from the hip. i discard it due to lack of credulity. a real prophecy contains DETAILS that cannot be misinterpretted. the theory of evolution makes accurate predictions about the fossil record that make any biblical prophecies pale in comparison. too bad the bible isn't accurate like any scientific theory.
@greycloud24 Life is in the blood refers to the fact that if you drain out the blood, you die. For millennia, humans had been "purging the bad blood" for health, which is medically preposterous; the Bible had been saying all along that the blood is the lifeline to the body. The Biblical prophecies do indeed contain details that are specific, but anyone can misinterpret if their own pride and passions blind them. Look at the flood as a cause of the fossil record & it works quite logically. :)
@KnightofMotley well than i know kids that are smarter than the prophets in the bible. did you also know that if you removed your brain, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, intestines, thyroid, ureters, diaphram, cervical spinal cord, aorta, vena cava, vagus central nerve, or any one of many other body parts that you would also die. so how is it that life is in the blood, is it not equally in all of these as well?
no the flood does not account for the fossile record.
@KnightofMotley by pointing at known flood areas and examining the soil and the burried objects. its easy to support. in no situation does a flood leave layers of soil in such a manner as shown in the fossile record. its simple, there are many layers of dirt as we dig through the ground, these can be measured as to how old they are by trapped biomatter, which can be dated. you can look at known floods and there results and the result is that we know how the fossile record works.
@greycloud24 At the Grand Canyon, we see many features & phenomena that demonstrate how the fossil record supports a global flood. Many of the areas on the top of the canyon are dated millions of years older than at the bottom; if the dating methods were accurate, the lower levels would be older, not younger. The question is: what presuppositions do we hold before we examine evidence? Is this the result of slow processes or catastrophic events? I say catastrophic, such as a global flood.
@KnightofMotley OR we can look at floods that have occured in our lifetimes, we can look at lots of them. we can see what they result in. furthermore we can look at canyon formation and we can look to see if floods result in canyons (flash floods do, but only if they are channeled into a single river or stream in soft soil). we can also look at the formation of rock with softer substances.
when we look at these things we see that the grand canyon cannot have been formed by a flood.
@greycloud24 That assumes that the processes and environment we see today were the same back then, that the present is the way to interpret the past. I think the evidence points to the earth being significantly different, with catastrophic changes creating these phenomena. The research that has been done at Mt. St. Helens, where canyons were cut in hours, strata formed in hours, badlands made in days, tree peat buildup in lakes, etc., mirrors that of Grand Canyon. I patently disagree w/ you.
@KnightofMotley and no it does NOT assume that earth was the same back then as it is now. look at the miller experiments, look at simple physics. could the earth have had softer or harder soil? sure, but the physics don't change and a flood could not have caused the grand canyon to form how it is formed now. and throwing in a red herring such as evolution (fittest) while discussing geology (the grand canyon and radiometric dating) does not support your arguement.
@KnightofMotley but we can also use geological principles and radioisotope dating. the dating is accurate but has a large amount of possible error. with uranium-lead dating (the kind used to date the grand canyon) the error margin is 2-5% of the half-life (in this case 700 million years which equates to a 1.4million to 35 million year potential for error).
we know radioisotopes can be relied upon, your cell phone requires very accurate radioisotope time measurements in satalites.
@greycloud24 oops i meant 1.4 to 3.5 million year margin of error. was typing too fast. anyhow radioisotopes are used in satalites because time works differently in low gravity. they must be accurate to a 30 billionth of a second. that is how reliable they can be if they have a shorter half-life. longer half-lifes equate to less accuracy, especially in relatively low timespans (as compared to the half-life)
@greycloud24 A 1.4 to 35 million year margin of error? Are you serious? Cell phones are observational; dating methods are speculative. You have an amazing amount of faith in something with a million(s) year margin of error. You simply choose the one dating method out of the jar that produces whatever date your theory needs, and voila! Instant "proof" for that which is not verifiable.
I don't mean to be insulting to you at all, but why are Christians the only ones accused of chasing fables?
@KnightofMotley what is there to gain from denying truth for science? what is there to gain from saying that creation did not happen if it did? but when we take a serious look at the evidence, we find the truth. we live on a planet that is 4 to 5 billion years old. we are related to nearly all other life on earth (there is one exception i know of). but what is there to gain other than technology and simple truth? there is no agenda, nothing to gain from a lie in science.
@greycloud24 And if you're going to discard prophecy "from the hip" without actually looking into it yourself, without daring to look beyond evolutionistic fundamentalism into someone else's viewpoint as a peer rather than as a self-appointed superior, then I don't know what to say. How would that make me the close-minded one? I'm happy to discuss these matters w/ you, but only if you're philosophically honest and willing to look across rather than down at me. :)
@KnightofMotley It isn't as old as Euclid's Elements. You haven't been reading enough good Christian literature. I would suggest, 'Nothing in Biology makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution' by Dubzhanski.
@gamesbok Could you be more specific as to what isn't as old as Euclid's Elements? I'm not following your reference.
Regarding the latter comment, I'm not sure on what basis you're making that judgment. I've read many books, but I haven't always found their conclusions to be logical or reasonable, be they science books, political books, or theological books. Usually when people tell me that I shouldn't believe everything I read, they assume I've only read what I quote. :)
@gamesbok Someone was urging that I disregard reading the Bible on the grounds that it was old. I responded that Origin of the Species is old too, in order to point out that age has nothing to do with literary value.
