@avdmeers the whole debate for a god's existence is a JOKE given that for thousands of yrs nobody has clearly won. Both sides know that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence for a god.
@mythicalhell What world are you living in. You truly are blinded by your bias. The evidence is VERY clear with a majority of us claiming to be theists of some kind. Perhaps your thinking about all the different interbutations and relgious views. Fact is that there r way more atheists then theists with most theistic evolutionist moving 2 ID with all the telling evidence we have now. The mountain of criminal activities by atheists & gnostics who have a clear agenda 2 prove Darwin's theory right.
There is no God. But honestly, why do ppl care what others think? If you don't believe in God and your content, why try to convince others? And if you believe in a God and it makes you happy, why tell others they are wrong? You can't prove there is a God, so keep your opinions to yourself and relax:)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
It amazes me how so many including so-called professionals are clueless to Haeckel's Embryonic Fraud. I put up helpful links to articles about these fraudlent claims on my channel wall but it seems all atheists are close minded from the get-go.
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Dr. William Lane Craig is a skilled debater because he is correct. The truth wins 10 out 10 times. The problem Atheists run into is propping up a lie and trying to make it the truth.
It's not right 2 imply that either side of these debates are being irrational. The onus or burden of prove is equal 4 both sides in these debate formats. It's only in court where the applicant or complainant has the burden or onus of proving their claims. This creative is how Ducky Dawkin, lies as he cherry picks his debates 4 obvious reasons. This is misleading & telling of cowardice. Yet u got 2 respect Hitchens who brings it when so very few agree with him :)
=polonium halos have been disprove as a means for determining age=
Nice try... Geologist r divided on the age of the earth. Robert Gentry has rebutted all criticisms of his work.
"I support his 20-year-old challenge, as yet unmet, to the scientific establishment that it produce in the laboratory even a fist-sized piece of granite, and the subsequent production of a Po-218 halo in it." Stanley A. Mumma, Ph.D. Professor @ Penn State University
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV in the exact same location. Common ancestor?
Sounds interesting, but with so much evolutionary fraud how can we trust it. Evolutionist where wrong about Lucy, Home Erectus, Nebraska & Piltdown (2 name a few). watch?v=Z4ylfLqiyRo
Geology has "proven" the earth is not billions yrs. old. Hutton's Uniformitariaism does not work as both Charles Lyell & Darwin hoped. Mr. Lyell's Geological column is questioned by vertical tree fossils found all over the world. So no time 4 evolution's slow gradual process.
Militant atheism is a form of religious anti-theism.
A Darwinist holds to the Darwinian Doctrine with blind faith. Darwin's model or Macro-Evolution includes a theory of common decent from worms 2 humans over billions of years. Theistic evolution or micro-evolution spelled with a small "e" ..predates Darwin and deals with natural selection where evolutionist are free to believe it's how we where Created over a relatively short time frame.
@MajesticCyru ''A Darwinist holds to the Darwinian Doctrine with blind faith.''
Darwin this and Darwin that.... Darwin is dead.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on Evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. DNA Code itself proves how all life is related to all life.
There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
I would love for him to prove that santa claus does not exist as he claims is possible. The existence of santa is evident which is not the case for god. I ve met santa many times I ve seen him in films. He brought me presents every year. I have a picture of me sitting on his lap as a young boy. Millions of people have the same evidence. None of this exists in the case of god.
you are forgetting santa is magic, he came back to life. prove me wrong.... you see its easy to rationalize when it coems to something un natural. you can make shit up, as christians do.
also I assert that invisible magic space elephants are orbiting Jupiter.. prove me wrong.
the burden of proof is always on the person claiming the existence of the thing/person. So im afraid the burden of proof is on theists.
there is not a spec of satisfactory evidence supporting a God. simple
@Algonquin81 Sorry it's failed at every turn. This why many teachers in Canada can and do teach the controversy. DNA evidence is leading the way with less then 70% similarity 2 chimpanzees making pigs more genetically similar. There is no evidence 4 any mechanism that can b shown 2 increase genetic-Intel. So science teachers can not by law lie to their students. In Canada they r allowed 2 teach students the controversy & so many do, hence r rep for quality education :)
@creation6zile I was responding to a post that compared folklore (Santa Claus) with our Creator. Yes, the real man behind the mythical Santa was St. Nick who was a VERY important Christian. It's interesting how the real story is telling evidence of the impact Jesus made on this world, which was my final remark.
!o! @Hornadayfan It's not much of a theory, today!
"The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." J.E. O'Rourle, American Journal of Science 1976. 276:5
Darwin's hypothesis was out-dated. The theory of fossil dating by geologic position has been debunked by tree fossils!
@MajesticCyru Fossils are dated by readiometric dating of ash layers above and below the fossils. The fossil record is so well know that in the field they just look at index fossils to know how old the layers are. Geologists knew the earth was old before radiometric dating was invented.
The trees are buried rapidly by several layers or they would have rotted. Only creationists say, "Evolutionists say layers take millions of years' No they don't. Layers can happen rapidly like volcanos
=look at index fossils to know how old the layers are=
1)U imply dating method then admit paleontologist date fossils by "sedimentary" layers.
2) James Hutton debunked-theory of Uniformitariaism bankrupts radiometric dating.
The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. J.E. O'Rourle, American Journal of Science 1976, 276:5
@MajesticCyru Oh, nice choice of sources you’ve got there. You cite James Hutton, founder of modern geology, died in 1797, to refute radiometric dating. And there is no one by the name of J. E. Roule in the 1976 276:5 AJS. I suggest trying someone a little more current and an expert in regard to radiometric dating, such as Dr. Roger C. Wiens (who is also Christian, BTW),
@HotblackDesiat042 The main issue 2 b made with radiometric dating is how it is used. Their is no truth in assuming the rate of decay is the same today as it was when the earth was formed. We Know from many published studies that the atmospheric conditions where very different, not that long ago. It logical follows that the rate of decay was very different 2. Then, we have to consider the mountain of empirical evidence that points to the earth being less then 100 000 yrs.
"The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." J.E. O'Rourle, American Journal of Science 1976. 276:5
The theory of fossil dating by geologic position has been debunked by tree fossils !o! Darwin's hypothesis was out-dated :)
"The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." J.E. O'Rourle, American Journal of Science 1976. 276:5
The theory of fossil dating by geologic position has been debunked by tree fossils !o! Darwin's hypothesis was out-dated :)
1. DARWINISTS ARE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. If the most fundamental structure in life, the cell, cannot form by chance, THEN IT IS EVEN MORE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE VARIETY OF LIVE, with all it complex characteristics, TO APPEAR BY CHANCE.
2. And if Darwinists are unable to account for the origin of life, then ALL THEIR TALES AND SPECULATION ABOUT THE FICTITIOUS PROCESS OF EVOLUTION ARE LIES.
Darwin's theory 4 common-descent ..deals directly with origins & was his original concept!
The mechanisms he sighted, predated him & where not his own. He proposed that through natural-selection & adaptation we evolved from simple 2 complex life forms. His original proposal was that all life is related genetically. Today, modern science has proven Darwin wrong. We now know that these processes decrease genetic-Intel, rather then increase it :)
U may not agree, but WLC knows what he is talking about :)
=repeats the same things over and over=
If u can find some examples, it might b an interesting discussion! =uncomprehensible=
The word is incomprehensible & WLC is an intellectual that appeals best to other intellectuals. It's not like we all have Phd in Philosophy. YES, it's helpful to hear him speak in more layman terms. If u have the time 2 research his arguments, their much easier 2 understanding.
@Blip098 Now how does this statement declare him an Atheist.
"Science without religion is lame.."
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."
"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos, which with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there in no God. But what really angers me is that they quote me for support of such views"
What part of... "what really angers me is that they quote me for support" ...did u fail 2 understand.
The other creatives i mentioned in the e-mail are much better and I'm sure you will like commenting on them. We have full length videos up there. This creative seems to bring out the best and worst on YT.. lol.
It's probably because I haven't seen many of his works, but whenever I see WLC in debates, his arguments never reflect the intelligence that people have attributed to him.
=it's probably because I haven't seen many of his works=
Yes I agree...
=reflect the intelligence that people have attributed to him=
If we are talking debate opponents from the UK Humanist, like Mr. Dawkin it would not take much to defeat them anyway. They have to rely on so many fraudulent claims that is why we call him the BS-Artist. He would make any Canadian student from grade ..look like a seasoned scientist. We teach our students how to think not what to think. :)
@hotbananapants =it's probably because I haven't seen many of his works=
Yes I agree...
