It's interesting how Craig can consider it such a great and kind thing that the children who were on the receiving end of mass infanticide, were the beneficiaries of an infinite good, so that's not a problem. However, those who do not hear the word of christ, and those who do not believe for any conceivable reason, will burn in hell for all eternity, and he doesn't comment on that any further. Rather selective.
@4:27 again guy on the far right shows himself as an idiot. If I was Hitchens I would have stopped him and said, ok, practical. I'm indentured in slavery, what should I do.
I was going to comment "Wow that was remarkably civil for four theists and an atheist discussing god" until I heard "...all I heard was a buncha psychobabble." Gotta love the one bad apple...
Does anyone else think that the last 15 seconds of this video are the best cliffhanger of any video on youtube? I can practically see Hitchens salivating and the rest of the panel facepalming.
There is no historical evidence of noah's ark. Nor gilgamesh's ark.. Come on people.. Find me some old wood and some animal fossils of polar bears and marsupials in the wrong continent and then we might be talking
Among other attributes, I admire Hitchen's patience... if i were to listen to these 5 buckets of bullshit I'd end up with a lot of anger management issues...
Jeez Hitchens was unfairly matched anyway by 4 to 1 on this panel. But for the moderator to start making arguments against him.... I thought christians believed in equality? How was this a fair fight?
so basically what the moderator is saying at about 3:00 minutes is that no amount of evidence could sway him and he believes blindly the bullshit in the bible because he "trusts" his imaginary friend.
Your first two premises are faulty. I'm not religious, but I hate to see atheism being feebly argued for.
Why is it that that which perceives cannot be absolute, and what does it mean to be absolute? Why is it that that which doesn't perceive cannot be conscious?
An omnipotent, omniscient entity can simply arbitrate the universe's logic, but ditching this, it would have the faculty of introspection. if it is also omnipresent, and can observe itself, then it is both absolute and perceptive.
I can't believe I'm reading a discussion about the validity of the ark. It's time to grow up. Instead of the bible, try reading Dickens, or at leat Harry Potter. Either will be more entertaining.
"It has already been proven that DNA responds to the environment and the variation of species is observable."
Sounds like mutations to me. Come on man, all your replies sound like copy and pasting. "nano machines, variation, digits of directives". I really think you are just copying text from previous comments. EXPLAIN how DNA reacts to the environment. I'm not lazy, it's one piece of information, length of the ark. I've heard ~ 300-450 ft. Small. Come on man! You're backed into a corner here!
I have the knowledge. You are making claims that oppose the common knowledge. Don't stray off topic, keep explaining your accelerated variation. I feel like you are about to finally reveal your method for the diversity of animals. I am so excited! Explain how we see thousands of more species than you claim were on the ark. Explain how they vary and manage to split into different species (i.e. cannot breed). Come on, no more running. Teach us your theory.
Different species that cannot breed with previous forms appear all the time. It happens much faster than evolution and mutations are supposed to work.
And there are at least 100 more common factors shared by both maniraptors and birds(which are technically also maniraptors.)
I have a book called "Feathered Dinosaurs" (by Christopher Sloan.) that I probably got when I was 9 or 10. The book is 64 pages in total, and explains the evolutionary path of dinosaurs to birds, in a way that a child can easily understand.
So you have no excuse. You profile says that you are 50 years old... At least be on par with an elementary school level.
@RaidenTheAlmighty@RaidenTheAlmighty Don't confuse the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. There are different kinds of dinosaur. Spinosaurus was a totally different animal and still a reptile. Lizards are totally different and still reptile. There is common function because of a common Designer who obviously was into what He was doing and yet there are also reptiles that are so different.
@RaidenTheAlmighty Good question. Some reptiles have scales but do not have conical teeth. Some don't even have legs. It is hard to say that they are all related. Some eat plants, others don't. Some flew like bats. Others were like birds. There are as many differences as similarities.
So you cant describe what a reptile is or what it isnt. And you still claim that birds arent reptiles, even though they have many reptilian features.
You dont know what to think. You are just too ignorant to comprehend the facts, too afraid to study them and too stubborn to admit that you are ignorant and afraid.
@RaidenTheAlmighty I know for a fact that many if not most reptiles are not even close to being birds. Raptors are the only dinosaurs that are similar to birds.
And seekmost, since you are the expert on biology, please name me a few features that dinosaurs and birds don't have in common. The specific dinosaurs that we are talking about are known as mani raptors.
They both have feathers and scales. They bother laid eggs. They were both warm blooded. They both cared for their young. They both have keel, breast and wish bones. They both have half moon shaped wrist joints that allow the hand to be folded and held against the body.
I doubt that they were very aquatic. A lot of them were pack(Birds still flock today) hunters, like lions or wolves. Some were probably arboreal, which would explain the flight feathers. They were as diverse as birds are today.
That doesnt diminish the fact that birds and maniraptors share over 100 similar skeletal features alone.
@RaidenTheAlmighty Sauropods were dinosaurs. They ate plants and walked on all four legs. Spinosaurus was a sea monster that also walked upright on land. Most reptiles today do not even resemble dinosaurs. All birds today have feathers, most dinosaurs did not. That is a dissimilarity. Most birds fly and most dinosaurs did not. Birds have beaks. Dinosaurs did not. Dinosaurs have claws on forearms, birds do not. There are a lot of design issues that evolution does not resolve.
Pointing out the differences doesn't defeat evolution. Were looking at the similarities. Dinosaurs did have feathers. Most maniraptors had them. Some dinosaurs flew. The ones that had feathers and flew were maniraptors. Oviraptor had a beak, so it is part of the gene pool. And plenty of other dinosaurs had beaks too.
A birds wings are modified hands. And they share the same half moon wrist joint that maniraptors had.
Do you see how this supports evolution? We can follow a path.
@RaidenTheAlmighty It is the design that makes things different. Claws and feathers are very different things for very different purposes. The gene pool is versatile but not that versatile.
Except that a wing is just a modified hand. This isn't complicated shit.
One again, maniraptors and birds both have both claws and feathers. Both had wings that could be used for flight. In birds the wing is much more refined, but it is still basically the same.
"The gene pool is versatile but not that versatile."
Who says? It doesn't say that in the bible. Are you a geneticist? Or are you just pulling more rabbits out of your ass?
How did all the animals fit on the ark? How was their food stored? Waste disposal? How did marsupials get to palestine from Australia? What about creatures with special diets? Were dinosaurs on the ark? How did predators not starve with only two of every prey left? Wouldn't most plants die in a global flood? What about species with very sensitive environments(temp. humidity, etc). What about fresh and salt water fish? Why didn't Egyptians write about the flood? Ancient Chinese?
Things were very different at the time of the flood. There were seven of every clean animal also taken on the ark. There was not near as much salinity in the seas as there is today. Plants have seeds. The water level was much lower and it is clear that the land areas were connected. People at the time of the flood all knew the flood had taken place. All Calendars are no older than 4500 years with the exception of the Jewish Calendar. There is a reason for everything.
"Things were very different at the time of the flood"
This is going to be good.
Less salinity? Please list your sources.
Seeds? How did they get to the arc? Not all seeds can survive submerged.
Lower water level? Is this during the ice age? Sources please.
Yeah, written history does not begin until about 4000bc. However, you'd think they would tell stories in their cultures. Otherwise how was this event recorded? I gave you many more questions. Please answer them better than these.
There was no rain and no ice before the flood. The organic matter, moss, insects, etc. found in the ice at or near the poles proves this. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. Much of Egypt has now been under water for hundreds of years. You have to scrap the questions you have because of the fact that things were so different 4500 years ago. Your understanding of what it was like back then is very limited. There were records and many copies were made of those records.
Retroactive salvation? God didn't see it coming? Was he surprised that things went to hell(no pun intended). How do these guys even operate? I can't imagine applying logic to every piece of my life except one part locked away. They must see the humor in Zeus and Apollo. They must teach their kids these mythologies and agree that they are myth and laugh because they lack evidence. But then they pick up the bible and start the cycle all over again.
@trekgeek1 The salvation was there all along in the "seed of the woman". God does not overlook anything. Word of the provision of God for man was given to us as soon and man sinned. It was there all the time but we didn't need to know of it until after we sinned. So the prophesy of the seed of the woman was fulfilled when Yeshua/Jesus was born of a woman. It has always been the same faith in the same Christ/Messiah since the very beginning.
Sorry, respectfully not buying it. Wasn't the first sin of man in the garden? Wasn't that far before Jesus died on the cross? So let me get this straight: Man sinned pretty much from the get go, god banished man from the garden. Many years pass and now it's time to do something in the form of human sacrafice because things since the garden have gotten worse. Salvation from what? if god is the only god then is he saving us from himself? It's a nice fairy tale, like Zeus, but I can't believe it.
@trekgeek1 You are confused. The first mention of Christ was to Adam and Eve. Every prophesy of Christ was based on Christ being born of a woman as was told to Adam and Eve. (People know so little about anything) Salvation is from our sin. God does not have sin. You can't believe in what you know nothing of.