@greycloud24 Darwinism is based upon 19th Century science; we live in the 21st century, and there's just some of those concepts that don't work anymore. This "image" talk is starting to sound like a word game of the "if god's all powerful, can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?" variety. The existence of morality, of which Darwinism ultimately has no real contribution, is just one of many things that point to a spiritual side of the universe. "Agape" love isn't pheromonal or instinctual. :)
@KnightofMotley love is chemical, it is induced my oxytocin. you are right the darwins' theory of evolution cannot account for morality, neither can newton's theory of gravity. this does not mean that these theories are not correct, only that they do not directly adress morality (however morality does evolve and that can be shown within the framework of evolution).
what i posted was "if we were made in god's image, than we would be invisible". you try to change the meaning of "image"
@greycloud24 Attraction may be chemical: "agape" unconditional love is a decision, not a reaction. If you can't account for morality, then how did it get there? The universe doesn't happen in compartments; biology exists in astronomy, & math is everywhere, & so is morality. How we define right & wrong changes [or "evolves"] but the actual right & wrong doesn't. Evolution has no mechanism for morality, only survival & reproduction. Morality is often in stark contrast to survival/reproduction.
@greycloud24 It satrikes me that, as Darwin said, morality will evolve because it leads to a more productive society. An anarchy of selfishness and greed will not be able to compete with a society of trust and stability. Morality and society are inevitable, for Darwinian reasons.
@gamesbok i agree that "morality" as we know it is simply a function of coded behaviors and behavior patterns. we can witness other animals displaying morality as well. if morality did not develop in herd animals, than there would be no heard animals. if morality did not develop into social animals than these animals would not be social. i agree that it is likely that morality is a programmed set of behavior or way of thinking that is expressed in genes. a trait of evolution.
@greycloud24 I have posted stuff all over creationist videos looking for an arguement, and all I get is you being reasonable, rational and inteligent. I'm deeply disappointed.
@gamesbok He attempts to explain it, yes. I don't buy his explanation. I keep hearing people say things like "more productive society" when these days productivity is often at the expense of morality. The two are often at odds, depending on how you define "productivity." This utilitarian view of morality does not account for the origin of morality, as morality restrains rather than enables.
@KnightofMotley I think you'll find herd behavior is common and that'll do for an origin. 'Productivity is at the expense of morality..' So? Your point doesn't invalidate anything I've said.
All you have to do is imagine two societies. One is moral, reliable, patriotic, trusting, the other a snake pit of selfishness and paranoia. Which is more powerful, efficient, productive, comfortable and, in the strict Darwinian sense, 'fit'?
@gamesbok I'd hardly put herd behavior as a model for morality; that would mean that Nazi Germany was good because everyone bought into it. No, in my experience the human herd is almost always running in the wrong direction. The church is almost always misinterpreting the Bible, the politicians are almost always twisting their platforms for financial purposes, etc.
The prophet's words are seldom well-received; truth is a heavy burden, so few carry it!
if intelligent design does not exist, what created this video? what created youtube? does a microsoft program come up out of nowhere? what created the small ball of mass that is believed to create the universe, and where was it at if there was no universe?
LOL hilarious. I personally believe intelligent design is a POSSIBLE solution to the question of life origins on earth, key word possible. This video is hilarious tho.
Answer to your "what's the advantage to humor?" question- If you've ever had a computer crash, or know WHY it crashed it's because something didn't compute correctly. With humans, humor and laughing was developed to combat a similar problem. We as people wouldn't be very effective in even our own lives if -as soon as something didn't make sense, we crashed to the floor and blacked out. So humor could be thought of as our brains telling us to "forget that nonsense" and move on.
dumbest thing i've ever seen in my life. this video, not the kid, which by the way, couldn't be replicated by our most brilliant engineers. What is intelligence anyways? Surely, there is no biological purpose for intelligence. Life could thrive and survive without it. But why would life even want to thrive, if life was merely an random accident? What genetic mutation is responsible for humor? What advantage did it provide? You haven't questioned anything for yourself. lol.
Intelligant entity? Oh no of course not. He is ALL KNOWING not just intelligant you dumbass of course intelligant design is wrong it is ALL KNOWING DESIGN. Duh.
TheCoolGuy367 2 weeks ago
There are things called errors in DNA, you moron. That's why science is the religion I follow.
Jimmie95Dean 1 month ago
@Jimmie95Dean Yeah they are called mutations :/ Still doesn't explain shit if you understand how the fundemental laws of science work... Cell Theory, and Thermo Dynamics. Nough' said.
TheCoolGuy367 2 weeks ago
What a silly video
ShaneyCunn84 1 month ago
This argument is rubbish simply because it does not take into account that information can degrade. Current state characteristics are no counter-argument against initial state characteristics. Rubbish
neknizhny 2 months ago
Did I miss something, or was this just plain stupid?
sleazybtd 3 months ago
Anything that a majority of americans believe in is bullshit. Just find out how many americans believe in something to see if it's bullshit or not, hehe: )
winterstellar 5 months ago
is that in the photo you ?
buschmann69 7 months ago
i wish i didn't know who that is...its Sexman aka Sexinator/ Pruane2Forever..which is not this guy, obviously...
Zandonus 7 months ago
That was probably his own picture !
WrknClssHero 8 months ago
How this video got 133 likes, I will never know... -.-
MrZetterlund777 8 months ago
hahahahah!!! he put a pic of himself
alexcpld 8 months ago
hahaha!!
