The Case for a Creator 04of11 Critical analysis by ExtantDodo

[hihi2111]

This video isn't DISPROVING evolution, its just saying that it could not have happened without a God.

[djvdiddy]

What's great is that the bible speak of those who will believe in evolution, proving the bible even more true

[gregrutz]

Nice video, keep these IDiots in line, show them they are wrong.

[klaudelus]

This is funny. It-s normal that after an Action there will be a negative Reaction.

We will see how evolution works in F.E.M.A. camps. We will see what our government wants us to belive. We will see who for every truth there are at least 9 fakes. After we die we will see if God exists, and what will we do. Please read Romans 1:18-32.

If you search the truth with all of your heart, you will find it.

What is Popular is not always Right, and that is Right is not always Popular.

[damasta00138]

You know what, I researched and I take that back. Hitler was just most famous for his usage of Social Darwinism; however, this came at the time where scientists were trying to justify racism.

[stephbensam]

Another piece of info. that questions man's advancement - during the 20th century under the banner of atheism, more people were slaughtered by the likes of Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Mao, Stalin, than in all the previous 19 centuiries added together. Some progress hey.

[damasta00138]

First off, none of these people killed in the name of atheism. "I will kill you in the name of no God", how ridiculous does that sound? Secondly, Adolf was a Catholic and repeatedly made statements about "doing the Lord's work" and "crushing the atheist movement". Mao had people killed in order to revolutionize Chinese culture, nothing to do with religion. Pol Pot was paranoid and killed intellectuals. Stalin killed to seize power.

[stephbensam]

none of these tyrants were Christians. For someone say I belong to the RC church, or my parents baptised me does not make me a Christian. They were all motivated by power, as you say, and that power was based on the Marx ideology of evolution, and survival of the fittest.

[damasta00138]

First, I call the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Hitler was a Catholic, just read some of his Mein Kampf, those were HIS words, not second person accounts. Marx and evolution do not go together. Marxism attempts to level the playing field for everyone. Capitalism goes better with evolution, as those better adapted to take advantage of financial situations prosper. With Cap., there is no level playing field. Really, Hitler was the only one who attempted to base his power on Social Darwinism (the term

[stephbensam]

Marx wrote 'Origin of the species' serves as a basis in natural science for the struggle in history, and contains the natural history foundation for our viewpoint' =sounds to me like a supporter of Darwin. Hitler said 'he who would live must fight, he who does not fight has not the right to exist'. Hitler's right hand man Himmler said 'the law of nature must take it's course in the survival of the fittest' sounds like evolution to me.

[damasta00138]

I call the argumentum ad Hitlerum logical fallacy. Seeing as evolution is merely a scientific fact, whether Hitler supported it does nothing to it. Is Gravity wrong because Hitler believed in it as well? Furthermore, although the quotes do abide by evolutionary principle, they DID NOT allow nature to run it's course. THEY decided who was fit, not nature. In addition, reducing the gene pool is actually harmful, especially seeing as humans are already so closely linked genetically speaking.

[stephbensam]

I agree that nature was not allowed to run it's course, because these tyrants intervened and slaughtered the weak and disabled in order to achieve perfection. If the evolutionary process is to reach it's 'objective' of perfection then do we should 'put down' the weak and disabled. Why pull out all the stops to 'save lives' when we could save time and money. After all they're only parasites on the system/theory.

The Humanist view is that disabled infants are no more of value than a pig.

[damasta00138]

We don't have to. Mating practices evolved to help keep unfit genes out of the gene pool. We are required to take care of mentally handicapped people seeing as our morals require it. I don't feel any "evolutionary urge" to kill my brother because he is handicapped; rather, I sympathize with his condition.

Religion builds it's case by arguing that EVERYONE is worthless and inherently flawed. According to many religious texts, humans are worthy of hell simply for existing.

[stephbensam]

How did the mating process begin? how did the 'bits' decide for 'themselves' to mate? How did the 'bits' decide which genes were 'unfit'? How did the 'bits' survive without the advantage of the next necessary piece of the puzzle which presumably took millions of years? Sounds like this process demanded an input of intelligent information from somewhere?

[stephbensam]

Your point about Hitler is irrelevant, because he could not use his belief in gravity to commit the atrocities he did. Good to see you accept the gene pool of man being closely linked as would be the case in all mankind being related i.e.Adam.

[damasta00138]

Mankind (and every physical thing) is related no matter which view you choose (I am a monist btw). This is one point that the religious and non-religious can agree upon. My point about Hitler was that just because he believed something doesn't make it false because he was evil.

I appreciate the fact that we can have a civilized debate. Most I have usually result in insults.

[MAJS444]

BTW

I see your from the UK, atheist central. Maybe the Christian world will let you guys rot when the Islamist psychos finish conquering your country by reproduction.....hey, no science can predict that, but history repeats itself.

Have fun with Sharia law pal!

[glassbrain]

lulz.

[SupportExtantDodo]

So you think North America is magically immune from Sharia?