I won't tell you there is no god, because I cannot prove that. But you know that your religious texts are flawed. You know that when you apply analytical logic to the bible, it fails. You will never admit it, but you know that it haunts you. But I doubt either one of us will convert the other. So I hope your life goes as well as possible. In the words of the Vulcans, live long and prosper.
@trekgeek1 You can't judge what the Bible says because you didn't write it so you can't interpret it. You can't possibly know what the Bible is saying without a correct interpretation. All of the supposed errors of the Bible are all made up errors. We would never judge other documents that way. We would want to know what it is saying.
How about a new saying,
"Say and do the right thing so that your conscience does not accuse you."
That is your problem, you have no idea who is qualified to interpret it. If you are interpreting it then you can have no confidence in its teaching. Interpretation will always be susceptible to error. And if that is your stance, then I suggest you bite your tongue anytime you quote the bible to support any position. You can't have it both ways, literal or interpreted. If it's literal, it's evil. If it's meant to be interpreted then you have a slippery slope. Bible says pi=3, that's one mistake.
@trekgeek1 You are making a judgment of the content of the Bible. The only way to understand what the Bible is saying, that is the key (understanding), is by truth. The Spirit of truth is what makes all things clear to us. Scripture is not a matter of one's own interpretation. That is what the Bible itself says. I can say this but you have to believe it because it is true. I know this must be new to you because nobody ever explained it to you before.
I just hear a lot of side stepping of basic logical questions. "The spirit of truth is what makes all things clear to us". That is nonsensical backwards language. It has no significant meaning. As Bertrand Russell says, something is either true or it isn't. Don't speak of the spirit of truth. And it was revealed to me, I had to go to church as a child, and have gone recently with my fiance out of respect for her beliefs. Again, nice side step of a basic question.
The fact remains that you have to have a foundation of truth before you can understand what the Bible is saying. That foundation of truth is Messiah Yeshua (Christ Jesus). You can't claim the Bible is wrong when you know nothing about it and basic foundational truths. You can't possibly understand what it is all about. One thing that is essential for you is to understand that the Bible is an actual historical account of the things they saw thousands of years ago. You are the on "sidestepping".
"foundation of truth", right. Again, circular reasoning and cryptic responses. I don't particularly believe many things the ancients believe when their accounts are obviously impossible. Ancient people had great imaginations. Do you believe in Zeus? People claimed to witness his actions and there are written texts about him. Or do you teach your children about Zeus, Apollo, and Poseidon as mythology- false observations and historical fallacies? What truth must you first possess to believe that?
Other accounts of pagan people exaggerated or not are of no interest to me but even those accounts have some relevance as to their beliefs. How much more valid are the much more sincere accounts that contain a lot of historical records and genealogies especially from people who do not believe in lies or exaggeration. The biblical records are matter of fact accounts of what happened and as such are invaluable for research and study of the pre-flood Creation.
See, you ignore other ridiculous beliefs that have the same amount of evidence. How much more valid are accounts with a lot of historical record? They are significantly more valid. That is the basis of our law system- many testimonials in agreement with each other. If you think there is no difference then you are being foolish. You have yet to justify how biblical accounts are "matter of fact accounts". There is little to no evidence of these accounts, either historical or scientific.
There are no other accounts as historical or as valid as the Bible is. The Bible is many different records and accounts. Don't think that there is only one account of what happened before the flood. Genesis itself is made up of different accounts. No one has ever had to change anything the Bible has ever said. That means that it is historical, scientific and true through and through.
How convenient, God talks to us, if we hear him talk to us we're doing well. If we don't hear him talk to us we're not trying hard enough to hear him. Come on, are you that blinkered you cannot see the circular logic in your own position?
That's not even what I said. God convinces everyone of sin, righteousness and judgment. No wonder you are not aware of God speaking to you. A little attention to detail would be in order.
Its not my fault that you keep dodging the question. How am I supposed to follow what you are saying when you keep changing subjects and making shit up.
@RaidenTheAlmighty Just because you don't expect there to be an answer, doesn't mean that I am making things up.
There is an answer to everything and we are not the first people to ever consider these things. Brighter minds have been over all this many times before.
You can't just give up and say that we can't know things. We can know. Just follow the trail of evidence like following the yellow brick road.
You can only know what is knowable. You can't know about something that you have no knowledge of. If something is supernatural we can know that it is because it is seeing something that is not ordinary. You have a problem addressing the issues. Everything I believe is based on what I know. It has to be that way for it to be true. Biblical teaching is knowing and believing the truth. There is no fantasy involve like there is with evolution.
You can't know about something that you have no knowledge of.
So we always knew about gravity and germs? In the present tense, you can know something that you dont know. But in the future, you can learn something that you dont currently know. So as far as we know, nothing is unknowable; they are just unknown. You want to substitute the unknowns with beliefs and proclaim them to be truths.
@RaidenTheAlmighty I am not even talking about something that is "unknown". That is the whole point. There is observable evidence of the Creation. It has nothing to do with what we don't know. It has to do with what we can see. We can know things when we build on the information that we have the same as in math. The existence of a Creator is absolutely certain.
You have to have an argument to present. Evolution is totally baseless so there is no argument that can be made. That is not your fault. You are just on the losing team.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wait, you are actual serious.
I am not going to argue with you about evolution. You are obviously too stupid to understand it, or too lazy to try. Evidence is one of the most solid scientific theories around. Please, dont even bother arguing against evolution. YOU. WILL. LOSE.
Is there anything we can say to this joker? He doesn't even recognize information and evidence when presented. He claims that evolution has no basis when it has every basis. He defends the bible as evidence for itself.
(1/2)Reptiles don't change into mammals because they are adapted to their environment. Changing into mammals would be a disadvantage and evolution never goes backwards.
Fossils are dated to over 65 million years old.
Fossils are "stacked" simplest to most complex. Not created all together.
I believe the scientists because their objective is to learn. A scientist would love to prove evolution wrong because they would be famous for a brand new proven theory.
(2/2) A scientist gets more fame from disproving a theory than being one of the many thousands who prove it every day. They are unable to legitimately disprove it and therefore they accept it. Richard Dawkins has a great story from when he was a student. One of his professors believed in a certain theory for 15 years. A visiting professor gave a lecture which completely destroyed that theory. the old professor approached the man and thanked him for correcting his error after 15 years.
If you really believe that everything in the bible is true and that evolution has no proof whatsoever, then you are obviously not thinking critically. I don't expect you to change your religion, but please see the evidence provided for evolution. It is dangerous to deny knowledge simply because it contradicts your faith. Look at the 2009 gallup poll about America and evolution. People are going to ultimately accept this idea just as all credible scientists do.
Do you realize that all the fossils are in different rock strata? That means they were not placed there at the same time. Not even close to the same time. You find simple organisms further down and complex organisms higher up. Have those answers for noahs ark yet? I asked you some questions. And no matter how little evidence evolution has in your opinion, the bible has far less. All your comments just say that the bible is true with no support or evidence.
It is not evolution or a creator. That is a false dilemma. Evolution and a million other scientific theories could be proved wrong and that doesn't prove god at all. Evolution only describes gene frequencies. You are also lumping together common descent, Abiogenesis, and the big bang.
These theories have nothing to do with each other. Disproving one theory does not prove the other.
I told you to go to talkorgins(dot)org. They have articles about fossil evidence. Read a book besides the bible. The proof is there, find it.
Though some take a more religious approach. Some people think you have to pray to Darwin and accept evolution as your savior. Only then will it become clear to you. You haven't accepted evolution, that is why you can't see the abundance of evidence. I mean, look around, look at the trees.
Try explaining something in your own words. If you can't do that, I, for one, will not believe anything that you try to tell me.
No object ever wrote any of the billions of observable digits of directives that command the formation of any of the millions of life forms that we see. You will never explain that away.
I am convinced that you are mentally impaired (no joke, I really think you are a burden of the state).Now you claim that nano technology is proof of god. I gave you websites to research. I will not read it to you like a story. this is your problem, you go to church and have someone else explain things to you. You never try to learn on your own. I like discussing issues but you don't function like an adult. Multiple people have given you evidence and you cover your eyes and ears.
There is no evidence of evolution and you cannot explain it in your own words. Yes, the nano technology (that you are made of) is evidence of Creation. You need to learn the facts. I have already laid it out for you that the billions of digits of directives made from even more billions of interchangeable nanoparts that made you what you are is the evidence of Creation because objects do not order any of the information that made you.
What about the nano technology that computers are made of, that you use. Human beings testing scientific theories allowed them to materialized. Human beings test theories in relation to evolution as well, some have been founded as true, some are still in the theory stage. You conveniently argue against the one science that is confliction with your god but the one that has to do with computer tech doesn't so you use it and don't question.
You are getting your information from the wrong sources. Computers don't use very much nano technology yet eccept for the electricity that it uses. It is not yet on the nano scale. It is getting there but it is not on the molecular level yet as biology is and has been for 6,000 years. There is no science that is in conflict with Creation. They would like you to think that but it is not true. All real science supports the evidence of Creation because of the fact that no object ever did anything.