PomonaPunkRock 8 months ago
I apologize for the double posting, my bad.
ChuckLep1 9 months ago
If your intent was to strengthen the position of evolution and trash ID or creationism, you have failed. This proves nothing other than your ignorance. I imagine a Nazi would appreciate your joke. You see this person as inferior and therefore equate this as proof of your position. I was looking for evidence not opinion, there's already too much biased opinion on any side of this debate. Science requires an open-mind. I won't believe any side until I see solid proof untainted by assumptions.
ChuckLep1 9 months ago
If your intent was to strengthen the position of evolution and trash ID or creationism, you have failed. This proves nothing other than your ignorance. I imagine a Nazi would appreciate your joke. You see this person as inferior and therefore equate this as proof of your position. I was looking for evidence not opinion, there's already too much biased opinion on any side of this debate. Science requires an open-mind. I won't believe any side until I see solid proof untainted by assumptions.
ChuckLep1 9 months ago
that was very mean but i still laughed, i think hed look cute if he smiled i think. still couldnt help but have the thought what if they used my picture. lol
punkychick69 10 months ago
It's Pruane2Forever if you're wondering.
Kousaburo 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i thought it was funny
slyer72 11 months ago
every religion is just a failed way of trying to explain everything that exists, being to awesome to have been created by chance in the believers eyes. if there is a god, this being my opinion, than he only created the laws of science that govern the universe and all the existing matter today nothing more. just that allowing nature to take its course
TheBigBrownBoss 11 months ago
@TheBigBrownBoss
try the anthropic principle condundrum
whitechocolate220 10 months ago
I think he tries to say that if God is perfect and his design is inteligent, there wouldn't be humans with mental retardness. I dunno who the guy at the end is, but being a student in health science I can see distinctive traits of down syndrom. Corect me if I'm wrong !
mafiotzi 11 months ago
SO many idiots getting their panties in a wad... over nothing. A SEXMAN FILM!
blackandrew7575 1 year ago
This is funny as fuck.....
AnthonyVincent1 1 year ago
I think he is right there was no intelligent design to this video
mblight68 1 year ago 16
@mblight68 LOL Mblight68 is a genius listen to this guy. He has more credability than Darwin ever will.
TheCoolGuy367 2 weeks ago
I came here for proof and some insight and you just wasted mt time thanks... FIN
coloradochris80 1 year ago 3
You are a moron... Sorry, I take that back. You are a HUGE MORON. BIG FOOOOOL.
ruflychux 1 year ago 2
I'm thinking the guy in the photo screwed your daughter or something right?
ThePhezant 1 year ago 3
Okay I am a Christian and I laughed extremely hard at this xDDDD However the person who made this must be extremely close-minded.
GuitarGuy22221 1 year ago
God is real. If you don't believe me ask Him. If you don't want to know Him you won't. If you seek Him He will reveal himself to you. Seek Him before it's to late!
string1248 1 year ago 2
... XD Haha, I really like the sense of humour in this video. Because I think, sadly enough, you are right. Humans are stupid. I really started to dislike my own species when seeing so many dumb and stupid and easily controllable people around...
JamaiDark 1 year ago
Is that your photo?
probokator 1 year ago
Why was this a featured video. It's complete nonsense. The maker should actually try reading the Bible and he will find the answer to why he is wrong.
st4ticblu3 1 year ago
uhhhhhh.... what?
thabookwyrm 1 year ago
What a ridiculous video. Intellignet design and God is a fact. Evolution LOL!
9pt9 1 year ago
@9pt9 Darwin said if ever a form of life was discovered that could not be created by random mutations he is wrong. This life has been found.
Anyone that believes that random amino acids call just form cells by chance are ignorant. It is impossible.
Anyone that believes that DNA, a more complex coding than binary can just happen on accident is ignorant. That to is impossible.
I find it interesting how the naysayers use scientific theories to disprove God.
st4ticblu3 1 year ago
@st4ticblu3 It's insane isn't it?
9pt9 1 year ago
LOL I would feel bad for Pruane but he brings it on himself
metalrox555 1 year ago
horrible video
guitarfreak8900 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid argument - speaks volumes about you.
Eltsacwenify 1 year ago
wow. Way to make kids with disabilities feel wanted. Mentally retarded people are the most loving and caring, GODLY people i know...and they are here for a special reason. compassion.
guitarchick100 1 year ago
i thought it was funny and i am Christian :P
Nice video dude, keep it up.
tonkrogerio 1 year ago
@tonkrogerio You are not a Christian. It takes more than calling yourself one to be one.
st4ticblu3 1 year ago
@st4ticblu3
please don't define what Christianity is, and yes i am a Christian even if you think you know me and you stalk me and you understand and read my mind, you are wrong, i am a Christian ;) thanks for thinking you know what i am even though you aren't me though, have fun pretending to be other people in the future.
tonkrogerio 1 year ago 3
WOW i think you are the most fucked up person on youtube i came here just to get some infromation that all and you failed
death0note0owner08 1 year ago 15
@death0note0owner08 Youtube is for entertainment.
mentalphysicalism 3 months ago
if thats you .. im extreamly sad'nd by the way you look at the world
squarzzz 1 year ago
Awww this is horrible!!! poor kid
TMBrd89 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol yes i believe it all....