=reflect the intelligence that people have attributed to him=
If we r talking debate opponents from the UK Humanist group, like Dawkin ..it would not take much to defeat them. They have to rely on so many fraudulent claims, that is why we call Dawkin the BS-Artist. He would make any Canadian student from grade10 ..look like a seasoned scientist. We teach our students how 2 think ..instead of what 2 think!
A credible theist would be direct and to the point. He just babbles on and tries to overcomplicate his argument. I understand why Dawkins refuses to debate him
eyes rolling @allanhill1 ..so it's over your head!!
The Truth is u don't understand WLC arguments & it's not really about his credibility. Why don't u just admit u where wrong about Professor Crag's education and his professional CV?
It looks like, (according to your world view).. "there is no credible theist 4 Dawkin to debate Science & Philosophy or Creation with" Unless they happen to b the Hypocritical heretics Richard has cherry picked to fool the public into buying his delusional books.
Professor Craig is more then just a theologian. You will notice in this creative that he argues science philosophy, which he holds not 1 but 2 PHD with many published and well defended articles. He has also authored many popular books. See the description section of the video for links to his CV.
Your misunderstanding is a common YT sound-bight, that Mr. Dawkin used as an accuse a few yrs back.
OK I am sorry to say but WLC put more laughs to me than he did fear i mean that guys logic is a joke or at least from what i see here any way , i can see why richard won't debate him, a thickhead like is a waste of time
@GeniusAtheist Thank u 4 your post, as u r entitled 2 your opinion.
Humor is a great communication tool hence my reason 4 choosing these clips. This was not a best of WLC video, as it is about how leading atheists fear debating. It's true that WLC is not perfect, but this fact only furthers my point about why leading Atheist fear experts like him. From my perspective there is other evidential reasons Richard has 2 cherry pick his debates with heretics rather then experts ..as seen here @0:45 :)
@wealthmaster71 How can I loose, when i would agree with him on about 75% of what he says on religion. Jesus did not like the scribes & pharisees of his day. I would thank him for preaching the gospel truth, which is exactly what Jesus taught us. He even made issue with the money changers who r like today's banksters (: Rothschild :)
I would correct him on Hitler being a Christian, because he was clearly a occultist who hung out with the secretive gnostic leaders of his time (: Rothschild :).
!o! @nicksum29 Yes, it's controversial, but our x-gay movement is no secret!
According to thousands of man & women; who testify to being a x-gay person by praying in JC name. It's documented and therefor a plausible theory, with witness of x-gay people showcased as empirical evidence.
watch?v=Xrviw8nu7gQ
watch?v=AHbZSGn8Sv0
watch?v=S2X8T0cyIdA
watch?v=s4cvcTLHhEc
watch?v=HCXtZJ0H2OA
Prayer in JC name has also been proven scientifically! :)
How about you talk about the people who have killed themselves from taking those lessons? You don't pray away gay, you badger people into thinking they are morally repulsive until they believe it.
In terms of my experience, your comments r nonsensical when u don't know me from Adam. Plus it's a non-sequitur argument, which fails "epically" when statistics show both gays & atheists r @ risk 4 suicide anyways.
As 4 me, i don't know any-1 that has hurt themselves over a sexual orientation struggle! I do have gay contacts, (my hairdresser) ..but i have many more x-gay friends who share the same world view :)
@TheKenTerry There is always two sides to any story, but it seems that u r set in your believes.
Have u taken into account the hormonal problems we all face today?
I'm talking about the levels of estrogen in a women and testosterone in man. A man can grow boobs & even start lactating if he does not get enough testosterone. Women will start producing facial hair. Those with sexual orientation issues r often given hormone treatments 2 help them head in their desired direction.
@TheKenTerry Badger people.. what the hell r u talking about?
1) R u trying 2 say there is no such thing as an x-gay person?
2) What about those who need hormone therapy ..which way do they swing?
3) What if it's a trend or fade & a teen grows out of it realizing children require both sexes to procreate. Can this person b considered an x-gay once he or she has taken up with the opposite sex?
You are either born gay, or you're not gay. Being gay isn't some kind of genetic defect, what the hell is wrong with you? Hormone therapy? No, you are either attracted to another person or not. You aren't x-gay, you are bisexual.
@TheKenTerry Wow ..this x-gay topic is a hot debate :)
I will have 2 do a creative on this topic with my ex-gay contacts who r the real experts on this topic. I should take the time 2 state that it's true that "religious" people have been wrong in how they have handled this topic. Jesus loved the sinner but not the sin.
I think 1 has 2 take a good look at the difference between love & lust.
Can we love another of the same sex ..without it being gay?
They are "ex-gay" only in the sense that they have been pressured into stopping their natural behaviour. Thing is, most of those passing through Christian "anti-gay" camps end up being just as gay as before. That includes the people running those camps, and the ministers preaching to them being gay.
The human mind is a powerful thing, but a persons nature will come out eventually or they will indeed go insane, kill themselves or simply be miserable for the rest of their lives.
@Blip098 =pressured into stopping their natural behavior=
I'm not an x-gay and feel no pressure to go the other way. If I was pressured, it's true that might lead to someone's early demise. I do think repeat child molesters should be castrated or somehow fixed from having any sexual desire. If that qualifies me to be a sick prick ..then sign me up, I'm evolving !o!
Does anyone here know anything about hormone therapy?
Oh and prayer in Jesus' name has been proven to do absolutely nothing that meditating or doing Tai Chi wouldn't do. Namely, placebo and relaxation. This has been proven as far back as Galton.
@Blip098 You will find links to studies done on intercessory prayer in JC name on my answers for atheists. These are the positive studies I'm always talking about. Maybe you should check them before you go off spinning gears ...like your the smartest guy on earth (eyes rolling). Your link is very outdated and our studies just came out in 2010 & 2011with more on it's way.
!o! @triggetrigge Your not a Reporter or an Art Director ..that is for sure!
It's my creative license & I drew from a few debates. Judging by the responses seen herein, our mission was accomplished. :P
This creative features a challenge to Richard Dawkin to stop being a liar. He stands accused of "cowardice" for cherry picking debates with heretics. We even have a petition for Richard to evolve some balls & start debating Philosophy with the real experts in that field ..like WLC :)
@G3org3Master Yah them atheist from the humanist group in the UK are both delusional and paranoid.. what so hard about debating WLG anyways that they have to run with their monkey tails between their legs. It's time they evolve some balls. .. LOL
sigh... this man that you tout so... is still not holding an actual point... he is arguing "god of the gaps"... weve been over this time and time again... you wonder why dawkins doesnt want to debate him, since its going to be the exact same crap hes done time and time again, and hes sick of it.
@Elc22 =you wonder why dawkins doesnt want to debate him=
My friend I know why all the UK humanist are so afraid of any debate involving evidence.
Any Canadian student from grade 10 with a little geology knowledge could send them running with their tails between their legs. It's time they evolve some balls or go home & stop telling all the lies & insulting the public with their BS. If u look at my channel it's loaded with evidence of fraud.
Yes it's true ..followers of Atheism & Darwinism have been compared 2 a godless religion.
Yes, it's obvious when they have 2 lie 2 defend their world view. This video touches on how Dawkin spreads lies & how he has 2 cherry pick the weakest opponents. So I have 2 agree ..it's telling of his lies & evil propaganda found in his books. watch?v=D2r3o4jxq9E
lol @MajesticCyru nice try, but atheism are not religions. hask your parents what religion is. neverming look for it in a dictionary.
Darwinism? i'm sure you meant Evolutionary Theory. Thankfully i'm very used to debate with ileterate creationists like you so i know all the terms, Darwinist, Relativist, Gravitacionist, Atomicinist.. that's what we get people who don't know a fuck about science (...)
U will have 2 take that argument 2 the Bench where the US courts ruled atheism a godless religion. Its not like u need a deity or Creator 2 b religious about something ..or 2 qualify 4 non-profit status
The truth ..science has no idea & Darwinist hold 2 many unproven faith positions. It sure does take FAITH 2 believe in the Darwinian Doctrine.
If u know some secret science proving atheism is accurate & correct ..then don't b shy, like a UK Humanist!
Craig defends ID & Creation, with both plausible & empirical evidence. The Universe has a beginning & therefore a cause @13:24. A computer cause 4 the Universe, was the "logically incoherent" rebuttal 2 Craig scientific & mufti-premise defense.
@13:48 It was his atheists opponent who tried 2 give an alternative explanation of a non-physical computer @13:57. Craig countered with how a computer is physical @14:27.
1) We can look @ Creation & ID the same or as 2 separate world views (ID is all inclusive).
2) ID includes all forms of theism like Theistic Evolutionist & Theistic Satanism. Then u have Intelligent Agent theories like aliens which Dawkin mentions in his interview with Ben Stein watch?v=nl8lR69K7Zc
3) It's floods or flood, but what ever floats your boat ;)
I'm an ID-Creationist ..leaning towards a Young-Earth, under 100 000 years.!!
@alive4ever1 U missed the point of our creative, which is about how atheists fear debating WLG.
Just ask x-atheist Anthony Flew who debated him, before DNA and other biological evidence turned him. How can u put more faith in the Darwinian doctrine then Darwin did himself? There r many of good reasons 4 Richard's retirement, but it's amazing how brain-washed his followers are 4 trusting him so blindly.
Richard lies stating that Albert Einstein was an atheist!! Now that is a desperate tactic.
Actually, you are lying. A quote from Einstein himself - From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth."
"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos, which with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there in no God. But what really angers me is that they quote me for support of such views," Albert Einstein
Einstein honored Jesus, loathed the religious & mocked atheists!
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."
"What separates me from so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."
When asked if Jesus was a myth Albert Einstein replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
@MajesticCyru Finally, Darwin was an atheist by the end of his life.
As he said - "Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last it was complete."
The death of his child Annie was the final nail in the coffin of his belief, and in 1879 he wrote this -
"I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
@Blip098 Darwin went from believing Creation 2 not knowing the truth.
Darwin wrote that if there b a complex organ, it would disprove his theory. He also wrote that there should b transitional fossils 2 show his theory correct. On both these accounts science has failed 2 provide the evidence Darwin sought.
Today, DNA has shown 2 b complex, never mind the cell & organs. There r no proven transitional forms & all theoretical mechanism 4 evolution have failed 2 produce sufficient genetic Intel :)
Darwin was an agnostic, he said so himself. He did not attend church and struggled with how to tell his wife about his lack of faith. You saying "went from believing Creation 2 not knowing the truth" is an attempt to move away from your contention he was a Christian when he wasn't and that is clearly articulated by the man himself.
If you think you know the mind of the man better than himself, please give some references.
Next post will show the deceit in the quote you used
@Blip098 =is an attempt to move away from your contention he was a Christian=
I never implied he was a Christian.. what r u talking about?
I simply pointed 2 his theistic believe when even u agreed he wrote, "crept over me at a very slow rate" He had 2 obviously become agnostic. An atheist believes firmly ..their is no ID or Creation & Darwin was careful not 2 imply that. U seem to not understand that agnostics come in different forms. Even a theist can b agnostic or "not sure" @ times :)
To continue after showing Darwin was not a Christian but agnostic who did not attend church,
You omit the end of Darwin's quote -" If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"
There is so far no such organ. The eye for example has evolved separately at least 3 or 4 times, and DNA evolved from the simpler RNA.
@Blip098 I have 2 disagree & we will likely have 2 agree 2 disagree.
Today we have 10 000 of scientist disagreeing with Darwin. It only tends 2 b the younger, (wet behind the ears) ones who listen 2 the popular atheistic YT sound bights who don't know Darwin's mythical big "e" evolution is outdated.
U should study up on who runs the world & their agenda. Then u will start 2 get the big picture on how religion, education & medicine have been hijacked by oil & bank Cartels (Bilderberge Group :)
@Blip098 =examples of transitional form, such as the Najash=
It's odd that evolutionist use Najash rionegrina as an example of a transitional form ..NOT.
This reptile was unearthed in Argentina and is named after the Hebrew word Nahash for the snake with legs in Gen 3.14. Fossils without DNA do not prove ancestry. Missing appendages r nothing more then genetic adaptions where a gene can b turned on & off when needed. Only an example of 1kind becoming another would fill the transition gap.
There are many examples of transitional forms, such as the Najash and Eupodophis in the snake lineage, or Westlothiana in the reptile lineage. Ignoring them won't make them go away.
Finally, the last part of of your sentence is a bit opaque, but if you still mean DNA evolution then the method is from a simpler RNA world model. Expand/clarify if you meant otherwise.
Btw, where are my other posts? I guess you like to avoid debate too. You have censored 3 of my messages at least.
Religion enslaves & Jesus saves. I like his take on religion, but have 2 disagree with him about Jesus who railed against religion. He also threw out the banksters, which is what our world needs today.
It is obvious C. Hitchens was effected by the Darwinian Doctrine, which has been debunked! Hanging out with Richard Dawkin is bound to have a brainwashed effect on u, given his many delusions.
Christopher is good, but Peter Hitchens is brilliant.
1) Natural selection does not increase DNA Intel. So what?
2) No transitional forms proven & abundance of unchanged living fossils found. Wrong one part one. Part two is there is no need to change if not needed.
3) Favorable mutation is so rare that the odds r insurmountable (trillions of yrs). Wrong!
4) War between evolutionist ..(life evolved rapidly or slowly). So what? No one knows for yet.
5) Evolutionist don't know where life began. So what? Neither do you.
1) Natural Selection can lead 2 ring species & new subspecies.
2) Transition from 1kind 2 new kind is hard 2 show with fossils
3) Positive Mutations r very rare as most lead 2 death.
4) I have lists of thousands of ID & Creation scientists.
5) Yes there r many theistic evolutionist 2 ..I disagree on origins.
It's the Gnostic influence on education that concerns me the most. In the beginning but Darwin later turned 2 either agnostic theist or agnostic atheist :)
“As a Philosopher of Science, Professor Craig has many peer reviewed & published papers.”
Is this a joke? Name one credible, academic journal that published one article that concluded that any of those six arguments were sound. These are the types of arguments that would only be accepted by apologists and those who want to be convinced.
Also, WLC is a professor of philosophy, not science. He has no degrees in a scientific field.
@joshm60 Thank u 4 your post, but u could not b more wrong about WLC.
He is a Professor of Science Philosophy, specializing in cosmology. He has 2 doctrinaire degrees 2 the effect & many published papers. Just follow the links in my description 2 his website, CV & many scholarly articles
Your misunderstanding of WLC is common with those caught up in Dawkin's Delusion. Today Mr. Darwkin has shifted from biology 2 debating philosophy with Hypocritical theologians, that he cherry picks @ 0:21.
@shajuggalo77 Thanks 4 posting ..i have a few questions 4 u.
1) What straw-man argument, can u say WLC makes 4 Christian theism?
2) Do u actually consider hypocritical Bishops or Cardinals "real" men of faith?
3) Do u think WLC is just making money selling his books ..what about Dawkin's books?
Jesus foretold that we would kill in His name. He railed against religion, with no intention 2 start a new religion, but rather provided us a way 2 circumvent the Priesthood in his name:)
It is arguments like 'loving the lord is moral so therefore it is a moral act that an atheist could never do' that make me feel like not even bothering to debate with religious people.
A moral act is one that is ethically motivated. An act that shows compassion and empathy for other people. If the question is about the existence of God, why would your ability to love God be used against you? It's a redundant argument.
@EFFANDJEFF Yet u do like 2 debate! Morality aside what arguments do u make against The Creator or Creation?
I have review the arguments 4 both sides & i just have not got enough faith 2 trust that Darwin model was right. Little "e" evolution predated Darwin & I can agree with it, but find no conclusive prove 4 common descent form 1common ancestor.
People who still trust the Darwinian Doctrine have no idea of all it's gaps & missing links that have been long-ago debunked.
@MajesticCyru Look, there is no point in an atheist arguing with a religious person. I understand - you NEED to believe this. So any sensible question is met with fingers in the ears and you singing 'la-la-la'. As an atheist, there's nothing in it for me, so I don't need to fight the urge to think as much. You want god to take credit for the 'design' of this universe, then he should also take credit for the millions of failed solar systems and collapsing stars and the millions of extinct species
@EFFANDJEFF No 1 should debate religious freaks! They r a waste of time!!
I have no idea why Dawkin goes after the hypocritical clergy & other heretics ..maybe u should ask him?!
U should try the "real" experts, who use science like the many thousand creationist or ID researchers. There is a reason Richard is afraid of them ..hence this creative.
Did u know that over 70% of philosophers r believers in ID or Creation?
Dawkins calls them "professional debaters" @ 0:35.
@cosmicordering1 This creative is not about religion... so I'm not sure exactly what your talking about. As to the subject of religion I agree with you that it is wrong. Religion enslaves but Jesus saves.
@shumble3210.. Your defense of Richard is noble in 1 hand, but blindly misguided in the other.
Richard Dawkin as a real scientist is washed up. Real research on the Genome has leveled the whole Mutation argument hoped 2 b infallible by Richard & other Evolutionist who religiously believe in the Darwinian Doctrine. Today, Evolutionist put way more faith in Darwin's model then Darwin himself.
watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo
Here is a film that debunks Richards' credibility as a scientist :)
@MajesticCyru - I'm not defending Dawkins as attacking the low standards of theological logic. I've had many, many discussions with theists and the only ones that impress are the ones that have a quiet, humble yet strong faith that is not afraid to admit it doesn't have all the answers. With those I can have deep, meaningful conversations. Exactly opposite is the fake science of theology with its Sophist debate, relaxed attitude to definitions and general 'fuzzy' use of language.
@Nilguiri Oh I'm very serious, and how pathetic it is that u trust the delusional Richard Dawkins.
Without evidence 2 back his claims how can u or anyone call him a scientist?
The Darwinian Doctrine for conman ancestry has not been proven but Dawkin's talks as if it has been. On closer inspection he has to admit he has no evidence and that everything He says is hypothetical. He has an admitted religious phobia which clouds his judgement ...making him a fool.
It's been shown that Coelacanth & Archaeopteryx r not intermittent species!
However we have virtually no evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere 4 any changes purposed during this immensity of time, but the public hears nothing of this problem." Professor Ariel A. Roth -Zoologist pg189 Origins
Ok, so you have a few others ahead of me to reply to, fair enough, but imagine that you had hundreds to reply to. At some stage you would have to say "enough I can't debate the whole world, I have a life to live!". You would be perfectly justified choosing which debates to join and you would not be a coward.
Don't worry about replying to me, I've made my point and I know you are a busy man. Don't be so quick to judge in the future and try to base your judgement on knowledge not prejudice.
@shumble32 Thank you 4 all your posts, it's often hard 2 show appreciation in a limited space.
Yes, i do value discernment over judging a book by it's cover. It's true, i'm not perfect ..seen clearly in my typos & other array of mistakes.
Yes, it makes seance to bide your time, as i do. Professor Graig does not seek 2 debate Dawkin, as he goes with the best organizers can find him. Dawkin's seeks attention, but he cherry picks his debates with the weak & uneducated (by his own omissions :).
@MajesticCyru - once again you are pre-judging Dawkins - how do you know what criteria he's using to pick debates? If he was to admit cowardice you would be ok to assume it. If he does not then you can logically only put it on a list with other possible motivations. Anyone who dismisses those other possible motivations out of hand is prejudiced.
If I was Dawkins I would not debate Craig either - his slick and fuzzy approach to the English language makes debate futile.
@avdmeers the whole debate for a god's existence is a JOKE given that for thousands of yrs nobody has clearly won. Both sides know that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence for a god.
mythicalhell 4 months ago 2
@mythicalhell so what is your suggestion, stop searching for and debating evidence?
would you have us all watch reality tv for hours each night and stop being curious?
mollkatless 3 months ago
@mythicalhell What world are you living in. You truly are blinded by your bias. The evidence is VERY clear with a majority of us claiming to be theists of some kind. Perhaps your thinking about all the different interbutations and relgious views. Fact is that there r way more atheists then theists with most theistic evolutionist moving 2 ID with all the telling evidence we have now. The mountain of criminal activities by atheists & gnostics who have a clear agenda 2 prove Darwin's theory right.
MajesticCyru 3 months ago
There is no God. But honestly, why do ppl care what others think? If you don't believe in God and your content, why try to convince others? And if you believe in a God and it makes you happy, why tell others they are wrong? You can't prove there is a God, so keep your opinions to yourself and relax:)
55Freya 4 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
Mogley52 4 months ago
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 4 months ago
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Thank you for your posts.
It amazes me how so many including so-called professionals are clueless to Haeckel's Embryonic Fraud. I put up helpful links to articles about these fraudlent claims on my channel wall but it seems all atheists are close minded from the get-go.
MajesticCyru 3 months ago
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@JDivinorumVideo By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven; it can be supported and reinforced, but never proven.
RebelWrestler45 4 months ago
Dr. William Lane Craig is a skilled debater because he is correct. The truth wins 10 out 10 times. The problem Atheists run into is propping up a lie and trying to make it the truth.
Larsoveli 4 months ago
bullshit theres no personal element
petersteversant88 4 months ago
As in Atheist I look at this and I think alright the creationist sounded like in idiot. I guess its the other way around for the religious.
crowhorse 4 months ago 20
@crowhorse lol.. Yes & No
It's not right 2 imply that either side of these debates are being irrational. The onus or burden of prove is equal 4 both sides in these debate formats. It's only in court where the applicant or complainant has the burden or onus of proving their claims. This creative is how Ducky Dawkin, lies as he cherry picks his debates 4 obvious reasons. This is misleading & telling of cowardice. Yet u got 2 respect Hitchens who brings it when so very few agree with him :)
MajesticCyru 3 months ago
DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
eyes-rolling @SciBishop
=polonium halos have been disprove as a means for determining age=
Nice try... Geologist r divided on the age of the earth. Robert Gentry has rebutted all criticisms of his work.
"I support his 20-year-old challenge, as yet unmet, to the scientific establishment that it produce in the laboratory even a fist-sized piece of granite, and the subsequent production of a Po-218 halo in it." Stanley A. Mumma, Ph.D. Professor @ Penn State University
I studied the Journals :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago 4
]Mr. Hitchens, it is because we have a responsibility.
We have to anwer to our Maker for the things that we do or do not do.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
Awesome debate
...and the atheists always lose to anyone who knows anything.
watch?v=qZev7hb40uk
JungleJargon 5 months ago
After watching the full debate, Sam Harris definitely won it hands down! William Lane Craig's psuedo-science is funny. :D
Task5003 5 months ago
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV in the exact same location. Common ancestor?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz That's Monkey Business.. :)
Sounds interesting, but with so much evolutionary fraud how can we trust it. Evolutionist where wrong about Lucy, Home Erectus, Nebraska & Piltdown (2 name a few). watch?v=Z4ylfLqiyRo
Geology has "proven" the earth is not billions yrs. old. Hutton's Uniformitariaism does not work as both Charles Lyell & Darwin hoped. Mr. Lyell's Geological column is questioned by vertical tree fossils found all over the world. So no time 4 evolution's slow gradual process.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@luisdez81 Thank u 4 taking the time to post.
Militant atheism is a form of religious anti-theism.
A Darwinist holds to the Darwinian Doctrine with blind faith. Darwin's model or Macro-Evolution includes a theory of common decent from worms 2 humans over billions of years. Theistic evolution or micro-evolution spelled with a small "e" ..predates Darwin and deals with natural selection where evolutionist are free to believe it's how we where Created over a relatively short time frame.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru ''A Darwinist holds to the Darwinian Doctrine with blind faith.''
Darwin this and Darwin that.... Darwin is dead.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on Evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. DNA Code itself proves how all life is related to all life.
There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
gregrutz 5 months ago
I would love for him to prove that santa claus does not exist as he claims is possible. The existence of santa is evident which is not the case for god. I ve met santa many times I ve seen him in films. He brought me presents every year. I have a picture of me sitting on his lap as a young boy. Millions of people have the same evidence. None of this exists in the case of god.
allanhill1 5 months ago 3
@allanhill1
=The existence of Santa is evident=
1) EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE -St. Nick died on Dec. 6th in 343 AD & was buried in a cathedral.
2) "non-seguitur" -The existence or non-existence of Santa doesn't prove or disprove The Creator.
3) "straw-man" -The absence of evidence 4 Santa does not prove the absence of a Creator.
4) "nonsensical" -We all know films r made with actors, as-well-as how parents play Santa.
5) "telling evidence" -St Nick was a Christian with signs & wonders following :).
MajesticCyru 5 months ago 32
@MajesticCyru
you are forgetting santa is magic, he came back to life. prove me wrong.... you see its easy to rationalize when it coems to something un natural. you can make shit up, as christians do.
also I assert that invisible magic space elephants are orbiting Jupiter.. prove me wrong.
the burden of proof is always on the person claiming the existence of the thing/person. So im afraid the burden of proof is on theists.
there is not a spec of satisfactory evidence supporting a God. simple
theUKatheist 5 months ago
@theUKatheist epic face-palm
=he came back to life. prove me wrong.... you see its easy to rationalize=
1) "curricular logic" ..U admitted your rationalizing, so their is nothing 2 prove!
=elephants are orbiting Jupiter.. prove me wrong=
2) "nonsensical" NASA does not send Elephants into orbit & why would they.
=burden of proof is on theists=
3) "Circumstantial" Ask a lawyer about "rules" of evidence. Your atheistic fallacy!
=evidence=
4) Geology, Archeology, Prophecies & Answered Prayers :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru In Canada Science overules creationist BS and you know that. From a Canadian.
Algonquin81 4 months ago
@Algonquin81 Sorry it's failed at every turn. This why many teachers in Canada can and do teach the controversy. DNA evidence is leading the way with less then 70% similarity 2 chimpanzees making pigs more genetically similar. There is no evidence 4 any mechanism that can b shown 2 increase genetic-Intel. So science teachers can not by law lie to their students. In Canada they r allowed 2 teach students the controversy & so many do, hence r rep for quality education :)
MajesticCyru 3 months ago
@MajesticCyru
You mean The existence of St. Nick is evident.
creation6zile 4 months ago
@creation6zile I was responding to a post that compared folklore (Santa Claus) with our Creator. Yes, the real man behind the mythical Santa was St. Nick who was a VERY important Christian. It's interesting how the real story is telling evidence of the impact Jesus made on this world, which was my final remark.
MajesticCyru 3 months ago
Evolution has been proven as well as any theory can be. Evolution is a fact, despite what theists would have you believe...
Hornadayfan 5 months ago
!o! @Hornadayfan It's not much of a theory, today!
"The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." J.E. O'Rourle, American Journal of Science 1976. 276:5
Darwin's hypothesis was out-dated. The theory of fossil dating by geologic position has been debunked by tree fossils!
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru Fossils are dated by readiometric dating of ash layers above and below the fossils. The fossil record is so well know that in the field they just look at index fossils to know how old the layers are. Geologists knew the earth was old before radiometric dating was invented.
The trees are buried rapidly by several layers or they would have rotted. Only creationists say, "Evolutionists say layers take millions of years' No they don't. Layers can happen rapidly like volcanos
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz "CIRCULAR REASONING"
=Layers can happen rapidly=
Yes all layers formed rapidly
=look at index fossils to know how old the layers are=
1)U imply dating method then admit paleontologist date fossils by "sedimentary" layers.
2) James Hutton debunked-theory of Uniformitariaism bankrupts radiometric dating.
The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. J.E. O'Rourle, American Journal of Science 1976, 276:5
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru Oh, nice choice of sources you’ve got there. You cite James Hutton, founder of modern geology, died in 1797, to refute radiometric dating. And there is no one by the name of J. E. Roule in the 1976 276:5 AJS. I suggest trying someone a little more current and an expert in regard to radiometric dating, such as Dr. Roger C. Wiens (who is also Christian, BTW),
asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
HotblackDesiat042 4 months ago
@HotblackDesiat042 The main issue 2 b made with radiometric dating is how it is used. Their is no truth in assuming the rate of decay is the same today as it was when the earth was formed. We Know from many published studies that the atmospheric conditions where very different, not that long ago. It logical follows that the rate of decay was very different 2. Then, we have to consider the mountain of empirical evidence that points to the earth being less then 100 000 yrs.
MajesticCyru 3 months ago
@Hornadayfan It's not much of a theory, today!
"The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." J.E. O'Rourle, American Journal of Science 1976. 276:5
The theory of fossil dating by geologic position has been debunked by tree fossils !o! Darwin's hypothesis was out-dated :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@Hornadayfan It's not much of a theory, today!
"The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." J.E. O'Rourle, American Journal of Science 1976. 276:5
The theory of fossil dating by geologic position has been debunked by tree fossils !o! Darwin's hypothesis was out-dated :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru ''Darwin's hypothesis was out-dated ''
No kidding, Darwin's Ideas are 150 years out of date, try and keep up with modern science.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz ..ditto
1. DARWINISTS ARE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. If the most fundamental structure in life, the cell, cannot form by chance, THEN IT IS EVEN MORE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE VARIETY OF LIVE, with all it complex characteristics, TO APPEAR BY CHANCE.
2. And if Darwinists are unable to account for the origin of life, then ALL THEIR TALES AND SPECULATION ABOUT THE FICTITIOUS PROCESS OF EVOLUTION ARE LIES.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
That is a strawman. Darwin's theories dont have anything to do with the origins of life, they deal with the diversity of life,
ThieleM 4 months ago
Eyes rolling @ThieleM
U could not b more wrong!
Darwin's theory 4 common-descent ..deals directly with origins & was his original concept!
The mechanisms he sighted, predated him & where not his own. He proposed that through natural-selection & adaptation we evolved from simple 2 complex life forms. His original proposal was that all life is related genetically. Today, modern science has proven Darwin wrong. We now know that these processes decrease genetic-Intel, rather then increase it :)
MajesticCyru 3 months ago
@allanhill1 epic face-palm
U may not agree, but WLC knows what he is talking about :)
=repeats the same things over and over=
If u can find some examples, it might b an interesting discussion! =uncomprehensible=
The word is incomprehensible & WLC is an intellectual that appeals best to other intellectuals. It's not like we all have Phd in Philosophy. YES, it's helpful to hear him speak in more layman terms. If u have the time 2 research his arguments, their much easier 2 understanding.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@Blip098 Now how does this statement declare him an Atheist.
"Science without religion is lame.."
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."
"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos, which with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there in no God. But what really angers me is that they quote me for support of such views"
What part of... "what really angers me is that they quote me for support" ...did u fail 2 understand.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
it is uselles, theists...you can deny as many times as you want...evolution is a proven reality.
LowresTV 5 months ago 3
I'm sorry @LowresTV Opps I missed this comment.
I must have confused you with someone else ...I disagree but thanks for posting.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru No prob, Have fun.
LowresTV 5 months ago
@LowresTV Yep it's fun.. thanks
The other creatives i mentioned in the e-mail are much better and I'm sure you will like commenting on them. We have full length videos up there. This creative seems to bring out the best and worst on YT.. lol.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
It's probably because I haven't seen many of his works, but whenever I see WLC in debates, his arguments never reflect the intelligence that people have attributed to him.
hotbananapants 5 months ago
@hotbananapants :)
=it's probably because I haven't seen many of his works=
Yes I agree...
=reflect the intelligence that people have attributed to him=
If we are talking debate opponents from the UK Humanist, like Mr. Dawkin it would not take much to defeat them anyway. They have to rely on so many fraudulent claims that is why we call him the BS-Artist. He would make any Canadian student from grade ..look like a seasoned scientist. We teach our students how to think not what to think. :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@hotbananapants =it's probably because I haven't seen many of his works=
Yes I agree...
=reflect the intelligence that people have attributed to him=
If we r talking debate opponents from the UK Humanist group, like Dawkin ..it would not take much to defeat them. They have to rely on so many fraudulent claims, that is why we call Dawkin the BS-Artist. He would make any Canadian student from grade10 ..look like a seasoned scientist. We teach our students how 2 think ..instead of what 2 think!
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
A credible theist would be direct and to the point. He just babbles on and tries to overcomplicate his argument. I understand why Dawkins refuses to debate him
allanhill1 5 months ago
eyes rolling @allanhill1 ..so it's over your head!!
The Truth is u don't understand WLC arguments & it's not really about his credibility. Why don't u just admit u where wrong about Professor Crag's education and his professional CV?
It looks like, (according to your world view).. "there is no credible theist 4 Dawkin to debate Science & Philosophy or Creation with" Unless they happen to b the Hypocritical heretics Richard has cherry picked to fool the public into buying his delusional books.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
I respect more a PHD in basketweaving than a PHD in theology. Craig spews out more gobbldygook that infant babies. He just is not a credible theist.
allanhill1 5 months ago
@allanhill1 =He just is not a credible theist=
So what is your definition of a credible theist?
Professor Craig is more then just a theologian. You will notice in this creative that he argues science philosophy, which he holds not 1 but 2 PHD with many published and well defended articles. He has also authored many popular books. See the description section of the video for links to his CV.
Your misunderstanding is a common YT sound-bight, that Mr. Dawkin used as an accuse a few yrs back.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
OK I am sorry to say but WLC put more laughs to me than he did fear i mean that guys logic is a joke or at least from what i see here any way , i can see why richard won't debate him, a thickhead like is a waste of time
GeniusAtheist 5 months ago
@GeniusAtheist Thank u 4 your post, as u r entitled 2 your opinion.
Humor is a great communication tool hence my reason 4 choosing these clips. This was not a best of WLC video, as it is about how leading atheists fear debating. It's true that WLC is not perfect, but this fact only furthers my point about why leading Atheist fear experts like him. From my perspective there is other evidential reasons Richard has 2 cherry pick his debates with heretics rather then experts ..as seen here @0:45 :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
The reason Dawkins doesn't debate Craig is because he doesn't want people to get the idea that creationists have a valid viewpoint.
luisdez81 5 months ago
@luisdez81 Yes I totally agree that is why. Richard uses the Darwinian Doctrine to push his militant atheistic agenda. watch?v=nl8lR69K7Zc
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@luisdez81 They dont !!!!!!
allanhill1 5 months ago
Even if you brought the 6th fleet to back up your argument against Hitchens, you will loose!
wealthmaster71 6 months ago
@wealthmaster71 How can I loose, when i would agree with him on about 75% of what he says on religion. Jesus did not like the scribes & pharisees of his day. I would thank him for preaching the gospel truth, which is exactly what Jesus taught us. He even made issue with the money changers who r like today's banksters (: Rothschild :)
I would correct him on Hitler being a Christian, because he was clearly a occultist who hung out with the secretive gnostic leaders of his time (: Rothschild :).
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
Dr. Craig believes you can pray away the gay. All argument ends there. he's not a fool, just a misguided intellectual.
nicksum29 6 months ago
!o! @nicksum29 Yes, it's controversial, but our x-gay movement is no secret!
According to thousands of man & women; who testify to being a x-gay person by praying in JC name. It's documented and therefor a plausible theory, with witness of x-gay people showcased as empirical evidence.
watch?v=Xrviw8nu7gQ
watch?v=AHbZSGn8Sv0
watch?v=S2X8T0cyIdA
watch?v=s4cvcTLHhEc
watch?v=HCXtZJ0H2OA
Prayer in JC name has also been proven scientifically! :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
How about you talk about the people who have killed themselves from taking those lessons? You don't pray away gay, you badger people into thinking they are morally repulsive until they believe it.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry If u say so ..i guess it happens?
Do u personally know any-1 who has?
In terms of my experience, your comments r nonsensical when u don't know me from Adam. Plus it's a non-sequitur argument, which fails "epically" when statistics show both gays & atheists r @ risk 4 suicide anyways.
As 4 me, i don't know any-1 that has hurt themselves over a sexual orientation struggle! I do have gay contacts, (my hairdresser) ..but i have many more x-gay friends who share the same world view :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
It happens a lot. It's sick what you people do. You can just act like it's all fine, but you're hurting more than helping.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry There is always two sides to any story, but it seems that u r set in your believes.
Have u taken into account the hormonal problems we all face today?
I'm talking about the levels of estrogen in a women and testosterone in man. A man can grow boobs & even start lactating if he does not get enough testosterone. Women will start producing facial hair. Those with sexual orientation issues r often given hormone treatments 2 help them head in their desired direction.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Badger people.. what the hell r u talking about?
1) R u trying 2 say there is no such thing as an x-gay person?
2) What about those who need hormone therapy ..which way do they swing?
3) What if it's a trend or fade & a teen grows out of it realizing children require both sexes to procreate. Can this person b considered an x-gay once he or she has taken up with the opposite sex?
Tylorne 5 months ago
@Tylorne
You are either born gay, or you're not gay. Being gay isn't some kind of genetic defect, what the hell is wrong with you? Hormone therapy? No, you are either attracted to another person or not. You aren't x-gay, you are bisexual.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Wow ..this x-gay topic is a hot debate :)
I will have 2 do a creative on this topic with my ex-gay contacts who r the real experts on this topic. I should take the time 2 state that it's true that "religious" people have been wrong in how they have handled this topic. Jesus loved the sinner but not the sin.
I think 1 has 2 take a good look at the difference between love & lust.
Can we love another of the same sex ..without it being gay?
What about the need for Hormone therapy? :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
They are "ex-gay" only in the sense that they have been pressured into stopping their natural behaviour. Thing is, most of those passing through Christian "anti-gay" camps end up being just as gay as before. That includes the people running those camps, and the ministers preaching to them being gay.
The human mind is a powerful thing, but a persons nature will come out eventually or they will indeed go insane, kill themselves or simply be miserable for the rest of their lives.
Blip098 5 months ago
@Blip098 =pressured into stopping their natural behavior=
I'm not an x-gay and feel no pressure to go the other way. If I was pressured, it's true that might lead to someone's early demise. I do think repeat child molesters should be castrated or somehow fixed from having any sexual desire. If that qualifies me to be a sick prick ..then sign me up, I'm evolving !o!
Does anyone here know anything about hormone therapy?
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
Oh and prayer in Jesus' name has been proven to do absolutely nothing that meditating or doing Tai Chi wouldn't do. Namely, placebo and relaxation. This has been proven as far back as Galton.
nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
Blip098 5 months ago
@Blip098 You will find links to studies done on intercessory prayer in JC name on my answers for atheists. These are the positive studies I'm always talking about. Maybe you should check them before you go off spinning gears ...like your the smartest guy on earth (eyes rolling). Your link is very outdated and our studies just came out in 2010 & 2011with more on it's way.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
You can’t just pick and choose out of a debate. This I ridiculous
triggetrigge 6 months ago 2
!o! @triggetrigge Your not a Reporter or an Art Director ..that is for sure!
It's my creative license & I drew from a few debates. Judging by the responses seen herein, our mission was accomplished. :P
This creative features a challenge to Richard Dawkin to stop being a liar. He stands accused of "cowardice" for cherry picking debates with heretics. We even have a petition for Richard to evolve some balls & start debating Philosophy with the real experts in that field ..like WLC :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
Obvious paranoia, from delusional religious people.
G3org3Master 6 months ago
@G3org3Master Yah them atheist from the humanist group in the UK are both delusional and paranoid.. what so hard about debating WLG anyways that they have to run with their monkey tails between their legs. It's time they evolve some balls. .. LOL
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
sigh... this man that you tout so... is still not holding an actual point... he is arguing "god of the gaps"... weve been over this time and time again... you wonder why dawkins doesnt want to debate him, since its going to be the exact same crap hes done time and time again, and hes sick of it.
Elc22 6 months ago 3
@Elc22 =you wonder why dawkins doesnt want to debate him=
My friend I know why all the UK humanist are so afraid of any debate involving evidence.
Any Canadian student from grade 10 with a little geology knowledge could send them running with their tails between their legs. It's time they evolve some balls or go home & stop telling all the lies & insulting the public with their BS. If u look at my channel it's loaded with evidence of fraud.
The Cat is out of the bag and Darwin is a fossil.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru YEAAAAAAAAAAAAA MajesticCyru you're my new pall. You nailed it to them bro.
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago
That guy sitting next to Dawkins has the worst haircut I've ever seen in my life
Aussiephil99 6 months ago
if you have to lie to promote your religion then your religion is a lie on the first place.
ZZzzzzzWhat 6 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat :) I can only agree..
Yes it's true ..followers of Atheism & Darwinism have been compared 2 a godless religion.
Yes, it's obvious when they have 2 lie 2 defend their world view. This video touches on how Dawkin spreads lies & how he has 2 cherry pick the weakest opponents. So I have 2 agree ..it's telling of his lies & evil propaganda found in his books. watch?v=D2r3o4jxq9E
v 4 more on Dawkin's lies & his delusion see v
watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo&feature=BFp&list=PL52CE4DF17232EE10
:)
MajesticCyru 6 months ago
lol @MajesticCyru nice try, but atheism are not religions. hask your parents what religion is. neverming look for it in a dictionary.
Darwinism? i'm sure you meant Evolutionary Theory. Thankfully i'm very used to debate with ileterate creationists like you so i know all the terms, Darwinist, Relativist, Gravitacionist, Atomicinist.. that's what we get people who don't know a fuck about science (...)
ZZzzzzzWhat 6 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat =atheism are not religions=
U will have 2 take that argument 2 the Bench where the US courts ruled atheism a godless religion. Its not like u need a deity or Creator 2 b religious about something ..or 2 qualify 4 non-profit status
The truth ..science has no idea & Darwinist hold 2 many unproven faith positions. It sure does take FAITH 2 believe in the Darwinian Doctrine.
If u know some secret science proving atheism is accurate & correct ..then don't b shy, like a UK Humanist!
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@SciBishop3210 !o! Yes
It was a "epic facepalm" ..but not 4 Craig!
Craig defends ID & Creation, with both plausible & empirical evidence. The Universe has a beginning & therefore a cause @13:24. A computer cause 4 the Universe, was the "logically incoherent" rebuttal 2 Craig scientific & mufti-premise defense.
@13:48 It was his atheists opponent who tried 2 give an alternative explanation of a non-physical computer @13:57. Craig countered with how a computer is physical @14:27.
Nice try.. :)
MajesticCyru 6 months ago 7
@MajesticCyru It's amazing the lengths that some will go to twist the truth.
Tylorne 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru What evidence for creation or ID? There isn't even evicence for a global flood !
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz Welcome
Thank u 4 taking the time 2 post.
1) We can look @ Creation & ID the same or as 2 separate world views (ID is all inclusive).
2) ID includes all forms of theism like Theistic Evolutionist & Theistic Satanism. Then u have Intelligent Agent theories like aliens which Dawkin mentions in his interview with Ben Stein watch?v=nl8lR69K7Zc
3) It's floods or flood, but what ever floats your boat ;)
I'm an ID-Creationist ..leaning towards a Young-Earth, under 100 000 years.!!
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
How this guy is considered such a great scholar?
alive4ever1 6 months ago
@alive4ever1 U missed the point of our creative, which is about how atheists fear debating WLG.
Just ask x-atheist Anthony Flew who debated him, before DNA and other biological evidence turned him. How can u put more faith in the Darwinian doctrine then Darwin did himself? There r many of good reasons 4 Richard's retirement, but it's amazing how brain-washed his followers are 4 trusting him so blindly.
Richard lies stating that Albert Einstein was an atheist!! Now that is a desperate tactic.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
Actually, you are lying. A quote from Einstein himself - From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth."
Blip098 5 months ago
Eyes rolling @Blip098
So what did i lie about?
"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos, which with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there in no God. But what really angers me is that they quote me for support of such views," Albert Einstein
Einstein honored Jesus, loathed the religious & mocked atheists!
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@Blip098
1) Dawkin misrepresents Einstein:
watch?v=D2r3o4jxq9E
2) Einstein on God:
watch?v=0iXKIf2XOfA
3) Einstein as a child:
watch?v=HvhGeNzdRZA
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru Einstein also said -
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Blip098 5 months ago
@Blip098 Einstein also said-
"Science without religion is lame.."
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."
"What separates me from so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."
When asked if Jesus was a myth Albert Einstein replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru Finally, Darwin was an atheist by the end of his life.
As he said - "Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last it was complete."
The death of his child Annie was the final nail in the coffin of his belief, and in 1879 he wrote this -
"I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
I await your reply with interest.
Blip098 5 months ago
@Blip098 Darwin went from believing Creation 2 not knowing the truth.
Darwin wrote that if there b a complex organ, it would disprove his theory. He also wrote that there should b transitional fossils 2 show his theory correct. On both these accounts science has failed 2 provide the evidence Darwin sought.
Today, DNA has shown 2 b complex, never mind the cell & organs. There r no proven transitional forms & all theoretical mechanism 4 evolution have failed 2 produce sufficient genetic Intel :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
Darwin was an agnostic, he said so himself. He did not attend church and struggled with how to tell his wife about his lack of faith. You saying "went from believing Creation 2 not knowing the truth" is an attempt to move away from your contention he was a Christian when he wasn't and that is clearly articulated by the man himself.
If you think you know the mind of the man better than himself, please give some references.
Next post will show the deceit in the quote you used
Blip098 5 months ago
@Blip098 =is an attempt to move away from your contention he was a Christian=
I never implied he was a Christian.. what r u talking about?
I simply pointed 2 his theistic believe when even u agreed he wrote, "crept over me at a very slow rate" He had 2 obviously become agnostic. An atheist believes firmly ..their is no ID or Creation & Darwin was careful not 2 imply that. U seem to not understand that agnostics come in different forms. Even a theist can b agnostic or "not sure" @ times :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
To continue after showing Darwin was not a Christian but agnostic who did not attend church,
You omit the end of Darwin's quote -" If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"
There is so far no such organ. The eye for example has evolved separately at least 3 or 4 times, and DNA evolved from the simpler RNA.
On to end of your post next
Blip098 5 months ago
@Blip098 I have 2 disagree & we will likely have 2 agree 2 disagree.
Today we have 10 000 of scientist disagreeing with Darwin. It only tends 2 b the younger, (wet behind the ears) ones who listen 2 the popular atheistic YT sound bights who don't know Darwin's mythical big "e" evolution is outdated.
U should study up on who runs the world & their agenda. Then u will start 2 get the big picture on how religion, education & medicine have been hijacked by oil & bank Cartels (Bilderberge Group :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@Blip098 =examples of transitional form, such as the Najash=
It's odd that evolutionist use Najash rionegrina as an example of a transitional form ..NOT.
This reptile was unearthed in Argentina and is named after the Hebrew word Nahash for the snake with legs in Gen 3.14. Fossils without DNA do not prove ancestry. Missing appendages r nothing more then genetic adaptions where a gene can b turned on & off when needed. Only an example of 1kind becoming another would fill the transition gap.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
There are many examples of transitional forms, such as the Najash and Eupodophis in the snake lineage, or Westlothiana in the reptile lineage. Ignoring them won't make them go away.
Finally, the last part of of your sentence is a bit opaque, but if you still mean DNA evolution then the method is from a simpler RNA world model. Expand/clarify if you meant otherwise.
Btw, where are my other posts? I guess you like to avoid debate too. You have censored 3 of my messages at least.
Blip098 5 months ago
eyes rolling @alive4ever1 Really you don't say...
..well that just furthers the stupidity of delusional Dawkins.
Tylorne 5 months ago
@TheCoopertc0 Thanks for posting your *face palm*
It's true that actions do speak louder then words!
If you have any questions I will try to find answers.
MajesticCyru 6 months ago
@MajesticCyru They never have anything to say because the only "tool" they have to work with is mockery.
They never actually say anything and they never address any of the issues because they have nothing to say.
When will the general public see that evolution is an all out fraud?
Seekmosttoprophesy 6 months ago 3
@Seekmosttoprophesy You hit the nail on the head there!
Tylorne 5 months ago
As long as Christopher Hitchens is capable of debating theists there is really no reason for others to do so....
Hornadayfan 6 months ago
@Hornadayfan U got 2 like Christopher Hitchens!
Religion enslaves & Jesus saves. I like his take on religion, but have 2 disagree with him about Jesus who railed against religion. He also threw out the banksters, which is what our world needs today.
It is obvious C. Hitchens was effected by the Darwinian Doctrine, which has been debunked! Hanging out with Richard Dawkin is bound to have a brainwashed effect on u, given his many delusions.
Christopher is good, but Peter Hitchens is brilliant.
MajesticCyru 6 months ago 4
@MajesticCyru Dawininan doctrine debunked? Would you mind expounding on that?
Hornadayfan 6 months ago
@Hornadayfan Sure.. :)
Darwin put less faith in his model then atheists do today.
1) Natural selection does not increase DNA Intel.
2) No transitional forms proven & abundance of unchanged living fossils found.
3) Favorable mutation is so rare that the odds r insurmountable (trillions of yrs).
4) War between evolutionist ..(life evolved rapidly or slowly).
5) Evolutionist don't know where life began.
watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo&feature=channel_video_title
(: See my channel's Questions & Answers :)
MajesticCyru 6 months ago 9
@MajesticCyru
1) Natural selection does not increase DNA Intel. So what?
2) No transitional forms proven & abundance of unchanged living fossils found. Wrong one part one. Part two is there is no need to change if not needed.
3) Favorable mutation is so rare that the odds r insurmountable (trillions of yrs). Wrong!
4) War between evolutionist ..(life evolved rapidly or slowly). So what? No one knows for yet.
5) Evolutionist don't know where life began. So what? Neither do you.
Hornadayfan 5 months ago
@Hornadayfan Nice try.. :)
1) Natural Selection is no longer considered a mechanism for Big "e" evolution.
2) Fossils can not prove evolution & do not.
2b) Living fossils prove nothing has evolved from 1kind 2 another.
3) "Most" mutation r not favorable & lead 2 death.
4) We know life suddenly appeared, which confirms Genesis.
5) Yes, scientifically we know life started with clay like minerals, confirming Gen 2.7
Support 4 ID is growing v Evolution
watch?v=KUgzpFE5AZE
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
1. Correct, Natural Selection only selects, the variation in nature is already there.
2. There are hundreds of transitions fossils and evoluton does not mean things have to change.
3. Mutation make the variation in species.
4. Evolution has been accepted by all scientists.
5. Darwin wrote ''Origin of Species'' NOT Origin of life.
Athists have nothing to do with Science. Darwin was religious.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Quality post Greg :)
1) Natural Selection can lead 2 ring species & new subspecies.
2) Transition from 1kind 2 new kind is hard 2 show with fossils
3) Positive Mutations r very rare as most lead 2 death.
4) I have lists of thousands of ID & Creation scientists.
5) Yes there r many theistic evolutionist 2 ..I disagree on origins.
It's the Gnostic influence on education that concerns me the most. In the beginning but Darwin later turned 2 either agnostic theist or agnostic atheist :)
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@MajesticCyru
1, Yes evolution happens
2. Yes, evolution is easy to see in the fossils record.
3. Yes, DNA changes over time.
4.What is a Creation Scientist? Scientists don't study religion.
5. Yes even the Pope accepts evolution there is so much evicence for it.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
There has been many fraudulent evolutionary claims :)
1) Variations or micro-e has not proven Darwin's model 4 macro-E or common descent
2) Macro-E or common descent is not shown in fossils without DNA
3) Show the journals & prove DNA evolved from common descent?
4) That's BS There called theistic evolutionist & many geologist r also Creationist
5) Yes & no! Some Bishops r theistic evolutionist but others r ID-Creationist
Gnostic or Theistic Satanist of their clergy believe in ID.
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
@Hornadayfan You just have to get outside the UK/USA bubble to realize it.
Tylorne 5 months ago
“As a Philosopher of Science, Professor Craig has many peer reviewed & published papers.”
Is this a joke? Name one credible, academic journal that published one article that concluded that any of those six arguments were sound. These are the types of arguments that would only be accepted by apologists and those who want to be convinced.
Also, WLC is a professor of philosophy, not science. He has no degrees in a scientific field.
joshm60 6 months ago
@joshm60 Thank u 4 your post, but u could not b more wrong about WLC.
He is a Professor of Science Philosophy, specializing in cosmology. He has 2 doctrinaire degrees 2 the effect & many published papers. Just follow the links in my description 2 his website, CV & many scholarly articles
Your misunderstanding of WLC is common with those caught up in Dawkin's Delusion. Today Mr. Darwkin has shifted from biology 2 debating philosophy with Hypocritical theologians, that he cherry picks @ 0:21.
MajesticCyru 6 months ago
@shajuggalo77 Thanks 4 posting ..i have a few questions 4 u.
1) What straw-man argument, can u say WLC makes 4 Christian theism?
2) Do u actually consider hypocritical Bishops or Cardinals "real" men of faith?
3) Do u think WLC is just making money selling his books ..what about Dawkin's books?
Jesus foretold that we would kill in His name. He railed against religion, with no intention 2 start a new religion, but rather provided us a way 2 circumvent the Priesthood in his name:)
MajesticCyru 6 months ago
It is arguments like 'loving the lord is moral so therefore it is a moral act that an atheist could never do' that make me feel like not even bothering to debate with religious people.
A moral act is one that is ethically motivated. An act that shows compassion and empathy for other people. If the question is about the existence of God, why would your ability to love God be used against you? It's a redundant argument.
EFFANDJEFF 6 months ago
@EFFANDJEFF Yet u do like 2 debate! Morality aside what arguments do u make against The Creator or Creation?
I have review the arguments 4 both sides & i just have not got enough faith 2 trust that Darwin model was right. Little "e" evolution predated Darwin & I can agree with it, but find no conclusive prove 4 common descent form 1common ancestor.
People who still trust the Darwinian Doctrine have no idea of all it's gaps & missing links that have been long-ago debunked.
MajesticCyru 6 months ago 2
@MajesticCyru Look, there is no point in an atheist arguing with a religious person. I understand - you NEED to believe this. So any sensible question is met with fingers in the ears and you singing 'la-la-la'. As an atheist, there's nothing in it for me, so I don't need to fight the urge to think as much. You want god to take credit for the 'design' of this universe, then he should also take credit for the millions of failed solar systems and collapsing stars and the millions of extinct species
EFFANDJEFF 6 months ago
@EFFANDJEFF !o! ..What question?
I don't know about most Christians but it's easy 2 defend Creation vs. Darwin's hypothesis 4 common ancestor!
1) "Medical Journals" The falsifiability of prayer vs. feasibility of prayer in JC name
2) Flood(s) Evidence & Catastrophic Geologist who use carbon 14 dating
3) Polonium Halos prove granite's rapid formation
4) Only Our Galaxy Is Fine Tuned 4 Life
5) Biblical & Historical Archaeology
6) Christ's 600+ Prophecies
7) DNA Intel
Just 2 name a few premises
MajesticCyru 6 months ago 5
@EFFANDJEFF No 1 should debate religious freaks! They r a waste of time!!
I have no idea why Dawkin goes after the hypocritical clergy & other heretics ..maybe u should ask him?!
U should try the "real" experts, who use science like the many thousand creationist or ID researchers. There is a reason Richard is afraid of them ..hence this creative.
Did u know that over 70% of philosophers r believers in ID or Creation?
Dawkins calls them "professional debaters" @ 0:35.
:)
Tylorne 6 months ago
@Tylorne Source for that percentage please.
zune145 6 months ago
@zune145 almost missed this post. Have not got it handy, but I know it's out of a researched pear review study. Have you tried Google yet?
MajesticCyru 5 months ago
Sadly, this is how religion works ... by fear, dominance ... not empowerment.
cosmicordering1 7 months ago
@cosmicordering1 This creative is not about religion... so I'm not sure exactly what your talking about. As to the subject of religion I agree with you that it is wrong. Religion enslaves but Jesus saves.
MajesticCyru 7 months ago
A more honest title would be 'not putting the fear of god into atheists'
shumble32 7 months ago
@shumble3210.. Your defense of Richard is noble in 1 hand, but blindly misguided in the other.
Richard Dawkin as a real scientist is washed up. Real research on the Genome has leveled the whole Mutation argument hoped 2 b infallible by Richard & other Evolutionist who religiously believe in the Darwinian Doctrine. Today, Evolutionist put way more faith in Darwin's model then Darwin himself.
watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo
Here is a film that debunks Richards' credibility as a scientist :)
MajesticCyru 6 months ago
@MajesticCyru - I'm not defending Dawkins as attacking the low standards of theological logic. I've had many, many discussions with theists and the only ones that impress are the ones that have a quiet, humble yet strong faith that is not afraid to admit it doesn't have all the answers. With those I can have deep, meaningful conversations. Exactly opposite is the fake science of theology with its Sophist debate, relaxed attitude to definitions and general 'fuzzy' use of language.
Theology = BS
shumble32 6 months ago
@MajesticCyru
You cannot be serious, surely? You are giving that video to show that Richard Dawkins isn't credible as a scientist?
You are pathetic.
Nilguiri 6 months ago
@Nilguiri Oh I'm very serious, and how pathetic it is that u trust the delusional Richard Dawkins.
Without evidence 2 back his claims how can u or anyone call him a scientist?
The Darwinian Doctrine for conman ancestry has not been proven but Dawkin's talks as if it has been. On closer inspection he has to admit he has no evidence and that everything He says is hypothetical. He has an admitted religious phobia which clouds his judgement ...making him a fool.
MajesticCyru 6 months ago
@Nilguiri Dawkin Mythology
1) Junk DNA Myth
2) Mutation Leads 2 More DNA Intel Myth.
3) Natural Selection Leads 2 More DNA Intel Myth
4) Discovery of Intermittent Species Myth
5) Reptile 2 Bird Myth
It's been shown that Coelacanth & Archaeopteryx r not intermittent species!
However we have virtually no evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere 4 any changes purposed during this immensity of time, but the public hears nothing of this problem." Professor Ariel A. Roth -Zoologist pg189 Origins
MajesticCyru 6 months ago 4
Awesome awesome awesome!
JohnThePanpire 7 months ago 8
Ok, so you have a few others ahead of me to reply to, fair enough, but imagine that you had hundreds to reply to. At some stage you would have to say "enough I can't debate the whole world, I have a life to live!". You would be perfectly justified choosing which debates to join and you would not be a coward.
Don't worry about replying to me, I've made my point and I know you are a busy man. Don't be so quick to judge in the future and try to base your judgement on knowledge not prejudice.
shumble32 7 months ago
@shumble32 Thank you 4 all your posts, it's often hard 2 show appreciation in a limited space.
Yes, i do value discernment over judging a book by it's cover. It's true, i'm not perfect ..seen clearly in my typos & other array of mistakes.
Yes, it makes seance to bide your time, as i do. Professor Graig does not seek 2 debate Dawkin, as he goes with the best organizers can find him. Dawkin's seeks attention, but he cherry picks his debates with the weak & uneducated (by his own omissions :).
MajesticCyru 7 months ago
@MajesticCyru - once again you are pre-judging Dawkins - how do you know what criteria he's using to pick debates? If he was to admit cowardice you would be ok to assume it. If he does not then you can logically only put it on a list with other possible motivations. Anyone who dismisses those other possible motivations out of hand is prejudiced.
If I was Dawkins I would not debate Craig either - his slick and fuzzy approach to the English language makes debate futile.
shumble32 7 months ago