@sexyloser Evolution doesn't prove anything because it has not been proven itself. Funny dating methods do not count because they have no way of comparing their "results". It is called circular reasoning. They are all comparing their results with each other and none of them have valid claims. There is no actual verifiable human history any older than 6,000 years old. There should be tens of thousands of years of history and there is none. All history starts with the flood except for the Bible.
As long as man lived by hunting and gathering there really wasn't much need for dissertations and record-keeping. The invention of agriculture, of course, eventually concentrated humanity into centers that, in turn, gave rise to cities ruled by kings, and the state began to collect taxes. Bureaucrats have a great need for records.
That's the reason why there are few if any historical records before that period and, yes, there was a time when reading and writing did not exist.
You do know that radioactive decay is a pretty accurate way to date the earth back billions of years. And please, don't dredge up some shit about a 4000 year old seal. We actually know the truth of the issue.
And BTW, you might want to have a chat with the ancient Sumerians. They have a flourishing culture about 10000 years ago.
@RaidenTheAlmighty No one lived more than 6,000 years ago. If they lived more than 4400 years ago, they died in the flood. By your own admission, there is no actual human history any older than 10,000 years. There should be a lot more than that but it doesn't exist because man did not exist. You don't even have any records to back up your date of 10,000 years. I have actual genealogies to date the time of the first man and woman which objects do not explain. Your false belief assassinates truth.
So you are saying that god waited over 4 billion years [after creating the earth to create] life? That doesn't jive well with genesis.
I use the Sumerians because they have a civilization almost 10k years ago. And they had a written language 8k years ago. But for at least 90k years prior, most humans lived in small hunter/gatherer groups.
The are even human mummies(in South america) that can be carbon dated to over 10k years.
@RaidenTheAlmighty God said that He created the heavens and the earth (first). He said darkness covered the surface of the earth. That means there was already light but that it did not reach the surface of the earth. Don't even try to talk about what the Bible says unless you know something of what it says.
You do not have genealogies of Sumerians. All you have are some business records. They lived the same time as everyone else did and if they lived before the flood, they died in the flood.
I have a bible. It says he created the earth(and all its life) in 6 days. Not four and half billion and 5 days. So either the Bible is wrong, or the word day is used metaphorically. And if anything in the bible is metaphorical, that throws the idea that the bible is the LITERAL word of God out the window.
So what is it? Are you wrong, is the bible wrong or is the use of the word Day not literal?
@RaidenTheAlmighty You are confusing the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. What part of "the heavens and the earth" do you not understand? It says that darkness covered the surface of the earth until the first counted day. That means the Sun had always been shining but that the light did not reach the surface of the earth until the first recorded day. Light was seen from earth on the first day but the sources of light were not seen until the fourth day.
"You are confusing the age of the earth with the age of life"
No I'm not. So what you are saying, is that the universe existed for a presumably infinite amount of time. Until God decided to let the light shine on the surface of the earth? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
And what exactly prevented the suns light from shining on earth? And why?
Exactly, nobody "wrote" it. You start out assuming that it was "written" instead of starting from an objective observation. So your argument is already flawed.
If nobody order the directives that made you what you are, you would not exist. You do exist so you do have a Creator. It is that simple. Evolutionists just confuse people. Someone had to make the elements that we are made of to work so well to allow us to exist. That means the entire universe made of the same elements is all by design.
I'm serious, you are not a teacher or something right? Your logic sucks. You claim that everything is here therefore it was created by a god. You would fail any college level debate course with that logic. I researched it, and to cover all the mountains with water would require 3 times as much water than is present today on earth. No underground water theory-busted. "You can't explain evolution because it doesn't happen" You keep saying this despite the evidence we have given you. Are you dumb?
You didn't research it very well because the mountains were pushed up after the flood. There is no evidence of evolution. The historical evidence is there. If you don't want to accept the eyewitness accounts in favor of speculation, conjecture, imagination and fantasy, that is your problem.
Ha ha ha! The sites that talk about this stuff actually mention creationists claiming mountains came out of the earth after the flood. ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS!
Mountains do not come up that quickly! Don't you think history would mention mountains growing like bamboo? You keep one upping yourself with every dumb comment. I seriously can't stop grinning right now. My cheeks actually hurt! Do some real research.
The Bible does say that the mountains rose and they are still rising to this day. The Bible does say that the water settled in the lower parts of the earth. What we see today is the evidence of what happened at the time of the flood. The fossils are evidence of the flood. The fossils do not support evolution because everything just appeared from nowhere including mammals.
" the bible does say.........". We don't care. You are trying to defend the validity of the bible. You can't use it as a source.
Mountains did rise. MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO!
Research the Himalayas. They are rising today, that is correct. They started rising millions of years ago.
Are you thick? FOSSILS DISPROVE THE FLOOD! Why are they all not lying together? Why do you think they are separated? Fossil records show simple organisms on the bottom, complex on top. You mental defect.
The fossils show that the sea life is always on the bottom and the rest is in other layers. That is obvious. The assumption is that the sea life is more primitive. That is a false assumption. Just because something doesn't have a backbone doesn't mean that it is more primitive. It is also an assumption that it took millions of years for the mountains to rise. The Bible is the historical record of what happened. No one can change that.
You fail to address any of the issues. That is because you have nothing real to say.
History and the fossil evidence of everything everywhere being buried is not speculation. It actually happened.
There is also the observable scientific evidence of Creation because of the fact that no object ever ordered any directives. You cannot credit objects for making us what we are and you cannot credit anything about us for making us what we are. That is unscientific. Evolution is unscientific.
Evolution is completely scientific. Creation has no evidence. The only evidence you have is evidence for evolution that you have perverted into pro bible propaganda.
The fact that nothing quite like evolution has never occurred before doesn't hurt it's validity.
Nothing quite like gravity has ever been observed either. Gravity and evolution are unique. Just like every other scientific observation. That's what makes them a new theory.
Evolution is all speculative. There is observable scientific evidence that supports Creation. The result of gravity is visible the same as the evidence that supports Creation is observable. There is no evidence of evolution. It is nothing more than a fantasy. No object can account for the billions of observable digits of directives that command the formation of the nanomachines that life forms are made of. You cannot credit static forces for any of that. Objects do not command anything.
The flood never happened. Water from underground would be superheated and poached Noah. You don't have any observable scientific evidence for creation. Answer this: Why are the fossils stacked instead of lumped together?
Here are some video's to prove evolution:
"transitional fossils" by Donexodus2
"irrefutable proof of evolution part 1" by donexodus2
"proof of evolution - part 3" by Donexodus2
Enjoy your transitional fossils! Creationism has failed.
Keep trying to convince yourself that there are transitions between life forms but it will never be true. What makes you think that fossils should be "lumped together"? The water came up from the ground every night and was not super heated. What makes you think that the water would be super heated? A video proves nothing. Try explaining in your own words how objects order the formation of billions of digits of directives on their own. Enough of that fantasy.
Nobody is saying that objects command anything. You dont even have the slightest grasp on how evolution works. You have no business talking about evolution at all.
You are an ignorant liar.
I will give you the most basic definition of evolution: In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations.
Evolution requires mutations and since mutations do not account for all of the variations there are, there is no evolution. The variations that we see are from preexisting design. A reptile will always be a reptile.
Yes, mutations account for ALL of the variation. Please stop lying.
A reptile will always be a reptile. Birds as reptiles; they were once dinosaurs. Birds and dinosaurs share over 100 similar skeletal features. Thats far too much to be coincidence.
Tell me they arent extremely similar. Dont you find it odd that only birds and dinosaurs have feathers? Both birds and reptiles have scales and beaks. Come on dude.
@RaidenTheAlmighty Similar function does not mean common ancestry. It means a common Designer. You can't use that to promote things that do not happen. You are kidding yourself. There are different kinds of reptiles. Some are lizards, others are crocs, others are dinosaurs and snakes etc.
"Similar function does not mean common ancestry. It means a common Designer. "
No it doesn't, retard. YOU. KNOW. NOTHING. Please stop pretending like you have a single braincell that isn't is fucktarded. You don't. You are a dishonest, no nothing little child. You wouldn't know what a reptile was if it fucked your mouth and came on your forehead. Stop posting misinformed comments. I know that you know you nothing of the issue. No matter how hard you lie, you wont be speaking the truth.
@RaidenTheAlmighty The similarities in DNA between species is common function. Since it is all being actively transcribed, none of it is a "relic of the past". What is not information to make the proteins is information for what to do with the proteins. Since we are all biological, there is a lot of common function but no common ancestry. Each design is a different design with variations built into them which is a shuffling of preexisting information.
Can you stop making shit up for one second? I would love to know where you got this horse shit from.
There is one positive thing I can say about the Christians debating Hitchens. At least they know something about the subject they are arguing against. You, on the other hand, are completely ignorant...