Gaaminator 1 year ago
how does taking a photo of urself proove anything
teague67 1 year ago
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA XD
GDZjeenik 1 year ago
What an ABSURD and derogatory video! You should be ashamed.
jimguess 1 year ago
Second, I do not believe humans are the masters of knowledge and all that. If we were, we would have fucking telepathy and be creating our own new universes. I'm tired of hearing people say that their they have a Ph. D. in this, and when you ask them how big the universe is, or what started the universe, they would start blowing theorys out the ying yang. HUMANS WILL NEVER KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, only somethings.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@TheBBQribs what do you think video games are? are they not universes we have created, basically mirroring what god did to create us. Could you imagine a video game building itself all simply by chance? of course not, so how could you expect a human being to build themselves with absolutely no direction or design?
grandmastersmith 1 year ago
@grandmastersmith: I don't no which side you are supporting for from reading your comment, because I'm trying to help the theory of God.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@TheBBQribs What is the "theory of God"???
Are you talking about some theory of the first man made of sand 6000 years ago through magic with a talking snake causing all humans to be born as sinners?
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter Seriously, judgeing by the "5 days ago" below my account, it means that I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter I don't really care anymore about what you think, I don't really care about what atheists think, and I really don't fucking care about some kid that got hit with the ugly stick, and thinks "Wow, there's no god. Oh poor me."
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter What's your next comment, "Don't make fun of the guy on the video like that. You're ugly"?
No, I don't believe that the world was created in fucking 6 days, and that there is a giant water filled dome above the earth, so shut the fuck up.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter But, no; immediatly when some scientist comes up with some new theory, you get all hard over it, and tell anyone that believes in god that they're wrong. So, your kind would rather kill us all in the name of 'truth', and say that there won't be any violence anymore.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@TheBBQribs You seem to take this very personal. Why? I didn't attack you, did I?
Science works and is not imaginary; that's the difference. Of course you can imagine what you want. I don't care. Your PC is not the result of "creation science"...absolutely nothing is...including you...
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter I didn't say it was imaginary. I didn't say that god created the computer, and internet, and flung it down to earth from his seat. No, you have to create your own idea, and tell me this is what I (and everyone else) believes in.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter Have you been out in space? No. Have you seen the edge of the universe? No. Neither have I.
So, your telling me that based on Theories that have never been completely proven are true without physical evidence, just because some scientist says so. Science is basicly doing what religion does, making assumptions without any real, physical proof.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@TheBBQribs Science is all about using data/evidence. Telescopes of all sorts providing images from our universe in various wave lengths, colliders measuring properties of particles etc. are providing evidence to support the theories. For example; LHC in Geneva is a huge particle accelerator that allow us to investigate the physical properties right after Big Bang. Science is not any different in how it makes conclusions when it is about matters that your religion made up some fantasies about.
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter Oh, I guess Math is supposed to save the day once again. Sure, it works alot, but if some alien comes down from space, walks over to the chalkboard, and says "That's wrong."
What are we going to do then, tell an advanced space faring species that they're wrong, and we're right?
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@TheBBQribs Science is all about having an open mind for new data. If aliens landed here with new scientific data the first people to listen to them would be scientists. Assuming they came with a positive intend; it would be great for science. You see, nothing is more appreciated among scientist than growing true knowledge. The best scientists are those who define new knowledge. Any scientist who just repeat what others have said is nothing better than the typical creationist. Think about it.
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter Or they would probably kill us, just like what the spainish did to the Aztecs :(
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter I'm just trying to figure out why everyone is hostile to religion. Sure, we have screwed up alot of things, but does believing in god affect everything? It's more of a moral compass than it is a way of explaining the universe.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@TheBBQribs People are hostile to the business of religion that brainwashes people with the aim of capturing more followers who can provide money into their business. In the USA today religion is all about business. Make your imaginary relationship with Jesus but don't forget to donate to your local Christian radio station, the church and buy some Christian books too...those people behind it are all business people and spread their endless lies in the name of making more money.
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter: Seriously? What you just said to me was like saying All Blacks are responsible for crime, or that every german is a Nazi because of World War 2
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@TheBBQribs I did not talk about anyone else. I just mentioned how religion generally works in the USA. Even religious people admit corruption is too common within Christianity (e.g. rich televangelists and fake healers).
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter I was trying to point out that you were making everyone in the whole religion ( priests) sound money grubbing. Sure, there is alot of corruption in Christianity, but it doesn't make everyone corrupt.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@TheBBQribs True, possibly not all Catholic priests are touching kids sexually. Possibly some televangelists are not corrupt. But all healers are surely fake with no exception. On the other hand; the average pastor is possibly all good.
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter: That whole "touching kids" is just another thing the church needs to smake it's self over. I'm not saying that's not true, but they just need to make sure, and get ride of those kind of people
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@TheBBQribs Of course the church must be firm and quick every time someone is doing immoral sexual acts on kids. There should be absolutely no permission to get "born again" for such sick people. You touch kids sexually = you go to hell...no second chance. Period.
Just to compare with a rule of God concerning the well being of kids, Exodus 21:17 (King James Version):
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
(Also read LE 20:9 and DT 21:18-21)
ThinkingBetter 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter: Yeah, those Healers are so stupid.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
@ThinkingBetter Sure, alot of the religion now is about money. You can't really run a venue without money. Oh, and I'm guessing your going to say that the Salvation Army is brainwashing people into giving clothes to the poor, since they're a evil organization that only wants money?
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
First of all, let's take into context that the idea "Man was created in God's Image" was not in physical image, but in spirtual. If some guy is throwing homosexuals off bridges and kicking homeless people in the face, he's not living in god's image.