I don't think so!

watch?v=fEPod-hxD7g

[MAJS444]

Architecture for one. Unity of purpose when faced with true tyranny another.(Islamic expansion, Spain, Balkans)

The entire idea that man can manipulate nature is a religious one, first expounded in the Torah.

In other words, ideas, not morals, without which we would be nowhere, started with religious writings.

Then men bastardized them for power.

If you do not believe that humans, who have caused more evolution than would have ever happened without them, are not special, this is a waste.

[MAJS444]

History outlines our behaviour.  It is an observation that, like good science, repeats itself.

Science has not hurt anyone????

Anyone who says science has a flawless record of improving humanity is an ignoramus.

Look at modern science's record with the second most important thing in our lives: food.

Margarine. Developed by scientists, who said it was better for you than butter(though not as tasty). Dead wrong

PCBs, DDT, DES, CFCs, GMOs, HF corn syrup, etc. All science, all hubris, all crap!

[hornetobiker]

Whoever said scientists were infallible? What are you talking about?

[MAJS444]

RevoltingSheeple said: 'Science doesn't hurt anyone'

All these things I listed were examples of ways that science HAS hurt people.

This whole debate has carried on without me, thankfully.

My comment was a response to that statement.

[MAJS444]

why not let people believe what they want, I mean, who cares if someone wants to twist the facts to suit the superstition attached to an otherwise fine religion?

If someone does not want to acknowledge evolution, FINE!

Why waste your time with the boring and pretentious critique?

To these pseudo-scientists, why waste your time trying to use science to prove creationism?

Science is often wrong too; the history of nutritionism offers rich examples.

The greatest flaw of man is hubris.

[Revoltingsheeple]

To put it shortly, I don't want members of our society being taught the kind of misconceptions that Creationism expounds, and I certainly don't want a World where we take Creationism as seriously as modern science. One has given us medical cures, the very technology that allows us to communicate with each other like this and see things we'd otherwise have no idea even exists (deep space/ocean beds/atoms etc), while the other has achieved literally nothing except control our lives through fear.

[MAJS444]

Has science not sometimes hurt humanity through its own hubris?

No defender of the wonders of science has ever answered this question.

To say that religion has acheived 'literally nothing' but control by fear is both biased and ignorant. History tells us otherwise. But I know the types who cherry pick every event in history and who's to blame?

The Catholic Church!

Such simpleminded nonsense coming from those who preach reason!

History tells us more about man than evolution ever can.

[Revoltingsheeple]

Actually, history can't explain the reason for our behaviour like science, so I disagree with you entirely. We're not 'special' creatures, we're just evolving animals like any other organism on the planet and our behaviour, both as individuals and as a group, reflect this fact. Science doesn't hurt anyone. It's up to people to decide whether we want to use it as a tool or a weapon. Just like an axe, a knife, a gun etc. I know plenty of people who'd answer your question without hesitation.

[Revoltingsheeple]

Also, please explain what else religion has given us that we use today. I'd argue that 'morals' don't count, because we could argue that any social animal we observe from monkeys to elephants follow 'morals', such as not killing indiscriminantly, and not mating with relatives. So what does history say religion has given us? Actually, what does history (or history books at least) tell us that science can not?

[stephbensam]

science has given todays society the ability to completey obliterate the whole of mankind and the planet we live on- is this progress?

[Revoltingsheeple]

Except that we haven't obliterated ourselves. Science has provided us with a greater understanding of life and the universe than Cretinism ever will. Simply put, if you really don't think we've progressed as a society, I'd suggest you leave the UK, give up on technology and go and live in any 'under developed' part of the world you like! You never know, you might actually like it!

[stephbensam]

my reference to science was not in any way condemantionary, but just to point out as I did that mankind has not necessarily 'advanced' as far as relationships is concerned, so your advice to leave UK would not help me whatsoever. I refer to my comment about atrocities in the 20th century.

[Revoltingsheeple]

'condemantionary' isn't a word. I know, because I checked! This is something you should do when you make claims that "mankind has not necessarily 'advanced' as far as relationships is (sic) concerned". You must have a very limited knowledge of history if you believe this to be the case. I advise you to leave the UK and travel to 'underdeveloped' countries simply so that you can see for yourself how science has had a huge positive impact on our lives!

[damasta00138]

Science has also prevented most childhood illnesses, increased agricultural potential, increased the average life span, and has provided the internet, which you use now. Science in and off itself is neither fully beneficial or fully harmful. It is the way which we apply it which determines our future. We have progressed,technologically. One can speculate in the moral sense, and even then, MAD forces us to learn to at least cooperate with our fellow man even if it is to save our own asses.

[TheHonestTheist]

/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U

[Havenfall]

Spamming is rude, impolite, and not very honest..

[TheHonestTheist]

lmao!

[lambent77777]

why not have the title cards at the bottom of the screen as the video continues without all the interruptions?  It's very choppy as it is now.

[Ing213]

how can this go on for 70 more minutes?