@RaidenTheAlmighty Address the issues. Just because you never heard the points that I am making doesn't mean I don't know anything. You can't credit objects with doing anything. I know that much. Address the issues. Face the facts.
I have never heard your arguments before because you have made them up. They are 100% untrue.
You believe that there was a global flood, despite the complete an utter lack of evidence. You wanna see a flood? Dont look at the grand canyon, check out glacier lake and the scab lands. That's what the aftermath of a gigantic flood looks like.
You haven't provided a single piece of credible evidence. Your arguments are hearsay and speculation.
@RaidenTheAlmighty No, I do have actual historical records while you have speculation and conjecture ...imagination and fantasy. I have the actual record. You do not. I have the results of what the historical record says and that is millions of buried fossils around the world.
Seriously, are you retarded? It took hundreds of millions of years for those fossils to be buried. The fact they are in separate geological eras - which themselves take millions of years to form - disproves your statement on its own.
If the flood was real, we wouldnt see these layers. We would seen a mono-layer divided into layers according to size.
@RaidenTheAlmighty You have no evidence for what you believe. I have historical records that back up all of the evidence of Creation that I see. You have a mental block that does not allow you to consider Creation. There is no way for millions of species to be buried all over the world without a worldwide flood that was from water coming up from underground so that everything was buried and compressed all at the same time so that they did not rot. We do see layers because of all the sediments.
Historical records? You have one piss poor written book that is full of errors. Explain how a flood organizes the fossils in complexity. How could animals not be buried around the world without a flood? Animals live in most parts of the world. And explain why your theory of the ocean's weight moving the continents was able to separate Pangaea in 6000 years. Why are they slower now? Keep in mind, your "flood" was around 1 year. It's really like hearing a kindergartner defend the three bears!
@trekgeek1 You will not find all of the life forms in the same places. They will be in different places. The oceans and their currents washed away whatever land bridges were left after the flood. It has been that way for thousands of years now.
I didn't say you would find all life forms in the same places. I said you don't need a flood to create fossils. Additionally, some areas have much higher fossil density due to sediment conditions. Rebuild the pyramids? We have done more. We built a station in space! We created nuclear powered ships a quarter mile long. Look up the Boeing Everett factory. You need to consider opposing views. Wow! all those land bridges washed away! And I can't believe scientists call your views stupid.
@trekgeek1 You say they can do "greater" things but they can't do the "simpler" things. How amazing that is! The fact is that the land masses are no longer connecting or close as they were before and shortly after the flood. We know for a fact that there are land masses that have moved away from each other. The only thing with enough force to do that is the hydraulic force of the water after the flood.
What do you mean "greater" and "simpler"? I don't see what you are referring to.
I agree that some land masses are no longer connected. That wasn't caused by hydraulic force. That theory is not "known for a fact", as you state. Look up how plate tectonics works. Water doesn't apply lateral force. The movement is caused by the crust moving on top of the mantle by volcanic activity of earth.
Keep answering by ark questions. All of them!
It's disgusting how you pervert science for your views.
The fact remains that if not for the water of the flood, the ocean floor would not exist because it is a proven fact that the ocean floors are the more recent geology. It is these newly created ocean floors still being created that are pushing against the land masses *because* of the hydraulic forces. The plates that you speak of are made in the middle of the oceans and are pushed toward the land by the pressure of the water pushing down. Any rips in the bottom are replaced with new crust.
The way I see it, your argument for the ark can go only one of three ways.
1.) All species we observe today must have been on the ark. Every single one of them.
2.) Only a fraction of species and they underwent super evolution after departing from the ark. If you say they were "designed" for variation, I assume that means that you agree that they evolved, but you believe god designed evolution.
3.) Only a fraction were on the ark, but god created more animals after the flood.
The problem is that you don't really know what is a species and what is a variation of species. There are many species of mammal and there are also many variations of species of mammal. It is not super evolution because evolution does not happen. It is variation of species. Evolution requires mutations and mutations are corrected. The variation of species by design is so much more efficient than evolution that doesn't even happen in the first place. DNA is known to respond to the environment.
The water pushes down, not sideways. The ocean floors are new geology because magma rises up and cools, which pushes the plates sideways.
A species cannot breed with another species. There's a good starting definition. So again, pick option 1,2,or 3. You agree with evolution because you keep yelling "variation" from the hilltops!
"Set an object in front of you and see if it does anything. "
A book? No. Something that reproduces and is subject to mutation and natural selection? It will.
@RaidenTheAlmighty They are all buried no matter what layer they are in. Reptiles tired more easily and mammals were more intelligent. Your specimines are 100% contaminated by the age of the earth and they are not as old as the earth.
You said that no life existed more than 6k years ago. Which isn't the case, because there are animals living in geological layers that are hundreds of millions of years old.
Furthermore, there is no evidence for a global flood 4k years ago. It simply does not exist.
@RaidenTheAlmighty We don't have any more than 6,000 years worth of actual human existence. Every fossilized life form is no older than 4500 - 6,000 years old. Every fossil is also100% contaminated by the earth and you can't confuse the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. You are no longer dating the "fossil" you are dating the earth which is not even an accurate dating to begin with but did they teach you that in school??? No, you just keep repeating brainwashing nonsense.
@RaidenTheAlmighty Change will never result in something better and it is already a proven fact that we are less intelligent than the people that died in the flood.
Uh, no it didnt. If it did, we would see the evidence. You apparently dont understand what a flood is or how it works. You dont understand how sediments are layed down. You dont understand geological layers. And you dont understand how fossils are formed.
I dont credit objects for making anything. Thats what you are doing. Please stop using a straw man, and please stop begging the question.
God is not a physical object. He is beyond the time space continuum that we are confined to.
The account of the flood says that the fountains of the deep were opened up. Water came from underground as it did every night before the flood but this time it swallowed up the entire earth. There were all kinds of sediments coming up from underground and that is the only way that much sediment could have buried the fossils at the same time across the entire face of the earth.
They arent "directives". No "Body" had to make them. You are begging the question. You use leading language in an attempt to fix the question. I do not recognize the grammar of your sentences as even qualifying as an argument.
Yes, they are observable directives because they command and determine every aspect of what the life form is and does. You do not accept facing the facts.
For one thing, reproducing codes are only able to reproduce because of the design of the elements of the universe. There has to be (and there is) directives of what is reproduced. That is evidence of intent which is evidence of design. Most of the information is preexisting META information which is specific directives on what to do with the preexisting information that makes the proteins. Evolution has real problems. Just because you can't see it with the naked eye does not mean it's not there.
It's interesting how Craig can consider it such a great and kind thing that the children who were on the receiving end of mass infanticide, were the beneficiaries of an infinite good, so that's not a problem. However, those who do not hear the word of christ, and those who do not believe for any conceivable reason, will burn in hell for all eternity, and he doesn't comment on that any further. Rather selective.
daemonowner 2 weeks ago
@4:27 again guy on the far right shows himself as an idiot. If I was Hitchens I would have stopped him and said, ok, practical. I'm indentured in slavery, what should I do.
losghost 6 months ago
I was going to comment "Wow that was remarkably civil for four theists and an atheist discussing god" until I heard "...all I heard was a buncha psychobabble." Gotta love the one bad apple...
29Ocelot 7 months ago
i hope not all christians r as stupid as those 5
MamaMario13 8 months ago
Does anyone else think that the last 15 seconds of this video are the best cliffhanger of any video on youtube? I can practically see Hitchens salivating and the rest of the panel facepalming.
mykevelli 9 months ago
There is no historical evidence of noah's ark. Nor gilgamesh's ark.. Come on people.. Find me some old wood and some animal fossils of polar bears and marsupials in the wrong continent and then we might be talking
iliveon 10 months ago
hitchens sits them down at the end boom
RichieBees 10 months ago
Among other attributes, I admire Hitchen's patience... if i were to listen to these 5 buckets of bullshit I'd end up with a lot of anger management issues...
chinoyeclay 10 months ago
Comment removed
IJW85 11 months ago
08:10 Five wicked and delusional idiots
fhbbb 11 months ago
Jeez Hitchens was unfairly matched anyway by 4 to 1 on this panel. But for the moderator to start making arguments against him.... I thought christians believed in equality? How was this a fair fight?
joeykwong 1 year ago
"The Bible is a practical book."
HAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow!
ShadowPa1adin 1 year ago
that was a good analogy, the lord of the rings and the bible. two great works of fantasy and fiction.
lhurien 1 year ago
Does anyone have a vid of Hitchens' Annapolis story?
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
so basically what the moderator is saying at about 3:00 minutes is that no amount of evidence could sway him and he believes blindly the bullshit in the bible because he "trusts" his imaginary friend.
TairyGreen89 1 year ago
Hitchens kills
wdf2222 1 year ago 15
Your first two premises are faulty. I'm not religious, but I hate to see atheism being feebly argued for.
Why is it that that which perceives cannot be absolute, and what does it mean to be absolute? Why is it that that which doesn't perceive cannot be conscious?
An omnipotent, omniscient entity can simply arbitrate the universe's logic, but ditching this, it would have the faculty of introspection. if it is also omnipresent, and can observe itself, then it is both absolute and perceptive.