TheBBQribs 1 year ago
That was sick and frightening a little. I hope you seek therapy for your hatred and bizarre reasoning.
spartacus3 1 year ago
there is no motive by scientists all throughout history and currently around the world to lie about geology, cosmology, and biology. but there is a definitive reason for churches and religions to lie about such things. if the church cannot cover the truth, their religion is invalidated and they lose income. greed is what keeps the churches lying. but the scientists don't get paid to lie, there is no payment for telling the truth how it is.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 Your 1st statement is naive; every person has motive, whether religious or irreligious. I was speaking science, & you turned to bashing religion, which is a form of ad hominem attack. If you think that scientists don't get paid to lie, you're either unaware of the pharmeceutica/biotech/tobacco/dairy industries, or you've got your head in the sand. It's called grant money. It's called tenure. Deeper than that, it's called pride. Neither scientists nor priests are immune.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley can you give me an example where thousands of people from different nations with differing agendas all agree on some massive conspiracy and back each other up in a field of study to mislead the masses? i do realize that some scientists get paid to lie, but those people have reason, they are getting payed to lie. there is no conspiracy that involves the entire scientific community. radiometric dating is reliable to a degree, and we understand and accept that.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 You assume that for me to be right, it must be an unlikely vast conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy at all; it's a very frank, open agenda that says that humans can explain things w/out God. It is a case of extreme bias, just as the Catholic church or "Fundies" have extreme bias.
If there is no God, then we are accountable only to ourselves. If then this is true, then Man = Top Dog; he'll fight against anything that ousts him of that role. It's intelllectual pride run amok, is all.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley assuming there is a god, man must still rely on man. we still have to trust the people who wrote the bible. i don't think its an invalid agenda to explain things without god, the easter bunny, the invisible unicorn, or any other thing. i think my reliance on proven ideas such as scientific theory is well grounded and based upon observances of nature that i can see for myself.
i think leaning on the idea of "god" is a crutch. if a god does exist, i want that explained too.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 Well, that's really the rub, isn't it? If you assume there's no god, & I assume that there is a God, then those foundational points can never really meet. If you have compelling evidence for easter bunny, invisible unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., then I'd love to hear it. If I believed the Bible to be the work of men, then I wouldn't trust it, but I've seen overwhelming evidence & multiple instances that show me that it's of divine origin & not possibly the work of men.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley care to explain the geneology conficts of mark chapter 1 and luke chapter 3? if you write out the geneaology of each you will find that they conflict and do not agree. if the bible is of divine origin than how does something like this occur? explaining it away and apology do not work. it is not a messup that could have occured with a perfect god.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 You mean Matthew & Luke. Ancient Greek has no word for son-in-law; since Luke traces the lineage back to Adam, he's obviously [to me] tracing the "seed of woman" from Genesis 3:15, the 1st messianic prophecy. Thus, Luke records the lineage of the seed thru Mary's father, Heli. If Heli had no sons, Joseph would have been called his descendent. Matthew traces Joseph's lineage; both he & Mary are descendents of David, through different sons. Jews are meticulous record keepers!
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@greycloud24 You said, "i think leaning on the idea of "god" is a crutch. if a god does exist, i want that explained too." 1. If I could explain God, He wouldn't be God. I can, however, provide evidence FOR God who can explain things in the universe that I can't & we can verify it w/ observational science. 2. Crutches are for the crippled. You may not see man as intellectually crippled, but I do. We need revelation to fully understand this universe; without it, we're blinded by pride!
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley i see no evidence for god. i would be happy to an example of some solid evidence for god. but no test has been demonstrated that proves that a god exists, let alone a particular god. if such a test did exist, and did show the existance of a god, than i would not be an atheist.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 What sort of test would satisfy you? I'm not sure what kind of labwork could cover the existence of God. What do you need?
There is a wonderful test found in Isaiah 44:6-8. "If any other god can explain the past and predict the future in specifics, then let him show himself." We have literally hundreds of specific prophecies fulfilled that are verifiable in the historic record. Jesus alone fulfilled over 400; there are about 120 regarding Alexander the Great & the Greek Empire.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley I love how you dont see the flaw in using the bible to verify what the bible says. But the bigger problem is that even if almost the entire bible were verified, that would not definetly prove that there is a god. This makes the entire endevour pointless.
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@N3CR1S Here I'm not using the Bible as proof, but as a claim to pony-up regarding authority, that talk is cheap. God is putting His cards on the table, and saying, "I call; let's see 'em." You said "if almost the entire bible were verified, that would not definitely prove that there is a god." Would you explain that reasoning, and would you provide what criteria/basis by which you are defining proof? Thanks!
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@greycloud24 If you are serious about solid evidences, send me a personal message, & I'll be more than happy to oblige you. I can do little in 450 characters.
ANYONE ELSE READING THIS: feel free to do the same. I'm happy to rationally discuss these matters. If you're only interested in throwing mud my direction, you'll hardly be the first & won't be the last.
Like the 9/11 Truth movement; this doesn't get press coverage, but after 9 years it's still growing because the truth will out.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@greycloud24 BTW, you said, "there is no motive by scientists all throughout history and currently around the world to lie about geology, cosmology, and biology."
Keep in mind that up until fairly recently, almost all scientists thought that the reason they could study the universe & science was precisely because there was a God who made things orderly, that there was a divine design in their studies. Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, and many others were Christians.
Did THEY lie & conspire?
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
...as opposed to saying that, what? This is the "fittest?" I think the argument sort of boomeranged on you.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
This video is so rude that boy cannot help the way he is why make fun of him?
mpar777 1 year ago
** Talk about missing the elephant in the room!
Evolution can NOT explain consciousness. Atoms moving about are just atoms moving about. Particles shifting around in space can't create what doesn't exist in the matter universe: conscious experience! i.e. color, pain, sound, taste, a sense of self, etc.
All physicists have EVER done is describe how particles interact with one another, and the rules of those interactions - that can NEVER explain conscious experience - even Einstein saw that!
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
That was the stupidest 45 seconds of my life
MgEliteRunner 1 year ago
i love it right on
breemene 1 year ago
LOL, evolutionists are the biggest idiots out there. Believing an explosion will create life forms and then this life forms will become more complex over millions of years. Here we are, thousand of years allready, and we could not even create 1 living cell with all our technology. Idiots!!!!
keatano1 1 year ago
thats ignorant.
rachelinspace9 1 year ago
Another video that claims to "prove" there is no intelligent design again doesn't even come close. The picture you provided as proof just shows your insecurity. You must have frequently been made fun of growing up so that you do it to others. I'm sorry for that but something cannot come from nothing and the harmony and design of the cosmos and nature led Einstein, Galileo, and Sir Isaac Newton (to name but a few} to believe in Intelligent design. But I guess you are smarter than them.
Yaweh1st 1 year ago
@Yaweh1st something comes from nothing all of the time. you must not have heard of the higg's field or virtual particles. but let me ask you this. if two objects gain more energy the father they are apart from each other as potential energy as an expression of gravity, than where is that energy and how is it stored? science has an answer, but you seem ignorant of the fact that things do indeed come from nothing all of the time.
greycloud24 1 year ago
I doubt very highly that 50% of Americans believe in Intelligent Design. Probably half of Christians don't even believe this, & there are probably fewer than 20% of Americans who are actual, rather than nominal, Christians. CBS is just as bad as ABC or CNN. They are propaganda machines. But I used to believe in Theistic evolution, until the evidence convinced me to become a full-blown Creationist. But we're VERY rare these days. Dobson isn't even a Creationist.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
Is that image a physical one or a spiritual one? I feel bad for the poor guy whose picture you put up; do you really judge his being made in the image of God by a facial expression? Or maybe it's a picture of you? All people born are created in God's image: Downs Syndrome kids, kids with birth defects, kids of all ethnic backgrounds. And you. And me. Regardles of how mean we are when we post videos.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley if people were made in gods image we would all be invisible. if people do have gods image than we would be able to see god. there is a giant hole in your concept here.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 You're assuming that the image is a physical one; if we were all made in God's physical image, then we'd all look alike, which we don't. You correctly point out that God is not visible, thus the image must refer to something else. God is Spirit; it is our spirit that is in God's image, though we are fallen because of our rebellion.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley what do you think "image" means? so if i say someone showed me the image of a pretty girl what would that mean? what if i said someone had a the image of wealth? in what way can an image be made that is not based upon physical characteristics? the word "image" has an intimate relation with phsyical characteristics, it fails to be an image if it does not include these.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 God is Spirit. What's a spirit look like? God isn't tied to the physical, to the molecular, to the temporal realm; He transcends it. Thus, it is illogical to limit God to a physical paradigm. Just because we are tied [for the moment] to the molecular & temporal doesn't mean we're permanently bound by or limited to it. We're trying to understand things that materialism & scientific discovery are unequipped to examine. There is much more to humans than the molecular structure.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley oh but if we are made in gods image than should we not also transcend the physical world? or did god fail when he tried to make us in his image? but all of this assumes there is such thing as "transcends the physical" and the like. we have no evidence that this is even possible, and certainly an old book does not provide adequate reason to believe. now it is impossible to directly see an electron, yet we can prove they exist. too bad that can't be said for your spiritual god.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 I don't know who "we" is, but there's plenty of evidence for transcendence of the physical world; since the worldview of materialism precludes the possibility of such transcendence before it even examines evidence, maybe that's where the disconnect begins. You have faith in the electron because it doesn't threaten your worldview. I have as much evidence for God as you do for the electron. Darwin's book is old, too; hasn't stopped anyone from believing it. Is it reliable? I say no.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley really? i can prove electrons exist to someone who does not believe in them. the proof is easy, i shock them. and if they deny that they were shocked i keep it up. now if you want to say that the way life changes and is formed is "god" than by all means do. but if you want to say that we did not evolve, well that can be shown to be false.
electrons exist, as demonstrated in your computer. please give me a measurable independently verifiable form of evidence for god.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 I can't prove God, but I can & have shocked many people w/ the plethora of evidences for God, specifically the God of the Bible. "Measurable independently verifiable form of evidence for God" is your materialistic criteria. Prophecy isn't measurable, but it's very compelling. Daniel gives over 120 detailed prophecies concerning the rise & fall of Medo-Persia & Alexander the Great & subsequent Greek history. Jesus fulfilled over 400 prophecies. Then there's the science...