Tonjevic 1 year ago
children, children, let's not argue.
It's very simple.
There cannot be a monotheistic or deistic god because:
Anything that percieves cannot be absolute.
Anything that does't percieve cannot be conscious.
Anything that isn't consious cannot be sentient.
God's supposed to be 1)absolute and 2)sentient/conscious/perceptive.
He can't be both.
I know all that rhubarb about burden of proof, but evidence can only be presented to rational people. Irrational folk require proof.
And there you have it.
natmanprime 1 year ago
I can't believe I'm reading a discussion about the validity of the ark. It's time to grow up. Instead of the bible, try reading Dickens, or at leat Harry Potter. Either will be more entertaining.
chansetwo 1 year ago 14
@chansetwo And more factual.
Zimnyification 10 months ago
@chansetwo The historicity of the ark wasn't mentioned, at least not in this clip.
writersblock26 10 months ago
@writersblock26 i think he was talking about the posts, thus the "reading" word of his post
lordrazr 6 months ago
@lordrazr Oh...gotcha.
writersblock26 6 months ago
"It has already been proven that DNA responds to the environment and the variation of species is observable."
Sounds like mutations to me. Come on man, all your replies sound like copy and pasting. "nano machines, variation, digits of directives". I really think you are just copying text from previous comments. EXPLAIN how DNA reacts to the environment. I'm not lazy, it's one piece of information, length of the ark. I've heard ~ 300-450 ft. Small. Come on man! You're backed into a corner here!
trekgeek1 1 year ago
@trekgeek1 Mutations are from errors. The variation of species is by design.
The ark had several levels. There was a lot of room in the Ark. Do your own research.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
I have the knowledge. You are making claims that oppose the common knowledge. Don't stray off topic, keep explaining your accelerated variation. I feel like you are about to finally reveal your method for the diversity of animals. I am so excited! Explain how we see thousands of more species than you claim were on the ark. Explain how they vary and manage to split into different species (i.e. cannot breed). Come on, no more running. Teach us your theory.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
Different species that cannot breed with previous forms appear all the time. It happens much faster than evolution and mutations are supposed to work.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
And there are at least 100 more common factors shared by both maniraptors and birds(which are technically also maniraptors.)
I have a book called "Feathered Dinosaurs" (by Christopher Sloan.) that I probably got when I was 9 or 10. The book is 64 pages in total, and explains the evolutionary path of dinosaurs to birds, in a way that a child can easily understand.
So you have no excuse. You profile says that you are 50 years old... At least be on par with an elementary school level.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty @RaidenTheAlmighty Don't confuse the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. There are different kinds of dinosaur. Spinosaurus was a totally different animal and still a reptile. Lizards are totally different and still reptile. There is common function because of a common Designer who obviously was into what He was doing and yet there are also reptiles that are so different.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
What makes them all reptiles if they aren't related?
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Good question. Some reptiles have scales but do not have conical teeth. Some don't even have legs. It is hard to say that they are all related. Some eat plants, others don't. Some flew like bats. Others were like birds. There are as many differences as similarities.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
So you cant describe what a reptile is or what it isnt. And you still claim that birds arent reptiles, even though they have many reptilian features.
You dont know what to think. You are just too ignorant to comprehend the facts, too afraid to study them and too stubborn to admit that you are ignorant and afraid.
You are a spineless fool.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty I know for a fact that many if not most reptiles are not even close to being birds. Raptors are the only dinosaurs that are similar to birds.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
And seekmost, since you are the expert on biology, please name me a few features that dinosaurs and birds don't have in common. The specific dinosaurs that we are talking about are known as mani raptors.
They both have feathers and scales. They bother laid eggs. They were both warm blooded. They both cared for their young. They both have keel, breast and wish bones. They both have half moon shaped wrist joints that allow the hand to be folded and held against the body.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Chickens don't have conical teeth like some dinosaurs have and chickens don't swim like some dinosaurs do.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Chicken actually do have teeth. Just google it.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
And ducks swim. So do swans geese, pelicans etc. There are even diving birds that swim underwater. And penguins live a mostly aquatic life.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty So did raptor dinosaurs swim very much? Spinosaurus swam a lot more.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I doubt that they were very aquatic. A lot of them were pack(Birds still flock today) hunters, like lions or wolves. Some were probably arboreal, which would explain the flight feathers. They were as diverse as birds are today.
That doesnt diminish the fact that birds and maniraptors share over 100 similar skeletal features alone.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Sauropods were dinosaurs. They ate plants and walked on all four legs. Spinosaurus was a sea monster that also walked upright on land. Most reptiles today do not even resemble dinosaurs. All birds today have feathers, most dinosaurs did not. That is a dissimilarity. Most birds fly and most dinosaurs did not. Birds have beaks. Dinosaurs did not. Dinosaurs have claws on forearms, birds do not. There are a lot of design issues that evolution does not resolve.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Pointing out the differences doesn't defeat evolution. Were looking at the similarities. Dinosaurs did have feathers. Most maniraptors had them. Some dinosaurs flew. The ones that had feathers and flew were maniraptors. Oviraptor had a beak, so it is part of the gene pool. And plenty of other dinosaurs had beaks too.
A birds wings are modified hands. And they share the same half moon wrist joint that maniraptors had.
Do you see how this supports evolution? We can follow a path.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty It is the design that makes things different. Claws and feathers are very different things for very different purposes. The gene pool is versatile but not that versatile.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Except that a wing is just a modified hand. This isn't complicated shit.
One again, maniraptors and birds both have both claws and feathers. Both had wings that could be used for flight. In birds the wing is much more refined, but it is still basically the same.
"The gene pool is versatile but not that versatile."
Who says? It doesn't say that in the bible. Are you a geneticist? Or are you just pulling more rabbits out of your ass?
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Chickens don't have conical teeth.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
How did all the animals fit on the ark? How was their food stored? Waste disposal? How did marsupials get to palestine from Australia? What about creatures with special diets? Were dinosaurs on the ark? How did predators not starve with only two of every prey left? Wouldn't most plants die in a global flood? What about species with very sensitive environments(temp. humidity, etc). What about fresh and salt water fish? Why didn't Egyptians write about the flood? Ancient Chinese?
trekgeek1 2 years ago
Things were very different at the time of the flood. There were seven of every clean animal also taken on the ark. There was not near as much salinity in the seas as there is today. Plants have seeds. The water level was much lower and it is clear that the land areas were connected. People at the time of the flood all knew the flood had taken place. All Calendars are no older than 4500 years with the exception of the Jewish Calendar. There is a reason for everything.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
"Things were very different at the time of the flood"
This is going to be good.
Less salinity? Please list your sources.
Seeds? How did they get to the arc? Not all seeds can survive submerged.
Lower water level? Is this during the ice age? Sources please.
Yeah, written history does not begin until about 4000bc. However, you'd think they would tell stories in their cultures. Otherwise how was this event recorded? I gave you many more questions. Please answer them better than these.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
There was no rain and no ice before the flood. The organic matter, moss, insects, etc. found in the ice at or near the poles proves this. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. Much of Egypt has now been under water for hundreds of years. You have to scrap the questions you have because of the fact that things were so different 4500 years ago. Your understanding of what it was like back then is very limited. There were records and many copies were made of those records.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
8:19 Audience Fail.
TheNorthFuck 2 years ago
Retroactive salvation? God didn't see it coming? Was he surprised that things went to hell(no pun intended). How do these guys even operate? I can't imagine applying logic to every piece of my life except one part locked away. They must see the humor in Zeus and Apollo. They must teach their kids these mythologies and agree that they are myth and laugh because they lack evidence. But then they pick up the bible and start the cycle all over again.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
@trekgeek1 The salvation was there all along in the "seed of the woman". God does not overlook anything. Word of the provision of God for man was given to us as soon and man sinned. It was there all the time but we didn't need to know of it until after we sinned. So the prophesy of the seed of the woman was fulfilled when Yeshua/Jesus was born of a woman. It has always been the same faith in the same Christ/Messiah since the very beginning.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Sorry, respectfully not buying it. Wasn't the first sin of man in the garden? Wasn't that far before Jesus died on the cross? So let me get this straight: Man sinned pretty much from the get go, god banished man from the garden. Many years pass and now it's time to do something in the form of human sacrafice because things since the garden have gotten worse. Salvation from what? if god is the only god then is he saving us from himself? It's a nice fairy tale, like Zeus, but I can't believe it.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
@trekgeek1 You are confused. The first mention of Christ was to Adam and Eve. Every prophesy of Christ was based on Christ being born of a woman as was told to Adam and Eve. (People know so little about anything) Salvation is from our sin. God does not have sin. You can't believe in what you know nothing of.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I won't tell you there is no god, because I cannot prove that. But you know that your religious texts are flawed. You know that when you apply analytical logic to the bible, it fails. You will never admit it, but you know that it haunts you. But I doubt either one of us will convert the other. So I hope your life goes as well as possible. In the words of the Vulcans, live long and prosper.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
@trekgeek1 You can't judge what the Bible says because you didn't write it so you can't interpret it. You can't possibly know what the Bible is saying without a correct interpretation. All of the supposed errors of the Bible are all made up errors. We would never judge other documents that way. We would want to know what it is saying.
How about a new saying,
"Say and do the right thing so that your conscience does not accuse you."
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
That is your problem, you have no idea who is qualified to interpret it. If you are interpreting it then you can have no confidence in its teaching. Interpretation will always be susceptible to error. And if that is your stance, then I suggest you bite your tongue anytime you quote the bible to support any position. You can't have it both ways, literal or interpreted. If it's literal, it's evil. If it's meant to be interpreted then you have a slippery slope. Bible says pi=3, that's one mistake.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
@trekgeek1 You are making a judgment of the content of the Bible. The only way to understand what the Bible is saying, that is the key (understanding), is by truth. The Spirit of truth is what makes all things clear to us. Scripture is not a matter of one's own interpretation. That is what the Bible itself says. I can say this but you have to believe it because it is true. I know this must be new to you because nobody ever explained it to you before.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I just hear a lot of side stepping of basic logical questions. "The spirit of truth is what makes all things clear to us". That is nonsensical backwards language. It has no significant meaning. As Bertrand Russell says, something is either true or it isn't. Don't speak of the spirit of truth. And it was revealed to me, I had to go to church as a child, and have gone recently with my fiance out of respect for her beliefs. Again, nice side step of a basic question.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
The fact remains that you have to have a foundation of truth before you can understand what the Bible is saying. That foundation of truth is Messiah Yeshua (Christ Jesus). You can't claim the Bible is wrong when you know nothing about it and basic foundational truths. You can't possibly understand what it is all about. One thing that is essential for you is to understand that the Bible is an actual historical account of the things they saw thousands of years ago. You are the on "sidestepping".
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
"foundation of truth", right. Again, circular reasoning and cryptic responses. I don't particularly believe many things the ancients believe when their accounts are obviously impossible. Ancient people had great imaginations. Do you believe in Zeus? People claimed to witness his actions and there are written texts about him. Or do you teach your children about Zeus, Apollo, and Poseidon as mythology- false observations and historical fallacies? What truth must you first possess to believe that?
trekgeek1 2 years ago
Other accounts of pagan people exaggerated or not are of no interest to me but even those accounts have some relevance as to their beliefs. How much more valid are the much more sincere accounts that contain a lot of historical records and genealogies especially from people who do not believe in lies or exaggeration. The biblical records are matter of fact accounts of what happened and as such are invaluable for research and study of the pre-flood Creation.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
See, you ignore other ridiculous beliefs that have the same amount of evidence. How much more valid are accounts with a lot of historical record? They are significantly more valid. That is the basis of our law system- many testimonials in agreement with each other. If you think there is no difference then you are being foolish. You have yet to justify how biblical accounts are "matter of fact accounts". There is little to no evidence of these accounts, either historical or scientific.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
There are no other accounts as historical or as valid as the Bible is. The Bible is many different records and accounts. Don't think that there is only one account of what happened before the flood. Genesis itself is made up of different accounts. No one has ever had to change anything the Bible has ever said. That means that it is historical, scientific and true through and through.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
How convenient, God talks to us, if we hear him talk to us we're doing well. If we don't hear him talk to us we're not trying hard enough to hear him. Come on, are you that blinkered you cannot see the circular logic in your own position?
MrEBassist 2 years ago
That's not even what I said. God convinces everyone of sin, righteousness and judgment. No wonder you are not aware of God speaking to you. A little attention to detail would be in order.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Its not my fault that you keep dodging the question. How am I supposed to follow what you are saying when you keep changing subjects and making shit up.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Just because you don't expect there to be an answer, doesn't mean that I am making things up.
There is an answer to everything and we are not the first people to ever consider these things. Brighter minds have been over all this many times before.
You can't just give up and say that we can't know things. We can know. Just follow the trail of evidence like following the yellow brick road.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You are all over the place.
I am not the person who has a problem not knowing something. You are. And you want to fill that void in your knowledge with the supernatural.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
You can only know what is knowable. You can't know about something that you have no knowledge of. If something is supernatural we can know that it is because it is seeing something that is not ordinary. You have a problem addressing the issues. Everything I believe is based on what I know. It has to be that way for it to be true. Biblical teaching is knowing and believing the truth. There is no fantasy involve like there is with evolution.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You can't know about something that you have no knowledge of.
So we always knew about gravity and germs? In the present tense, you can know something that you dont know. But in the future, you can learn something that you dont currently know. So as far as we know, nothing is unknowable; they are just unknown. You want to substitute the unknowns with beliefs and proclaim them to be truths.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty I am not even talking about something that is "unknown". That is the whole point. There is observable evidence of the Creation. It has nothing to do with what we don't know. It has to do with what we can see. We can know things when we build on the information that we have the same as in math. The existence of a Creator is absolutely certain.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
"The existence of a Creator is absolutely certain."
Like what?
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Nothing is without a cause and no thing is able to cause anything.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
So you understand everything about quantum mechanics?
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
RaidenTheAlmighty Address an issue.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Actually, I am done with you. You dont seem to understand how an argument even works.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
You have to have an argument to present. Evolution is totally baseless so there is no argument that can be made. That is not your fault. You are just on the losing team.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wait, you are actual serious.
I am not going to argue with you about evolution. You are obviously too stupid to understand it, or too lazy to try. Evidence is one of the most solid scientific theories around. Please, dont even bother arguing against evolution. YOU. WILL. LOSE.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
Is there anything we can say to this joker? He doesn't even recognize information and evidence when presented. He claims that evolution has no basis when it has every basis. He defends the bible as evidence for itself.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
I dont know dude.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
Ozzy is another person who said, "I don't know".
That doesn't mean that we can't know.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You say there is evidence for evolution because evolutionists say so. That is circular reasoning. That is not evidence.
The Bible has lasted throughout time because of how true it is in every way.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
(1/2)Reptiles don't change into mammals because they are adapted to their environment. Changing into mammals would be a disadvantage and evolution never goes backwards.
Fossils are dated to over 65 million years old.
Fossils are "stacked" simplest to most complex. Not created all together.
I believe the scientists because their objective is to learn. A scientist would love to prove evolution wrong because they would be famous for a brand new proven theory.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
(2/2) A scientist gets more fame from disproving a theory than being one of the many thousands who prove it every day. They are unable to legitimately disprove it and therefore they accept it. Richard Dawkins has a great story from when he was a student. One of his professors believed in a certain theory for 15 years. A visiting professor gave a lecture which completely destroyed that theory. the old professor approached the man and thanked him for correcting his error after 15 years.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
(3...additionally).
If you really believe that everything in the bible is true and that evolution has no proof whatsoever, then you are obviously not thinking critically. I don't expect you to change your religion, but please see the evidence provided for evolution. It is dangerous to deny knowledge simply because it contradicts your faith. Look at the 2009 gallup poll about America and evolution. People are going to ultimately accept this idea just as all credible scientists do.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
It is dangerous to deny the truth that has been around for 6,000 years that speaks to us of Messiah.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You can thank me for pointing you in the right direction. All of the evidence supports Creation.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Evolution has to say that mammals came from reptiles because mammals could not possibly just appear from nowhere (according to their belief).
The fossils are the evidence of the worldwide flood because of the fact that they are buried everywhere.
Scientists want evolution to be true because the only other alternative is to confess there is a Creator so evolution is nothing more than fantasy.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Do you realize that all the fossils are in different rock strata? That means they were not placed there at the same time. Not even close to the same time. You find simple organisms further down and complex organisms higher up. Have those answers for noahs ark yet? I asked you some questions. And no matter how little evidence evolution has in your opinion, the bible has far less. All your comments just say that the bible is true with no support or evidence.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
Ocean life is always on the bottom and that proves nothing as far as evolution is concerned.
Everything supports the Creation.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
It is not evolution or a creator. That is a false dilemma. Evolution and a million other scientific theories could be proved wrong and that doesn't prove god at all. Evolution only describes gene frequencies. You are also lumping together common descent, Abiogenesis, and the big bang.
These theories have nothing to do with each other. Disproving one theory does not prove the other.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
Yes, evolution can easily be proven wrong but historical records do not change.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Evolution is a joke.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Maybe to somebody ignorant, like yourself.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
Evolution is someone's fantasy.
It is no different than giving credit to objects that are able to do nothing of themselves.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Except its been backed up by evidence.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
There is no evidence of evolution.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I told you to go to talkorgins(dot)org. They have articles about fossil evidence. Read a book besides the bible. The proof is there, find it.
Though some take a more religious approach. Some people think you have to pray to Darwin and accept evolution as your savior. Only then will it become clear to you. You haven't accepted evolution, that is why you can't see the abundance of evidence. I mean, look around, look at the trees.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
Try explaining something in your own words. If you can't do that, I, for one, will not believe anything that you try to tell me.