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@greycloud24 ...like the shape of the earth, the ocean currents, the fact that life is in the blood, and so on: stuff that no other ancient civilization had knowledge of, despite amazing technologies [Egypt's use of electricity and construction genius, Greece's napalm, etc.] But again, since your worldview already assumes that it's all false, I don't know what I can say to convince you. I can't open your mind if you're discounting anything supernatural before you've examined it.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley "the fact that life is in the blood". this is a good reason to NOT believe. life is NOT in the blood. red blood cells do NOT have dna. i don't discard your prophecy from the hip. i discard it due to lack of credulity. a real prophecy contains DETAILS that cannot be misinterpretted. the theory of evolution makes accurate predictions about the fossil record that make any biblical prophecies pale in comparison. too bad the bible isn't accurate like any scientific theory.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 Life is in the blood refers to the fact that if you drain out the blood, you die. For millennia, humans had been "purging the bad blood" for health, which is medically preposterous; the Bible had been saying all along that the blood is the lifeline to the body. The Biblical prophecies do indeed contain details that are specific, but anyone can misinterpret if their own pride and passions blind them. Look at the flood as a cause of the fossil record & it works quite logically. :)
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley well than i know kids that are smarter than the prophets in the bible. did you also know that if you removed your brain, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, intestines, thyroid, ureters, diaphram, cervical spinal cord, aorta, vena cava, vagus central nerve, or any one of many other body parts that you would also die. so how is it that life is in the blood, is it not equally in all of these as well?
no the flood does not account for the fossile record.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 You said "no the flood does not account for the fossile record". How would you support this statement?
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley by pointing at known flood areas and examining the soil and the burried objects. its easy to support. in no situation does a flood leave layers of soil in such a manner as shown in the fossile record. its simple, there are many layers of dirt as we dig through the ground, these can be measured as to how old they are by trapped biomatter, which can be dated. you can look at known floods and there results and the result is that we know how the fossile record works.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 At the Grand Canyon, we see many features & phenomena that demonstrate how the fossil record supports a global flood. Many of the areas on the top of the canyon are dated millions of years older than at the bottom; if the dating methods were accurate, the lower levels would be older, not younger. The question is: what presuppositions do we hold before we examine evidence? Is this the result of slow processes or catastrophic events? I say catastrophic, such as a global flood.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley OR we can look at floods that have occured in our lifetimes, we can look at lots of them. we can see what they result in. furthermore we can look at canyon formation and we can look to see if floods result in canyons (flash floods do, but only if they are channeled into a single river or stream in soft soil). we can also look at the formation of rock with softer substances.
when we look at these things we see that the grand canyon cannot have been formed by a flood.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 That assumes that the processes and environment we see today were the same back then, that the present is the way to interpret the past. I think the evidence points to the earth being significantly different, with catastrophic changes creating these phenomena. The research that has been done at Mt. St. Helens, where canyons were cut in hours, strata formed in hours, badlands made in days, tree peat buildup in lakes, etc., mirrors that of Grand Canyon. I patently disagree w/ you.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley and no it does NOT assume that earth was the same back then as it is now. look at the miller experiments, look at simple physics. could the earth have had softer or harder soil? sure, but the physics don't change and a flood could not have caused the grand canyon to form how it is formed now. and throwing in a red herring such as evolution (fittest) while discussing geology (the grand canyon and radiometric dating) does not support your arguement.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley but we can also use geological principles and radioisotope dating. the dating is accurate but has a large amount of possible error. with uranium-lead dating (the kind used to date the grand canyon) the error margin is 2-5% of the half-life (in this case 700 million years which equates to a 1.4million to 35 million year potential for error).
we know radioisotopes can be relied upon, your cell phone requires very accurate radioisotope time measurements in satalites.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 oops i meant 1.4 to 3.5 million year margin of error. was typing too fast. anyhow radioisotopes are used in satalites because time works differently in low gravity. they must be accurate to a 30 billionth of a second. that is how reliable they can be if they have a shorter half-life. longer half-lifes equate to less accuracy, especially in relatively low timespans (as compared to the half-life)
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 A 1.4 to 35 million year margin of error? Are you serious? Cell phones are observational; dating methods are speculative. You have an amazing amount of faith in something with a million(s) year margin of error. You simply choose the one dating method out of the jar that produces whatever date your theory needs, and voila! Instant "proof" for that which is not verifiable.
I don't mean to be insulting to you at all, but why are Christians the only ones accused of chasing fables?
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley what is there to gain from denying truth for science? what is there to gain from saying that creation did not happen if it did? but when we take a serious look at the evidence, we find the truth. we live on a planet that is 4 to 5 billion years old. we are related to nearly all other life on earth (there is one exception i know of). but what is there to gain other than technology and simple truth? there is no agenda, nothing to gain from a lie in science.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 And if you're going to discard prophecy "from the hip" without actually looking into it yourself, without daring to look beyond evolutionistic fundamentalism into someone else's viewpoint as a peer rather than as a self-appointed superior, then I don't know what to say. How would that make me the close-minded one? I'm happy to discuss these matters w/ you, but only if you're philosophically honest and willing to look across rather than down at me. :)
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley It isn't as old as Euclid's Elements. You haven't been reading enough good Christian literature. I would suggest, 'Nothing in Biology makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution' by Dubzhanski.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Could you be more specific as to what isn't as old as Euclid's Elements? I'm not following your reference.
Regarding the latter comment, I'm not sure on what basis you're making that judgment. I've read many books, but I haven't always found their conclusions to be logical or reasonable, be they science books, political books, or theological books. Usually when people tell me that I shouldn't believe everything I read, they assume I've only read what I quote. :)
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley Origin of Species. I believe somewhere you were urging disregard of Origin of Species on the grounds that it was old.
You've read Dubzhanski?
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Someone was urging that I disregard reading the Bible on the grounds that it was old. I responded that Origin of the Species is old too, in order to point out that age has nothing to do with literary value.
I've not read Dubzhanski.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@gamesbok What's Dubzhanski on about?
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@gamesbok Origin of Species.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@greycloud24 Darwinism is based upon 19th Century science; we live in the 21st century, and there's just some of those concepts that don't work anymore. This "image" talk is starting to sound like a word game of the "if god's all powerful, can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?" variety. The existence of morality, of which Darwinism ultimately has no real contribution, is just one of many things that point to a spiritual side of the universe. "Agape" love isn't pheromonal or instinctual. :)
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley love is chemical, it is induced my oxytocin. you are right the darwins' theory of evolution cannot account for morality, neither can newton's theory of gravity. this does not mean that these theories are not correct, only that they do not directly adress morality (however morality does evolve and that can be shown within the framework of evolution).
what i posted was "if we were made in god's image, than we would be invisible". you try to change the meaning of "image"
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 Attraction may be chemical: "agape" unconditional love is a decision, not a reaction. If you can't account for morality, then how did it get there? The universe doesn't happen in compartments; biology exists in astronomy, & math is everywhere, & so is morality. How we define right & wrong changes [or "evolves"] but the actual right & wrong doesn't. Evolution has no mechanism for morality, only survival & reproduction. Morality is often in stark contrast to survival/reproduction.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@greycloud24 It satrikes me that, as Darwin said, morality will evolve because it leads to a more productive society. An anarchy of selfishness and greed will not be able to compete with a society of trust and stability. Morality and society are inevitable, for Darwinian reasons.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok i agree that "morality" as we know it is simply a function of coded behaviors and behavior patterns. we can witness other animals displaying morality as well. if morality did not develop in herd animals, than there would be no heard animals. if morality did not develop into social animals than these animals would not be social. i agree that it is likely that morality is a programmed set of behavior or way of thinking that is expressed in genes. a trait of evolution.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 I have posted stuff all over creationist videos looking for an arguement, and all I get is you being reasonable, rational and inteligent. I'm deeply disappointed.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley Darwin accounts for morality comprehensively in his book, The Descent of Man'.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok He attempts to explain it, yes. I don't buy his explanation. I keep hearing people say things like "more productive society" when these days productivity is often at the expense of morality. The two are often at odds, depending on how you define "productivity." This utilitarian view of morality does not account for the origin of morality, as morality restrains rather than enables.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley I think you'll find herd behavior is common and that'll do for an origin. 'Productivity is at the expense of morality..' So? Your point doesn't invalidate anything I've said.
All you have to do is imagine two societies. One is moral, reliable, patriotic, trusting, the other a snake pit of selfishness and paranoia. Which is more powerful, efficient, productive, comfortable and, in the strict Darwinian sense, 'fit'?
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok I'd hardly put herd behavior as a model for morality; that would mean that Nazi Germany was good because everyone bought into it. No, in my experience the human herd is almost always running in the wrong direction. The church is almost always misinterpreting the Bible, the politicians are almost always twisting their platforms for financial purposes, etc.
The prophet's words are seldom well-received; truth is a heavy burden, so few carry it!
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley NO, there isn't.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok No, there isn't what?
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
if intelligent design does not exist, what created this video? what created youtube? does a microsoft program come up out of nowhere? what created the small ball of mass that is believed to create the universe, and where was it at if there was no universe?
loveforthesinner 1 year ago
LOL
gaiusmarius161 1 year ago
haha xD
AfghDude 1 year ago
Shallow answer here. No Cigar !
turtle4aire 1 year ago
LOL hilarious. I personally believe intelligent design is a POSSIBLE solution to the question of life origins on earth, key word possible. This video is hilarious tho.
Bidon45 1 year ago
lol
cutes22 1 year ago
HAHA! Atheists are crying because their precious theory of evolution has been proven wrong!
sk29999 1 year ago
@sk29999 Whaaat? when? where ? who? :O
Solensherre 1 year ago
@sk29999 Your hilarious
MrSafetymeeting 1 year ago
Lol thats mean.......
God exists though haha.
PrestonTocco 1 year ago
It's Jawsus!
doctormurray91 1 year ago
lol
RealityGameWorld 1 year ago
god does exist but this is funny
cityman676 1 year ago
@coreyalan23
Answer to your "what's the advantage to humor?" question- If you've ever had a computer crash, or know WHY it crashed it's because something didn't compute correctly. With humans, humor and laughing was developed to combat a similar problem. We as people wouldn't be very effective in even our own lives if -as soon as something didn't make sense, we crashed to the floor and blacked out. So humor could be thought of as our brains telling us to "forget that nonsense" and move on.
ItachiUchiha222 2 years ago
@ItachiUchiha222 I like that theory.
gamesbok 1 year ago
dumbest thing i've ever seen in my life. this video, not the kid, which by the way, couldn't be replicated by our most brilliant engineers. What is intelligence anyways? Surely, there is no biological purpose for intelligence. Life could thrive and survive without it. But why would life even want to thrive, if life was merely an random accident? What genetic mutation is responsible for humor? What advantage did it provide? You haven't questioned anything for yourself. lol.
coreyalan23 2 years ago
@coreyalan23 Please, stop calling evolution a random accident, that's not really the point of evolution at all
Solensherre 1 year ago