No object ever wrote any of the billions of observable digits of directives that command the formation of any of the millions of life forms that we see. You will never explain that away.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I am convinced that you are mentally impaired (no joke, I really think you are a burden of the state).Now you claim that nano technology is proof of god. I gave you websites to research. I will not read it to you like a story. this is your problem, you go to church and have someone else explain things to you. You never try to learn on your own. I like discussing issues but you don't function like an adult. Multiple people have given you evidence and you cover your eyes and ears.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
There is no evidence of evolution and you cannot explain it in your own words. Yes, the nano technology (that you are made of) is evidence of Creation. You need to learn the facts. I have already laid it out for you that the billions of digits of directives made from even more billions of interchangeable nanoparts that made you what you are is the evidence of Creation because objects do not order any of the information that made you.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
What about the nano technology that computers are made of, that you use. Human beings testing scientific theories allowed them to materialized. Human beings test theories in relation to evolution as well, some have been founded as true, some are still in the theory stage. You conveniently argue against the one science that is confliction with your god but the one that has to do with computer tech doesn't so you use it and don't question.
rainbowspite222 2 years ago
You are getting your information from the wrong sources. Computers don't use very much nano technology yet eccept for the electricity that it uses. It is not yet on the nano scale. It is getting there but it is not on the molecular level yet as biology is and has been for 6,000 years. There is no science that is in conflict with Creation. They would like you to think that but it is not true. All real science supports the evidence of Creation because of the fact that no object ever did anything.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
A great deal of geology, cosmology, astronomy and some particle physics conflict with a 6,000 year old earth.
sexyloser 2 years ago
@sexyloser You are confusing the age of the earth with the age of life on earth.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Life isn't 6,000 years old either. Paleontology, ecology, biochemistry, evolution and genetics all conflict with that claim.
sexyloser 2 years ago
@sexyloser Evolution doesn't prove anything because it has not been proven itself. Funny dating methods do not count because they have no way of comparing their "results". It is called circular reasoning. They are all comparing their results with each other and none of them have valid claims. There is no actual verifiable human history any older than 6,000 years old. There should be tens of thousands of years of history and there is none. All history starts with the flood except for the Bible.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
As long as man lived by hunting and gathering there really wasn't much need for dissertations and record-keeping. The invention of agriculture, of course, eventually concentrated humanity into centers that, in turn, gave rise to cities ruled by kings, and the state began to collect taxes. Bureaucrats have a great need for records.
That's the reason why there are few if any historical records before that period and, yes, there was a time when reading and writing did not exist.
sexyloser 2 years ago
You do know that radioactive decay is a pretty accurate way to date the earth back billions of years. And please, don't dredge up some shit about a 4000 year old seal. We actually know the truth of the issue.
And BTW, you might want to have a chat with the ancient Sumerians. They have a flourishing culture about 10000 years ago.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty No one lived more than 6,000 years ago. If they lived more than 4400 years ago, they died in the flood. By your own admission, there is no actual human history any older than 10,000 years. There should be a lot more than that but it doesn't exist because man did not exist. You don't even have any records to back up your date of 10,000 years. I have actual genealogies to date the time of the first man and woman which objects do not explain. Your false belief assassinates truth.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
So you are saying that god waited over 4 billion years [after creating the earth to create] life? That doesn't jive well with genesis.
I use the Sumerians because they have a civilization almost 10k years ago. And they had a written language 8k years ago. But for at least 90k years prior, most humans lived in small hunter/gatherer groups.
The are even human mummies(in South america) that can be carbon dated to over 10k years.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty God said that He created the heavens and the earth (first). He said darkness covered the surface of the earth. That means there was already light but that it did not reach the surface of the earth. Don't even try to talk about what the Bible says unless you know something of what it says.
You do not have genealogies of Sumerians. All you have are some business records. They lived the same time as everyone else did and if they lived before the flood, they died in the flood.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I have a bible. It says he created the earth(and all its life) in 6 days. Not four and half billion and 5 days. So either the Bible is wrong, or the word day is used metaphorically. And if anything in the bible is metaphorical, that throws the idea that the bible is the LITERAL word of God out the window.
So what is it? Are you wrong, is the bible wrong or is the use of the word Day not literal?
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Each rotation of the earth in relation to the sun (one day and one night) was counted as one day. Figure it out for yourself.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
So there wasn't a sun for over 4 and a half billion years? So you don't accept anything related to cosmology then?
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty You are confusing the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. What part of "the heavens and the earth" do you not understand? It says that darkness covered the surface of the earth until the first counted day. That means the Sun had always been shining but that the light did not reach the surface of the earth until the first recorded day. Light was seen from earth on the first day but the sources of light were not seen until the fourth day.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
"You are confusing the age of the earth with the age of life"
No I'm not. So what you are saying, is that the universe existed for a presumably infinite amount of time. Until God decided to let the light shine on the surface of the earth? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
And what exactly prevented the suns light from shining on earth? And why?
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
Exactly, nobody "wrote" it. You start out assuming that it was "written" instead of starting from an objective observation. So your argument is already flawed.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
If nobody order the directives that made you what you are, you would not exist. You do exist so you do have a Creator. It is that simple. Evolutionists just confuse people. Someone had to make the elements that we are made of to work so well to allow us to exist. That means the entire universe made of the same elements is all by design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I'm serious, you are not a teacher or something right? Your logic sucks. You claim that everything is here therefore it was created by a god. You would fail any college level debate course with that logic. I researched it, and to cover all the mountains with water would require 3 times as much water than is present today on earth. No underground water theory-busted. "You can't explain evolution because it doesn't happen" You keep saying this despite the evidence we have given you. Are you dumb?
trekgeek1 2 years ago
You didn't research it very well because the mountains were pushed up after the flood. There is no evidence of evolution. The historical evidence is there. If you don't want to accept the eyewitness accounts in favor of speculation, conjecture, imagination and fantasy, that is your problem.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Ha ha ha! The sites that talk about this stuff actually mention creationists claiming mountains came out of the earth after the flood. ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS!
Mountains do not come up that quickly! Don't you think history would mention mountains growing like bamboo? You keep one upping yourself with every dumb comment. I seriously can't stop grinning right now. My cheeks actually hurt! Do some real research.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
The Bible does say that the mountains rose and they are still rising to this day. The Bible does say that the water settled in the lower parts of the earth. What we see today is the evidence of what happened at the time of the flood. The fossils are evidence of the flood. The fossils do not support evolution because everything just appeared from nowhere including mammals.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
" the bible does say.........". We don't care. You are trying to defend the validity of the bible. You can't use it as a source.
Mountains did rise. MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO!
Research the Himalayas. They are rising today, that is correct. They started rising millions of years ago.
Are you thick? FOSSILS DISPROVE THE FLOOD! Why are they all not lying together? Why do you think they are separated? Fossil records show simple organisms on the bottom, complex on top. You mental defect.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
The fossils show that the sea life is always on the bottom and the rest is in other layers. That is obvious. The assumption is that the sea life is more primitive. That is a false assumption. Just because something doesn't have a backbone doesn't mean that it is more primitive. It is also an assumption that it took millions of years for the mountains to rise. The Bible is the historical record of what happened. No one can change that.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You people just make shit up all day long. There is no evidence for anything you just said. Its just speculation.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
You fail to address any of the issues. That is because you have nothing real to say.
History and the fossil evidence of everything everywhere being buried is not speculation. It actually happened.
There is also the observable scientific evidence of Creation because of the fact that no object ever ordered any directives. You cannot credit objects for making us what we are and you cannot credit anything about us for making us what we are. That is unscientific. Evolution is unscientific.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Evolution is completely scientific. Creation has no evidence. The only evidence you have is evidence for evolution that you have perverted into pro bible propaganda.
The fact that nothing quite like evolution has never occurred before doesn't hurt it's validity.
Nothing quite like gravity has ever been observed either. Gravity and evolution are unique. Just like every other scientific observation. That's what makes them a new theory.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
Evolution is all speculative. There is observable scientific evidence that supports Creation. The result of gravity is visible the same as the evidence that supports Creation is observable. There is no evidence of evolution. It is nothing more than a fantasy. No object can account for the billions of observable digits of directives that command the formation of the nanomachines that life forms are made of. You cannot credit static forces for any of that. Objects do not command anything.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
DNA does command these processes.
The flood never happened. Water from underground would be superheated and poached Noah. You don't have any observable scientific evidence for creation. Answer this: Why are the fossils stacked instead of lumped together?
Here are some video's to prove evolution:
"transitional fossils" by Donexodus2
"irrefutable proof of evolution part 1" by donexodus2
"proof of evolution - part 3" by Donexodus2
Enjoy your transitional fossils! Creationism has failed.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
Keep trying to convince yourself that there are transitions between life forms but it will never be true. What makes you think that fossils should be "lumped together"? The water came up from the ground every night and was not super heated. What makes you think that the water would be super heated? A video proves nothing. Try explaining in your own words how objects order the formation of billions of digits of directives on their own. Enough of that fantasy.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Nobody is saying that objects command anything. You dont even have the slightest grasp on how evolution works. You have no business talking about evolution at all.
You are an ignorant liar.
I will give you the most basic definition of evolution: In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations.
Evolution happens.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
Evolution requires mutations and since mutations do not account for all of the variations there are, there is no evolution. The variations that we see are from preexisting design. A reptile will always be a reptile.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Yes, mutations account for ALL of the variation. Please stop lying.
A reptile will always be a reptile. Birds as reptiles; they were once dinosaurs. Birds and dinosaurs share over 100 similar skeletal features. Thats far too much to be coincidence.
Tell me they arent extremely similar. Dont you find it odd that only birds and dinosaurs have feathers? Both birds and reptiles have scales and beaks. Come on dude.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Similar function does not mean common ancestry. It means a common Designer. You can't use that to promote things that do not happen. You are kidding yourself. There are different kinds of reptiles. Some are lizards, others are crocs, others are dinosaurs and snakes etc.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
"Similar function does not mean common ancestry. It means a common Designer. "
No it doesn't, retard. YOU. KNOW. NOTHING. Please stop pretending like you have a single braincell that isn't is fucktarded. You don't. You are a dishonest, no nothing little child. You wouldn't know what a reptile was if it fucked your mouth and came on your forehead. Stop posting misinformed comments. I know that you know you nothing of the issue. No matter how hard you lie, you wont be speaking the truth.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty The similarities in DNA between species is common function. Since it is all being actively transcribed, none of it is a "relic of the past". What is not information to make the proteins is information for what to do with the proteins. Since we are all biological, there is a lot of common function but no common ancestry. Each design is a different design with variations built into them which is a shuffling of preexisting information.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Can you stop making shit up for one second? I would love to know where you got this horse shit from.
There is one positive thing I can say about the Christians debating Hitchens. At least they know something about the subject they are arguing against. You, on the other hand, are completely ignorant...
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Address the issues. Just because you never heard the points that I am making doesn't mean I don't know anything. You can't credit objects with doing anything. I know that much. Address the issues. Face the facts.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I have never heard your arguments before because you have made them up. They are 100% untrue.
You believe that there was a global flood, despite the complete an utter lack of evidence. You wanna see a flood? Dont look at the grand canyon, check out glacier lake and the scab lands. That's what the aftermath of a gigantic flood looks like.
You haven't provided a single piece of credible evidence. Your arguments are hearsay and speculation.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty No, I do have actual historical records while you have speculation and conjecture ...imagination and fantasy. I have the actual record. You do not. I have the results of what the historical record says and that is millions of buried fossils around the world.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Seriously, are you retarded? It took hundreds of millions of years for those fossils to be buried. The fact they are in separate geological eras - which themselves take millions of years to form - disproves your statement on its own.
If the flood was real, we wouldnt see these layers. We would seen a mono-layer divided into layers according to size.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty You have no evidence for what you believe. I have historical records that back up all of the evidence of Creation that I see. You have a mental block that does not allow you to consider Creation. There is no way for millions of species to be buried all over the world without a worldwide flood that was from water coming up from underground so that everything was buried and compressed all at the same time so that they did not rot. We do see layers because of all the sediments.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Historical records? You have one piss poor written book that is full of errors. Explain how a flood organizes the fossils in complexity. How could animals not be buried around the world without a flood? Animals live in most parts of the world. And explain why your theory of the ocean's weight moving the continents was able to separate Pangaea in 6000 years. Why are they slower now? Keep in mind, your "flood" was around 1 year. It's really like hearing a kindergartner defend the three bears!
trekgeek1 2 years ago
@trekgeek1 You will not find all of the life forms in the same places. They will be in different places. The oceans and their currents washed away whatever land bridges were left after the flood. It has been that way for thousands of years now.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I didn't say you would find all life forms in the same places. I said you don't need a flood to create fossils. Additionally, some areas have much higher fossil density due to sediment conditions. Rebuild the pyramids? We have done more. We built a station in space! We created nuclear powered ships a quarter mile long. Look up the Boeing Everett factory. You need to consider opposing views. Wow! all those land bridges washed away! And I can't believe scientists call your views stupid.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
@trekgeek1 You say they can do "greater" things but they can't do the "simpler" things. How amazing that is! The fact is that the land masses are no longer connecting or close as they were before and shortly after the flood. We know for a fact that there are land masses that have moved away from each other. The only thing with enough force to do that is the hydraulic force of the water after the flood.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
What do you mean "greater" and "simpler"? I don't see what you are referring to.
I agree that some land masses are no longer connected. That wasn't caused by hydraulic force. That theory is not "known for a fact", as you state. Look up how plate tectonics works. Water doesn't apply lateral force. The movement is caused by the crust moving on top of the mantle by volcanic activity of earth.
Keep answering by ark questions. All of them!
It's disgusting how you pervert science for your views.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
The fact remains that if not for the water of the flood, the ocean floor would not exist because it is a proven fact that the ocean floors are the more recent geology. It is these newly created ocean floors still being created that are pushing against the land masses *because* of the hydraulic forces. The plates that you speak of are made in the middle of the oceans and are pushed toward the land by the pressure of the water pushing down. Any rips in the bottom are replaced with new crust.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
The way I see it, your argument for the ark can go only one of three ways.
1.) All species we observe today must have been on the ark. Every single one of them.
2.) Only a fraction of species and they underwent super evolution after departing from the ark. If you say they were "designed" for variation, I assume that means that you agree that they evolved, but you believe god designed evolution.
3.) Only a fraction were on the ark, but god created more animals after the flood.
Well? 1,2 or 3?
trekgeek1 2 years ago
The problem is that you don't really know what is a species and what is a variation of species. There are many species of mammal and there are also many variations of species of mammal. It is not super evolution because evolution does not happen. It is variation of species. Evolution requires mutations and mutations are corrected. The variation of species by design is so much more efficient than evolution that doesn't even happen in the first place. DNA is known to respond to the environment.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The water pushes down, not sideways. The ocean floors are new geology because magma rises up and cools, which pushes the plates sideways.
A species cannot breed with another species. There's a good starting definition. So again, pick option 1,2,or 3. You agree with evolution because you keep yelling "variation" from the hilltops!
"Set an object in front of you and see if it does anything. "
A book? No. Something that reproduces and is subject to mutation and natural selection? It will.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
You have no historical proof at all.
If they were all buried at the same time then they would all be in the same geological era. They aren't. They are eons apart.
And you obviously don't know jack shit about fossilization or biology. So don't tell me what is or isn't possible.
Why are the dinosaurs buried in layers that are over 65 million years old?
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty They are all buried no matter what layer they are in. Reptiles tired more easily and mammals were more intelligent. Your specimines are 100% contaminated by the age of the earth and they are not as old as the earth.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You said that no life existed more than 6k years ago. Which isn't the case, because there are animals living in geological layers that are hundreds of millions of years old.
Furthermore, there is no evidence for a global flood 4k years ago. It simply does not exist.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty We don't have any more than 6,000 years worth of actual human existence. Every fossilized life form is no older than 4500 - 6,000 years old. Every fossil is also100% contaminated by the earth and you can't confuse the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. You are no longer dating the "fossil" you are dating the earth which is not even an accurate dating to begin with but did they teach you that in school??? No, you just keep repeating brainwashing nonsense.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
@RaidenTheAlmighty Change will never result in something better and it is already a proven fact that we are less intelligent than the people that died in the flood.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Uh, no it didnt. If it did, we would see the evidence. You apparently dont understand what a flood is or how it works. You dont understand how sediments are layed down. You dont understand geological layers. And you dont understand how fossils are formed.
I dont credit objects for making anything. Thats what you are doing. Please stop using a straw man, and please stop begging the question.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
God is not a physical object. He is beyond the time space continuum that we are confined to.
The account of the flood says that the fountains of the deep were opened up. Water came from underground as it did every night before the flood but this time it swallowed up the entire earth. There were all kinds of sediments coming up from underground and that is the only way that much sediment could have buried the fossils at the same time across the entire face of the earth.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
They arent "directives". No "Body" had to make them. You are begging the question. You use leading language in an attempt to fix the question. I do not recognize the grammar of your sentences as even qualifying as an argument.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
Yes, they are observable directives because they command and determine every aspect of what the life form is and does. You do not accept facing the facts.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Once again, you are being dishonest. Or, you are just ignorant. They arent codes directives commands or anything else that you wish to label them.
But even if they were, you can provide no reason for why they couldnt have developed through evolution.
A sentence may not appear on a beach, but thats because letters arent reproducing, biological systems.
RaidenTheAlmighty 2 years ago
For one thing, reproducing codes are only able to reproduce because of the design of the elements of the universe. There has to be (and there is) directives of what is reproduced. That is evidence of intent which is evidence of design. Most of the information is preexisting META information which is specific directives on what to do with the preexisting information that makes the proteins. Evolution has real problems. Just because you can't see it with the naked eye does not mean it's not there.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago