Attention Darwinists; On March 1,2012 Richard Dawkins stated "I can't be sure God does not exist" He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.
If Dawkins is unsure, there's no way on earth the darwinist stance is anything but psuedo science. This should put an end to the creation vs evolution debate. I'd suggest you formulate other possibilities on how we got here.
this last guy has no credibility because he's made a typical mistake. He tries to refute the logical understanding that a complexity that appears as design can't possibly have a designer, because we can easily show otherwise? Then goes on to say that that creationists believe in this "perfect world" this guy is half retarded. He doesn't even have the basic 101 understanding of the opposing view, and you people think "he" somehow is assured new genetic information spontaneously arises? get a grip
OMG, Evolution is a more than just natural selection, There are MUTATIONS that happen, and are pasted down through generations. NATURAL SELECTION IS JUST ONE PART OF EVOLUTION.
I cannot believe that in 21st century Britain their are people who argue the case for a fairytale explanation for the Universes existence and that this provides stimulating debate to some people..absurd..
There's no group of people on this planet whom I despise more than Creationists, not even Talibans, Nazis or Fascists. They represent the height of stupidity and bigotry, and they need to be stopped.
@Kotlettbengt 'There's no group of people on this planet whom I despise more than Creationists, not even Talibans, Nazis or Fascists'
Keep some perspective, Bentkettle. The Nazis killed six million Jewish people. The Taliban blow up girls' schools, and kill women for wearing bright clothes.
And how come paedophile RC priests do not get a mention in your list? They will be very upset!
@Kotlettbengt, that's not a commendable position. Gas chambers, human experiments, and beheading of non-Muslims, is to you worth less scorn than someone who believes that God created the world? You're a scary person. You sound very much like the ones you accuse. I hope I don't ever see you in a position of power.
Old. Check. Glasses. Check. Comb over. Check. Pity education doesn't guarantee a person capable of rational and critical thought.
Funny too, that the young fellow in the suit felt that quoting the discovery of an 80 million year old dino tissue was evidence *for* his young earth claims.
I did really like the first woman, that despite holding religious belief she was able to see past that to where evidence leads, to arrive at a very rational conclusion.
Yes, let's bring in the evolutionary biologist in the final minute of an evolution vs creationism 'debate' and then cut him off to wrap up the show. This demonstrates how evolutionists get owned? That statement is as dishonest as the entire intelligent design argument. What an amateurish programme.
This shit about 'clearly has a mind behind it' is always the same thing, always the same examples, and always the same bullshit.. and.. go read 'the blind watchmaker' please... also, the debate creationism VS evolution ENDED the minute evolution got proven by genetics (and by a whole other number of fields for that matter). People get soo confused just because it is called 'theory of evolution' that they believe the word 'theory' somehow discredits it as 'not yet proven'. kind of makes me sad :(
well i look at death as a combination of evoulotion and reincarnation where as soon as u die u can be reborn because every second 3 people die 5 are born which leaves two empty vessels which either generate two new people or we all started out as single celled organisms and had to work are way up the latter untill we became monkeys after you die from your monkey form then u get to the final stage which is human and once again once ur human you always remain human goerge carlin has been reborn
To all the Americans reading: This guy is Northern Irish and has the surname Robinson. This more than likely suggests that he is of the Ulster-Scot side of the community. The Ulster-Scots while emigrating to America were known as the Scotch-Irish. They also settled the region you know as the Bible Belt. Just thought you'd like to know...
@SatsumaRyan God's existance can't be disproven so much as life on other planets throughout the galaxy and beyond, it's impossible to truely deny it. There's no actual disproof; anyone who thinks they can "prove" the non-existance of an eternal existance so far beyond the human mind's comprehension, that is pure arrogance (actual fact)
@paradisecityX0 by your logic that means i could tell you there was a magical unicorn at the centre of the universe that created everything with it's pony powers, you can't disprove it
@RToad that was just showing how ridiculous it is to say that you should believe in something just because you can't disprove it's existance. It was just drawing a metaphore for your god in a way you can see how ridiculous it is.
@paradisecityX0 blasphemy? I just pointed out what SatsumaRyan meant with his argumentation. If you mean the sentence "It was just drawing a metaphore for your god in a way you can see how ridiculous it is." I should make it more complete for you "It was just drawing a metaphore for your god in a way you can see how ridiculous it is to believe in it."
I agree - you cannot prove negative existence. You cannot prove that my garden does not contain invisible fairies.
However lack of evidence is significant. Because there is no evidence for God's existence, (and we would expect some) it is rational to conclude that he does not exist. Because there is no evidence for God's existence, it is irrational to believe he does exist.
@Oldtinear Fairies, can u say something a little more mature? Why should everyone cling on to evidence? U love it that much? If everything in the universe was explained in scientific evidence, life would be dull, there be nothing more to learn or discover. Finding God is a very difficult challenge he gave us, u give up so easily. he wants us to find him on our own instead of having to babysit us, telling us every little thing. We dont need evidence to prove gravity, air, even love <3
@paradisecityX0 you really think explaining existance and living is really just that simple? And eventually, supposing we can explain how everything came to be, you really think life would lose its meaning? You really think living life would be dull, and would have nothing more to learn or discover? If you really think that way, and if you believe in god, well then, life is over for you, since you already know how everything came to be.
@RToad You're basically twisting my words. God is God, we are tasked into discovering him, u give up so easily on something when evidence isn't blown right in front of ur face. & the reason there are many other planets (the rest in our solar system is lifeless because of the certain spots where they rotate around the Sun); because God wants us to explore the fantasic, and beauty of other worlds (the Galaxy & beyond) and see for ourselves, to individually learn how the universe works
@paradisecityX0 "If everything in the universe was explained in scientific evidence, life would be dull, there be nothing more to learn or discover." So you're saying that if you were able to explain how universe works through god it would be good, and learning how the universe works through science is bad? You're using two standards to evaluate the same thing (explaining how the universe works). That's not exactly fair or impartial.
@paradisecityX0 By the way, EVERYTHING you decide upon in you day-to-day life is based on evidence. Or are you naive enough to believe in anything anyone tells you? Of course we value evidence. And it's not that we gave up easily on believing god. It's just that there hasn't been solid evidence to believe in him, and there's lots of arguments based on Christianity and the bible itself to believe otherwise.
@RToad Comparing God to fairies, calling it "rediculous", is very blasphemous. U do believe in a god, but not the real God; u worship evidence, evidence is your god. Nothing else matters to you; love, money, or even sex. The only thing that satisfies your cravings is EVIDENCE, can't survive without that evidence, can u?
@paradisecityX0 Of course that if you want me to believe something I will require proof/evidence. And evidence is evidence, god is god. Evidence is palpable, tangible, you can see it. You can't see or touch god. Evidence and god are two completely different concepts. It's like saying that an orange is an apple.
And I called ridiculous the idea of believing in something just because you can't disprove it.
@paradisecityX0 Can't touch air? You breathe, don't you? You feel the wind blowing in your face, don't you? These are evidence that there is air. What's your evidence for the holy spirit?
@RToad The Holy Spirit is the influential morality when we question our conciencenous; The Dark Spirit (Sin) is the negativity that influences our concienceness
@paradisecityX0 Morality gives us the differentiation between right or wrong. We learn it from our parents. We learn from living together with other people, living in society. From there, it becomes part of our experience. Based on this experience we decide upon what we do. We learn that when we do things that are wrong we are punished. From this we decide that it isn't good to do bad things. It has nothing to do with the holy spirit.
@RToad How is it that every society has the same basic moral laws, don't kill, don't steal. Did these rules simply evolve? How does something like right and wrong simply develop itself over time?
@cirish123 I can't say for sure, but behaviour we consider moral is also present in other social animals. Feelings such as attachment and altruism and bonding between individuals are present in chimpanzees and bonobos. One can even add evolution to the argument. These kind of sentiments evolved as a method of restraining individual selfishness and developing more cooperative groups, the benefits of living in groups outweighing the benefits of living alone.
@cirish123 Thus, the idea of killing and stealing, which are selfish acts, would become inherently bad, because it is bad for the group. If it is bad for the group, then we shouldn't do it.
@RToad Just cuz we can't see it, don't mean we can't feel it; the same is with air. The reason why there's so much shit in the world today is cuz of sin's presence. The reason the world hasn't destroyed itself by now, is the presence of the Holy Spirit that's keeping it from destruction and world-wide chaos.
@paradisecityX0 We CAN feel air. You feel air blowing against your face. That's called wind. You feel air when you go outside from a heated room. And the reason the world is so deep in shit but hasn't been destroyed yet is because people aren't stupid enough to do it the quick way (i.e. nuclear war. But we are getting close to it...), but are stupid enough to fight over what they think is right (i.e. wars caused by difference of religion, culture or resources) without reasoning with one another.
@paradisecityX0 He I can do that too. Comparing evolution to fairies, calling it "blasphemous" is very ridiculous. You do believe in eveidence, but not the real evidence; you worship god. nothing else matters to you; love, money, or even sex. The only thing that satisfies your cravings is GOD, can't survive without that god, can you? Please come up with a better argument than "my belief isn't ridiculous, yours is". It can be spun both ways and therefor isnt a valid argument.
@paradisecityX0 Furthermore, I don't even know why we're having this conversation. Religion and Science belongs to two different realms of existance. Religion should revolve about dealing with spirituality and philosophy. Science revolves about the physical world.
I am sorry to come along and get all involved, but I thought you seemed like you could be rational.
"You're basically twisting my words"
Then you said
"because God wants us to explore the fantasic, and beauty of other worlds...see for ourselves...."
Aren't you twisting God's words? The bible very clearly describes a God who wants your commitment to him, to recognise him for his works in return for spending an eternity with him.
In years past people did not respect evidence. If the weather was bad and crops failed, or if animals were struck by disease, people looked for harmful spirits as a cause. They would find an ugly woman, blame her, and burn her as a witch. Are you saying you want to return to those days?
@paradisecityX0 'false evidence explaining monkey fables didn't end those barbaric days, modern science has'
Yes, and modern science is based on evidence.
Can I sell you Buckingham Palace for $50? Of course, I have not the slightest evidence that I own it. But according to you, lack of evidence is a marvelous thing!
@kalleskit Yes we do; it's evolutionists who "think" they know what they're doing and spend their lives trying to make sense of these monkey fables (or is it rodents, lizards maybe, or is it fish today), only for their evolution theories to end up going in circles
@paradisecityX0 You're still living in a lie aren't you, though? We have to find the answers of life together, by debating and busting eachother on our failing facts.
Well all your explanation comes from science and not from your bible....how convenient You Christian...every time Science do their work and find something as evidence then you start claiming that is in the bible....hahahahaha...fucking lunatic...
@TheLalaGOD Dude u fuckin faggot! The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD ...U KNOW HIM?? GOD? Tink he knows more about scencince den u! hahah Ur deluded!! PWNED!!!!!!
@VoteHarveyDent You can say whatever you want lunatic..still your Bible keeps on the record to explain and describe the origin of life and universe falsely....Simply because The bible is The word of a Man....
@paradisecityX0 We don't worship theories. We study them and conduct experiments to test their validity. Theories which fail to stand up to scrutiny are dumped or replaced by better ones. Darwin theorised that living things are shaped by their environment through the process of evolution by way of natural selection. Evolution can be seen when bacteria mutate to become drug-resistant and then pass on that trait to the next generation. All life that passes on traits can evolve.
Wow that goes saying that God made us the modern people we are now? For if it was you would you trust that? Would you? People refuse to hear the other side our side for a conversational debate. If God wanted a good protecter of the Earth why us? All we have done is make weapons from a stick and a stone to a weapon to kill all life on Earth. If we were His choice then we have all failed this so called "God".
OYFG . With a title like this one you would expect a Hitchslap or something ,but these people are reterds...like all creationists. DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING...and FR.
Given the title, I was rather disappointed to find it was instead more of the usual "I shout louder and give no proof, but I don't let you speak for more than 2 seconds ergo I win". There was NO evidence in here for creation, NO evidence for a god even, and very no "owning" at all,
@ShaneyCunn84, By your logic, a person who scores 300 points in a single game of Putt-Putt™ Miniature Golf has won and scored a perfect game. He should brag about it to all his bowling league buddies.
This is a terrible choice of panel. McIntosh and Robinson are professional creationists - it is what they spend most of their days doing.
Anne Atkins, to my knowledge, is an author and actress, and I've never heard her talking about evolution before! Jeremy Pritchard wastes what little time he has with rhetoric instead of refuting the points presented.
I do not discount evolution per se, but it cannot start from dead matter. The experiments tried to replicate the come about of one-cellers by matter mixing it and under electricity failed. The complexity issue is also there. The one cellers had suddenly a DNA, which complexity is so unlikely to form out of random matter mixed under diverse circumstances. I somewhat do believe in evolution in biology, but we consist of more than what is described as dead elements of matter.
@trupiil The Miller experiment in 1995 proves life can start from non-living chemicals. There is also the experiment where scientist made a living virus with dna from all 21 scientists.
The complexity issue has been debunked over and over. With every claim of complexity is a scientists that shows how it was formed with ease.
@SuperMrAtheist so a really smart scientist in a laboratory created something that wasn't even life and you conclude that life could just start from non-living chemicals? So you conclude that because it takes intelligence to create something not as complex as life that therefore intelligence is not needed for life to start? I have jackets for sale that tie in the back if you are interested.
@IBelieveMyBible That wasn't even life? Yes it was life. I sorry if you don't understand any of the experiments but that's your fault. It doesn't pay to be stupid.
@IBelieveMyBible This is funny. Most people would look up the answer on their own. BUt not you.lol I'm sorry but you are a moron. You clearly didn't listen to anything I said. You are ignoring facts so your weak faith doesn't fall apart. You are showing your real colors
@spoddie “...there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’...”
G. A. Kerkut Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton
@IBelieveMyBible You selectively quote Kerkut. Here is what he REALLY said'
“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the “Special Theory of Evolution” and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. ' continued...
@IBelieveMyBible 'On the other hand there is the theory that all of the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the “General Theory of Evolution” and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.'
So Kerkut says evolution can be demonstrated, but abiogenesis is an unproved working hypothesis.
@IBelieveMyBible 'what you call abiogenesis was for many years commonly referred to and included in the theory of evolution by many scientists'
Nope. Please name some of these 'many scientists'. Abiogenesis is a work in progress. A scientific theory is evidence-based, falsifiable, predictive and contains an explanation of underlying causality. Abiogenesis is nowhere near this stage & no scientist has ever said it was. Evolution is simply the theory that species change over time.
@spoddie “Evolutionism is the doctrine that the universe, including inorganic and organic matter in all its manifestations, is the product of gradual and progressive development." E. Olson Geologist at the Univ. of Chicago & J. Robinson
The giveaway is that 'evolutionism' is a crap word invented by Young Earth believers. Any statement which follows 'Evolutionism is...' will be garbage, and your is.
You seem to be a thinking person. Rather than sound like an arrogant evolutionist and tell you that there is 100% certainty in the science of evolution, I just want to encourage you to view the evidences for yourself and decide the strength of the theory. Chromosome 2 and endogenous retroviruses are a good place to start.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if after reviewing the evidence, you will consider it to be a solid theory.
Look into abiogenesis after understanding evolution.
@andiconda3 if one has to start with Chromosome 2 and endogenous retroviruses to come to understand evolution then I can pretty much discount evolution as having any validity. Creationists refer to natural law and commonly observed phenomena to support their point of view. All "christian" cults ignore the most abundant evidence from the easy to understand verses in the Bible and build complex doctrines from obscure, difficult passages. This is exactly what evolution has been reduced to...a cult.
@IBelieveMyBible: “if one has to start with Chromosome 2 and endogenous retroviruses to come to understand evolution then I can pretty much discount evolution as having any validity.”
Do you even know what endogenous retrovirus (or, more properly, endogenous retroviral insertions into DNA) are, and what the big deal is about HUMAN Chromosome #2?
Another one is Vitamin C. If you deny evolution, prove it: eat (or drink or inject) NO Vitamin C AT ALL in ANY form for six months.
As an agnostic I I do not support biblical creationism, as I see it flawed. But, the whole theory on life is huge, it is a monstrous problem. Evolutionary theory claims that the first one cellers came about out of dead matter and evolved into humans. Now, philosophically, you have a problem here. Out of dead matter, you can arrange it as you like, you will not get a sensitive, feeling, conscious being. It is not possible. Dead particles cannot be arranged and evolve into feeling beings.
@trupiil: “Evolutionary theory claims that the first one cellers came about out of dead matter and evolved into humans.”
Evolutionary theory doesn’t claim any such thing. If you’re going to try to dispute evolutionary theory, learn what it ACTUALLY says FIRST.
Oh, and your final statement is demonstrably wrong. We humans (and all other life) are PROVEN to be made from non-living particles such as individual atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc., arranged as molecules.
@COMALiteJ Let me say I am sorry. I thought most evolutionists claim all life developed out of dead matter, where am I wrong here? You correctly name the chemicals found in our body. What does then evolutionary theory claim on the origin of life? Does it only calim its evolution, not its origin to be known?
@trupiil, First off, do you deny that atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the various trace minerals, are all NON-LIVING particles? You said that living things CANNOT be assembled from NON-LIVING particles. YOUR words, NOT mine.
Those atoms are assembled into molecules. Are the molecules of water that make up nearly ¾ of our bodies’ mass ALIVE? Yes or no? What about the other molecules? Are even DNA molecules THEMSELVES alive? Yes or no?
@COMALiteJ These are interesting questions and I have several approaches. I have no definite results for these questions and I am looking into Kant and Schopenhauer and Klages to find answers. Let me ask you: Did you exist 10 years from now?
“What does then evolutionary theory claim on the origin of life?”
Nothing. Each scientific theory is itself about ONE thing. The Theory of Evolution is about HOW species EVOLVE over time. It says NOTHING about how LIFE BEGAN.
This is not a weakness. It’s just how science works. Do we condemn Pythagoras’s Theorem of the Hypoteneuse of a Right Triangle because it doesn’t tell us how to properly conjugate a Latin verb? Same “logic.”
@COMALiteJ This is a respectable approach to me. I heard many times claims from scientists that life came about out of dead matter, so I attributed it on evolutionary theory... As I said I do think it is contradictory to assume a sentient being did evolve out of dead matter.
@trupiil: “I heard many times claims from scientists that life came about out of dead matter, so I attributed it on evolutionary theory”
Many scientists do theorize that, but it is a different theory (or, rather, group of theories): ABIOGENESIS, NOT evolution.
Evolution works just fine peachy keen whether or not abiogenesis is also true. Evolution doesn’t speculate on nor care where the life came from. It only deals with what happened once life ALREADY existed.
I cannot conceive the whole reason why people argue about this. Tree's a million years ago are different than tree's today. If you cant accept that than you blindly disregard your history. Evolution doesn't contradict the possibility of god but it does contradict religious notions of how we came to be. What is there to argue about?
@teewilson333: “Evolution doesn't contradict the possibility of god but it does contradict religious notions of how we came to be. What is there to argue about?”
True. Evolution does NOT say that there is/are no god(s). It does, however, provide a viable explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that doesn’t REQUIRE any god(s), and THAT is what has the religious fundamentalists so upset.
READ THE QURAN PEOPLE AND READ IT IN ARABIC WITH THE TRANSLATIONS AND IF YOU READ THE QURAN IN ENGLISH AND ARABIC YOU WILL GET A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THE QURAN IN ARABIC YOU WILL GET THE PURE UNDERSTANDING
@mirza4life Yes, you get the understanding that says terrorize all non-believers, and kill those who commit apostasy, in addition to comparing all non-believers to that of cattle, in addition to misogyny against women. I've read it in Arabic and I've read it in English. It's the same crap spreading the same immoral doctrine, and it ruins societies that it reaches. Immorality at it's finest, and it's death will be celebrated by myself and many others.
In addition to the Quran, another scripture that Muslims hold sacred says that if any apostates preach in any city known to them, and people there LISTEN to the apostates, the ENTIRE CITY has to be the nearest equivalent of NUKED available in the technology of the day! Every living thing therein SLAIN, and the ENTIRE CITY and EVERYTHING IN IT BURNED and NEVER REBUILT!
Guess what scripture that Muslims hold sacred says this?
The only "owning" creationists are doing is of the followers who close their minds to the logical science of what we have in front of us. I'm an agnostic who firmly believes that bluntly denying the evidence of evolution is a terrible waste of a mind.
For Darwinists a difficult chicken-egg dilemma exists because DNA relies on proteins for its production but proteins rely on DNA for their production. So which came first proteins or DNA? One must already be in existence for the other to be made.
@pandorachild I made a pretty straight forward comment. I understand that you hold onto your faith in materialism and naturalism. Why when someone poses an intelligent question don't you just say "I don't know" or better yet not reply at all. Heck even saying a single-celled organism landed on the back of an alien crystal is more respectable than chastising someone simply posting an OT comment.
@tuollihctsuj Do you understand the difference between faith and belief?
Your idea of an intelligent question only demonstrates your ignorance of evolution.
You are asking about Abiogenesis(how life began) whereas evolution is how life changed over time. I suggest you wiki/abiogenesis and read what real science has to say about it, also have a look at Miller–Urey experiments.
@pandorachild faith=i have faith in this chair to support me, therefore i will sit in it! (:D
belief=i believe this chair is not gonna bust up when i sit in it, so i believe i will sit down!
nuke waste eating bugs will take over, so no more belief arguments will matter anymore! & after we die we will be finding out everything & hanging out with others who made similar decisions to ours when we were living on the earth. good-deed-doers will keep it up, & vandals will have lit their abode on fire!
@pandorachild I'll check out the experiments per your recommendation. But if scientists don't have an explanation for the first life, then what's the point of speaking about new life forms? What I mean is if there's no determination on pre-existing life then there is no heading for the study of macroevolution. It's like a free for all. Belief in this case is unfounded without determined origin. Therefore it's faith.
@tuollihctsuj We used to think the world was created because the bible told us we where made( created) in the last 10,000 years.Then someone discovered that we actually evolved over time. Creationists argue that we have to know how life began but that isn't what we discovered and we don't have evidence for it yet, now there have been experiments that show we can actually get the building blocks of life via chemical interactions but we have a long way to understand creating life.
@tuollihctsuj Let me know what YOU think about the experiments and then answer this:
If evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone with out a motive for disagreeing with it, and evolution is only the study of how things change over time,
What does creating life have to do with how life changes?
@pandorachild I promise I'll look at the experiments and give a response, but tomorrow night cause it's late and I work in the am.
In your point here we need to define what type of evolution you're speaking about. Bacteria as we know mutate, and they always stay bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. This is not macroevolution. Natural selection has never been observed to create a separate type. We cannot use microevolution to explain macroevolution. later
@tuollihctsuj I can wait until later to explain speciation, but we have observed new species already, yes new bacteria and a few lizards( ring species) and there is abundant transitional fossils that prove this has happened in the past. Dna also confirms it.
"look this feather has wicked practical hooks on the end or something. I don't know how that happened ergo god."
Cloudedlogics 4 minutes ago
Attention Darwinists; On March 1,2012 Richard Dawkins stated "I can't be sure God does not exist" He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.
If Dawkins is unsure, there's no way on earth the darwinist stance is anything but psuedo science. This should put an end to the creation vs evolution debate. I'd suggest you formulate other possibilities on how we got here.
Meathead36 34 minutes ago
Dam, atheists hate being wrong lol. If we say the sky's blue, they're gonna say it's fucking purple -_-
paradisecityX0 5 hours ago
this last guy has no credibility because he's made a typical mistake. He tries to refute the logical understanding that a complexity that appears as design can't possibly have a designer, because we can easily show otherwise? Then goes on to say that that creationists believe in this "perfect world" this guy is half retarded. He doesn't even have the basic 101 understanding of the opposing view, and you people think "he" somehow is assured new genetic information spontaneously arises? get a grip
Reinpret 5 hours ago
we will all find out after we die. i might burn in hell.
101yayo 7 hours ago
This is ridiculous.
chinopisces 7 hours ago
OMG, Evolution is a more than just natural selection, There are MUTATIONS that happen, and are pasted down through generations. NATURAL SELECTION IS JUST ONE PART OF EVOLUTION.
kevin666demon 8 hours ago in playlist Debate
I do not know whether to laugh or cry watching this drivel.
AlfredJewe1l 9 hours ago
I cannot believe that in 21st century Britain their are people who argue the case for a fairytale explanation for the Universes existence and that this provides stimulating debate to some people..absurd..
AlfredJewe1l 9 hours ago
@AlfredJewe1l - you literally just described the origins of life according to evolution. You are a hypocrite it appears.
Reinpret 5 hours ago
I made it to the 2minute mark, what a load of shit.
HighPitchWOT 9 hours ago
Don`t give these fantasists air time. Let them spout their stupidity behind closed doors.
MrHaggis03 12 hours ago
"Jesus himself referred to Genesis as a real historiorrarrar."
CheDonJohn 14 hours ago
Why is my Television licence money funding this pile of absolute shit...
brainboxj 15 hours ago
There's no group of people on this planet whom I despise more than Creationists, not even Talibans, Nazis or Fascists. They represent the height of stupidity and bigotry, and they need to be stopped.
Kotlettbengt 16 hours ago 8
@Kotlettbengt Lol that comment just screams bias. Your opinion is invalid
paradisecityX0 5 hours ago
@Kotlettbengt 'There's no group of people on this planet whom I despise more than Creationists, not even Talibans, Nazis or Fascists'
Keep some perspective, Bentkettle. The Nazis killed six million Jewish people. The Taliban blow up girls' schools, and kill women for wearing bright clothes.
And how come paedophile RC priests do not get a mention in your list? They will be very upset!
Oldtinear 5 hours ago
@Oldtinear What are you trying to say?
paradisecityX0 4 hours ago
@Kotlettbengt, that's not a commendable position. Gas chambers, human experiments, and beheading of non-Muslims, is to you worth less scorn than someone who believes that God created the world? You're a scary person. You sound very much like the ones you accuse. I hope I don't ever see you in a position of power.
culpritification 4 hours ago
@Kotlettbengt Cool story bro
TheBigApple1994 3 hours ago
Old. Check. Glasses. Check. Comb over. Check. Pity education doesn't guarantee a person capable of rational and critical thought.
Funny too, that the young fellow in the suit felt that quoting the discovery of an 80 million year old dino tissue was evidence *for* his young earth claims.
I did really like the first woman, that despite holding religious belief she was able to see past that to where evidence leads, to arrive at a very rational conclusion.
Boo to bigots.
ulthea 19 hours ago
What a debate! 12 and half minutes of no science, then cut off the one guy who knows what he's talking about.
Angryson111 1 day ago 14
yes but then no religeon is true ? no one can prove allah satin buda exist ,, sorry for spelling i know its awful
TheDarkwisper 1 day ago
Wanna hear a joke? A young earth creationist says "Think about it"
TimTomIsAwesome 1 day ago
@TimTomIsAwesome Wanna hear another joke? An old evolutionist says we're monkeys
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 No one ever said people are monkeys, you moron.
Why don't you stick to bullshitting children, who have the capacity to be fooled by fuckwits like yourself.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 day ago
@MultiUniv3rsal That was a very mature response, good job :)
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 Like I give a fuck how mature a twit like you thinks I am.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 day ago
@MultiUniv3rsal I respect your opinion, you obviously don't respect anything but atheism. That's pretty sad
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 Great. How profound.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 day ago
Yes, let's bring in the evolutionary biologist in the final minute of an evolution vs creationism 'debate' and then cut him off to wrap up the show. This demonstrates how evolutionists get owned? That statement is as dishonest as the entire intelligent design argument. What an amateurish programme.
Haroog 1 day ago
This shit about 'clearly has a mind behind it' is always the same thing, always the same examples, and always the same bullshit.. and.. go read 'the blind watchmaker' please... also, the debate creationism VS evolution ENDED the minute evolution got proven by genetics (and by a whole other number of fields for that matter). People get soo confused just because it is called 'theory of evolution' that they believe the word 'theory' somehow discredits it as 'not yet proven'. kind of makes me sad :(
mikeee382 1 day ago
@mikeee382 I'm sorry u feel that way :)
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 honey... I'm more sorry you don't :(
mikeee382 12 hours ago
wow... we have found the missing link
Merveilleux202 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well i look at death as a combination of evoulotion and reincarnation where as soon as u die u can be reborn because every second 3 people die 5 are born which leaves two empty vessels which either generate two new people or we all started out as single celled organisms and had to work are way up the latter untill we became monkeys after you die from your monkey form then u get to the final stage which is human and once again once ur human you always remain human goerge carlin has been reborn
1mcashinrs 1 day ago
To all the Americans reading: This guy is Northern Irish and has the surname Robinson. This more than likely suggests that he is of the Ulster-Scot side of the community. The Ulster-Scots while emigrating to America were known as the Scotch-Irish. They also settled the region you know as the Bible Belt. Just thought you'd like to know...
CrazyHorse493 1 day ago
this guy got literally all his facts wrong.. evolution is a PROVEN FACT!
SatsumaRyan 1 day ago
@SatsumaRyan Defidently not true. Evolution is a scientific THEORY, nothing more
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 evolution is not a theory, that's a common misconception, it's been proven many times and is now considered to be a scientific fact
SatsumaRyan 1 day ago
@SatsumaRyan yes it is a theory. God's existance never could, nor ever will, be disproven; reality fact
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 it isn't a theory it has been proven many times, and God's existence can never be proven as He does not exist; fact
SatsumaRyan 1 day ago
@SatsumaRyan God's existance can't be disproven so much as life on other planets throughout the galaxy and beyond, it's impossible to truely deny it. There's no actual disproof; anyone who thinks they can "prove" the non-existance of an eternal existance so far beyond the human mind's comprehension, that is pure arrogance (actual fact)
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 by your logic that means i could tell you there was a magical unicorn at the centre of the universe that created everything with it's pony powers, you can't disprove it
SatsumaRyan 1 day ago
@SatsumaRyan That wasn't funny. Now you're just being immature and disrespectful
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 nope, that was just exposing how ridiculous it is that you have to believe in something that you can
RToad 1 day ago
@RToad that was just showing how ridiculous it is to say that you should believe in something just because you can't disprove it's existance. It was just drawing a metaphore for your god in a way you can see how ridiculous it is.
RToad 1 day ago
@RToad I'm sorry you feel that way :)
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 nope, I'm sorry you feel that way. You don't have to be sorry for me.
RToad 1 day ago
@RToad You should be sorry for blasphemy (which doesn't make any atheist look good, just more ignorant)
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 blasphemy? I just pointed out what SatsumaRyan meant with his argumentation. If you mean the sentence "It was just drawing a metaphore for your god in a way you can see how ridiculous it is." I should make it more complete for you "It was just drawing a metaphore for your god in a way you can see how ridiculous it is to believe in it."
RToad 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 I'M being immature?! you're the one that's stupid enough to believe in an imaginary floating man in the sky with magical powers
SatsumaRyan 12 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 'God's existance can't be disproven'
I agree - you cannot prove negative existence. You cannot prove that my garden does not contain invisible fairies.
However lack of evidence is significant. Because there is no evidence for God's existence, (and we would expect some) it is rational to conclude that he does not exist. Because there is no evidence for God's existence, it is irrational to believe he does exist.
Oldtinear 1 day ago
@Oldtinear Fairies, can u say something a little more mature? Why should everyone cling on to evidence? U love it that much? If everything in the universe was explained in scientific evidence, life would be dull, there be nothing more to learn or discover. Finding God is a very difficult challenge he gave us, u give up so easily. he wants us to find him on our own instead of having to babysit us, telling us every little thing. We dont need evidence to prove gravity, air, even love <3
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 you really think explaining existance and living is really just that simple? And eventually, supposing we can explain how everything came to be, you really think life would lose its meaning? You really think living life would be dull, and would have nothing more to learn or discover? If you really think that way, and if you believe in god, well then, life is over for you, since you already know how everything came to be.
RToad 1 day ago
@RToad You're basically twisting my words. God is God, we are tasked into discovering him, u give up so easily on something when evidence isn't blown right in front of ur face. & the reason there are many other planets (the rest in our solar system is lifeless because of the certain spots where they rotate around the Sun); because God wants us to explore the fantasic, and beauty of other worlds (the Galaxy & beyond) and see for ourselves, to individually learn how the universe works
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paradisecityX0 "If everything in the universe was explained in scientific evidence, life would be dull, there be nothing more to learn or discover." So you're saying that if you were able to explain how universe works through god it would be good, and learning how the universe works through science is bad? You're using two standards to evaluate the same thing (explaining how the universe works). That's not exactly fair or impartial.
RToad 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 By the way, EVERYTHING you decide upon in you day-to-day life is based on evidence. Or are you naive enough to believe in anything anyone tells you? Of course we value evidence. And it's not that we gave up easily on believing god. It's just that there hasn't been solid evidence to believe in him, and there's lots of arguments based on Christianity and the bible itself to believe otherwise.
RToad 1 day ago
@RToad Comparing God to fairies, calling it "rediculous", is very blasphemous. U do believe in a god, but not the real God; u worship evidence, evidence is your god. Nothing else matters to you; love, money, or even sex. The only thing that satisfies your cravings is EVIDENCE, can't survive without that evidence, can u?
paradisecityX0 23 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 Of course that if you want me to believe something I will require proof/evidence. And evidence is evidence, god is god. Evidence is palpable, tangible, you can see it. You can't see or touch god. Evidence and god are two completely different concepts. It's like saying that an orange is an apple.
And I called ridiculous the idea of believing in something just because you can't disprove it.
RToad 11 hours ago
@RToad You can see or touch air but it's clearly present in the world, not unlike the Holy Spirit really
paradisecityX0 5 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 Can't touch air? You breathe, don't you? You feel the wind blowing in your face, don't you? These are evidence that there is air. What's your evidence for the holy spirit?
RToad 5 hours ago
@RToad The Holy Spirit is the influential morality when we question our conciencenous; The Dark Spirit (Sin) is the negativity that influences our concienceness
paradisecityX0 4 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 Morality gives us the differentiation between right or wrong. We learn it from our parents. We learn from living together with other people, living in society. From there, it becomes part of our experience. Based on this experience we decide upon what we do. We learn that when we do things that are wrong we are punished. From this we decide that it isn't good to do bad things. It has nothing to do with the holy spirit.
RToad 4 hours ago
@RToad How is it that every society has the same basic moral laws, don't kill, don't steal. Did these rules simply evolve? How does something like right and wrong simply develop itself over time?
cirish123 2 hours ago
@cirish123 I can't say for sure, but behaviour we consider moral is also present in other social animals. Feelings such as attachment and altruism and bonding between individuals are present in chimpanzees and bonobos. One can even add evolution to the argument. These kind of sentiments evolved as a method of restraining individual selfishness and developing more cooperative groups, the benefits of living in groups outweighing the benefits of living alone.
RToad 1 hour ago
@cirish123 Thus, the idea of killing and stealing, which are selfish acts, would become inherently bad, because it is bad for the group. If it is bad for the group, then we shouldn't do it.
RToad 1 hour ago
@RToad Just cuz we can't see it, don't mean we can't feel it; the same is with air. The reason why there's so much shit in the world today is cuz of sin's presence. The reason the world hasn't destroyed itself by now, is the presence of the Holy Spirit that's keeping it from destruction and world-wide chaos.
paradisecityX0 4 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 We CAN feel air. You feel air blowing against your face. That's called wind. You feel air when you go outside from a heated room. And the reason the world is so deep in shit but hasn't been destroyed yet is because people aren't stupid enough to do it the quick way (i.e. nuclear war. But we are getting close to it...), but are stupid enough to fight over what they think is right (i.e. wars caused by difference of religion, culture or resources) without reasoning with one another.
RToad 4 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 how dare you say that nothing matters to me? You don't even know me.
Anyway, I can prove that you live by evidence as well, I don't even have to leave my chair. All you have to do is open your eyes.
RToad 11 hours ago
@RToad My eyes are wide open, ur just too blind to see; and cling on to what u think u see, but don't see the bigger picture
paradisecityX0 5 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 He I can do that too. Comparing evolution to fairies, calling it "blasphemous" is very ridiculous. You do believe in eveidence, but not the real evidence; you worship god. nothing else matters to you; love, money, or even sex. The only thing that satisfies your cravings is GOD, can't survive without that god, can you? Please come up with a better argument than "my belief isn't ridiculous, yours is". It can be spun both ways and therefor isnt a valid argument.
tnort222 2 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 Furthermore, I don't even know why we're having this conversation. Religion and Science belongs to two different realms of existance. Religion should revolve about dealing with spirituality and philosophy. Science revolves about the physical world.
RToad 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 Hi there
I am sorry to come along and get all involved, but I thought you seemed like you could be rational.
"You're basically twisting my words"
Then you said
"because God wants us to explore the fantasic, and beauty of other worlds...see for ourselves...."
Aren't you twisting God's words? The bible very clearly describes a God who wants your commitment to him, to recognise him for his works in return for spending an eternity with him.
Doesn't mention exploration at all.
ulthea 19 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 'Why should everyone cling on to evidence?'
In years past people did not respect evidence. If the weather was bad and crops failed, or if animals were struck by disease, people looked for harmful spirits as a cause. They would find an ugly woman, blame her, and burn her as a witch. Are you saying you want to return to those days?
Oldtinear 21 hours ago
@Oldtinear false evidence explaining monkey fables didn't end those barbaric days, modern science has
paradisecityX0 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paradisecityX0 'false evidence explaining monkey fables didn't end those barbaric days, modern science has'
Yes, and modern science is based on evidence.
Can I sell you Buckingham Palace for $50? Of course, I have not the slightest evidence that I own it. But according to you, lack of evidence is a marvelous thing!
Oldtinear 20 hours ago
@SatsumaRyan These guys think that the word THEORY means "unproven thing" while theories like evolution and relativity are proven to be working...
Hack3r91 1 day ago
Wow, these creationists don't know what they're doing.
kalleskit 1 day ago
@kalleskit Yes we do; it's evolutionists who "think" they know what they're doing and spend their lives trying to make sense of these monkey fables (or is it rodents, lizards maybe, or is it fish today), only for their evolution theories to end up going in circles
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 You're still living in a lie aren't you, though? We have to find the answers of life together, by debating and busting eachother on our failing facts.
kalleskit 1 day ago
@kalleskit Nah, I'm living the truth, living reality. You're living science fiction and conspirecy theories that ends up going in circles
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 You are ever so wrong.
kalleskit 5 hours ago
@kalleskit I'm sorry you feel that way :)
paradisecityX0 4 hours ago
@paradisecityX0 please explain me how exactly are evolution theories go in circles. Otherwise your argument is just invalid.
RToad 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paradisecityX0 please explain me how exactly are evolution theories go in circles. Otherwise your argument is just invalid.
RToad 11 hours ago
Well all your explanation comes from science and not from your bible....how convenient You Christian...every time Science do their work and find something as evidence then you start claiming that is in the bible....hahahahaha...fucking lunatic...
TheLalaGOD 1 day ago
@TheLalaGOD Dude u fuckin faggot! The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD ...U KNOW HIM?? GOD? Tink he knows more about scencince den u! hahah Ur deluded!! PWNED!!!!!!
VoteHarveyDent 1 day ago
@VoteHarveyDent god doesn't know more than you.
teenspirit1 1 day ago
@VoteHarveyDent You can say whatever you want lunatic..still your Bible keeps on the record to explain and describe the origin of life and universe falsely....Simply because The bible is The word of a Man....
TheLalaGOD 1 day ago
I gave up watching when he said Genesis is true.
TheShikobe 1 day ago
Watching Creationist talk about there beliefs makes me chuckle.
MascotOfAGeneration 1 day ago
Poor guy's wasting his life on a delusion. Oh well, his choice I guess.
jonisaok 1 day ago
@jonisaok Poor evolutionists wasting their life worshipping a theory, only to go in circles. Oh well, your choices I guess...or influences
paradisecityX0 1 day ago
@paradisecityX0 We don't worship theories. We study them and conduct experiments to test their validity. Theories which fail to stand up to scrutiny are dumped or replaced by better ones. Darwin theorised that living things are shaped by their environment through the process of evolution by way of natural selection. Evolution can be seen when bacteria mutate to become drug-resistant and then pass on that trait to the next generation. All life that passes on traits can evolve.
Jibbs1980 1 day ago
So much wrong in this...
J3urkasaur 2 days ago
Wow that goes saying that God made us the modern people we are now? For if it was you would you trust that? Would you? People refuse to hear the other side our side for a conversational debate. If God wanted a good protecter of the Earth why us? All we have done is make weapons from a stick and a stone to a weapon to kill all life on Earth. If we were His choice then we have all failed this so called "God".
RammPie123 2 days ago
Wait how was this on the bbc?
JohnAdamsHarvard1992 2 days ago
@COMALiteJ I'm hardly surprised. The Christian faith is just slightly less immoral than that of Islam in my opinion.
ConfuzedSushi 2 days ago
someone mislabeled their video :D
baladonian 2 days ago
OYFG . With a title like this one you would expect a Hitchslap or something ,but these people are reterds...like all creationists. DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING...and FR.
jonerkinch 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
jesus christ lock this damn guy up in an institution never to be let out!!!
ImposterDaniel 2 days ago
Comment removed
ImposterDaniel 2 days ago
Given the title, I was rather disappointed to find it was instead more of the usual "I shout louder and give no proof, but I don't let you speak for more than 2 seconds ergo I win". There was NO evidence in here for creation, NO evidence for a god even, and very no "owning" at all,
1337isdead 2 days ago
Funny I've yet to see an Evo win a debate with a creationist?
ShaneyCunn84 2 days ago
@ShaneyCunn84 delusional, but its to be expected from the ignorant I guess.
pandorachild 2 days ago
@pandorachild I can say that exact comment to you also :) But i wont because I'm not an Atheist...
ShaneyCunn84 1 day ago
@ShaneyCunn84, By your logic, a person who scores 300 points in a single game of Putt-Putt™ Miniature Golf has won and scored a perfect game. He should brag about it to all his bowling league buddies.
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
@COMALiteJ Putt-Putt™? LOL
ShaneyCunn84 1 day ago
'Evolutionists Get Owned By Creationists on BBC TV Show ' NOT REMOTELY POSSIBLE
winston2015 2 days ago
This is a terrible choice of panel. McIntosh and Robinson are professional creationists - it is what they spend most of their days doing.
Anne Atkins, to my knowledge, is an author and actress, and I've never heard her talking about evolution before! Jeremy Pritchard wastes what little time he has with rhetoric instead of refuting the points presented.
Poor showing...
CastleAnthraxx 2 days ago
That guy just thumps the rest of them, its like a head master schooling very ignorant young school children.
45manlyman 2 days ago
Comment removed
spiralstatic87 2 days ago
The devil put Phil Robinson there to trick us.
nandatebayo666 2 days ago
I do not discount evolution per se, but it cannot start from dead matter. The experiments tried to replicate the come about of one-cellers by matter mixing it and under electricity failed. The complexity issue is also there. The one cellers had suddenly a DNA, which complexity is so unlikely to form out of random matter mixed under diverse circumstances. I somewhat do believe in evolution in biology, but we consist of more than what is described as dead elements of matter.
trupiil 2 days ago
@trupiil The Miller experiment in 1995 proves life can start from non-living chemicals. There is also the experiment where scientist made a living virus with dna from all 21 scientists.
The complexity issue has been debunked over and over. With every claim of complexity is a scientists that shows how it was formed with ease.
SuperMrAtheist 2 days ago
@SuperMrAtheist so a really smart scientist in a laboratory created something that wasn't even life and you conclude that life could just start from non-living chemicals? So you conclude that because it takes intelligence to create something not as complex as life that therefore intelligence is not needed for life to start? I have jackets for sale that tie in the back if you are interested.
IBelieveMyBible 2 days ago
@IBelieveMyBible That wasn't even life? Yes it was life. I sorry if you don't understand any of the experiments but that's your fault. It doesn't pay to be stupid.
SuperMrAtheist 2 days ago
@SuperMrAtheist so what life did Miller intelligently create using non-living chemicals?
IBelieveMyBible 2 days ago
@IBelieveMyBible This is funny. Most people would look up the answer on their own. BUt not you.lol I'm sorry but you are a moron. You clearly didn't listen to anything I said. You are ignoring facts so your weak faith doesn't fall apart. You are showing your real colors
SuperMrAtheist 1 day ago
@IBelieveMyBible, Do you really live up to your username? Do you really believe your Bible? ALL of it? Every word? Yes or no?
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
@trupiil That's not evolution, that's abiogenesis. Evolution says nothing about the emergence of cells. Science has no theory of abiogenesis.
spoddie 2 days ago
@spoddie “...there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’...”
G. A. Kerkut Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton
IBelieveMyBible 2 days ago
@IBelieveMyBible, What you just did is called “quote mining,” and others have already been smacked down here for quoting those very same quote mines.
Here, lemme show you why that fails:
This four-word clause appears intact and uninterrupted a FULL DOZEN TIMES in a KJV Bible (not counting Apocrypha):
→“… there is no God….”←
Don’t believe me? Look ’em up: Deuteronomy 32:39; I Kings 8:23; II Kings 1:16, & 5:15; II Chronicles 6:14; Psalm 14:1 & 53:1; Isaiah 44:6,8 & 45:5,14,21
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
@IBelieveMyBible You selectively quote Kerkut. Here is what he REALLY said'
“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the “Special Theory of Evolution” and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. ' continued...
Oldtinear 2 days ago
@IBelieveMyBible 'On the other hand there is the theory that all of the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the “General Theory of Evolution” and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.'
So Kerkut says evolution can be demonstrated, but abiogenesis is an unproved working hypothesis.
Oldtinear 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IBelieveMyBible I think others have adequately refuted you.
spoddie 2 days ago
@spoddie what you call abiogenesis was for many years commonly referred to and included in the theory of evolution by many scientists.
IBelieveMyBible 2 days ago
@IBelieveMyBible 'what you call abiogenesis was for many years commonly referred to and included in the theory of evolution by many scientists'
Nope. Please name some of these 'many scientists'. Abiogenesis is a work in progress. A scientific theory is evidence-based, falsifiable, predictive and contains an explanation of underlying causality. Abiogenesis is nowhere near this stage & no scientist has ever said it was. Evolution is simply the theory that species change over time.
Oldtinear 2 days ago
@spoddie “Evolutionism is the doctrine that the universe, including inorganic and organic matter in all its manifestations, is the product of gradual and progressive development." E. Olson Geologist at the Univ. of Chicago & J. Robinson
IBelieveMyBible 2 days ago
@IBelieveMyBible, Geologists don’t get to define evolution.
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
@IBelieveMyBible 'Evolutionism is ...'
The giveaway is that 'evolutionism' is a crap word invented by Young Earth believers. Any statement which follows 'Evolutionism is...' will be garbage, and your is.
Oldtinear 2 days ago
@trupiil
You seem to be a thinking person. Rather than sound like an arrogant evolutionist and tell you that there is 100% certainty in the science of evolution, I just want to encourage you to view the evidences for yourself and decide the strength of the theory. Chromosome 2 and endogenous retroviruses are a good place to start.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if after reviewing the evidence, you will consider it to be a solid theory.
Look into abiogenesis after understanding evolution.
andiconda3 2 days ago
@andiconda3 if one has to start with Chromosome 2 and endogenous retroviruses to come to understand evolution then I can pretty much discount evolution as having any validity. Creationists refer to natural law and commonly observed phenomena to support their point of view. All "christian" cults ignore the most abundant evidence from the easy to understand verses in the Bible and build complex doctrines from obscure, difficult passages. This is exactly what evolution has been reduced to...a cult.
IBelieveMyBible 2 days ago
@IBelieveMyBible: “if one has to start with Chromosome 2 and endogenous retroviruses to come to understand evolution then I can pretty much discount evolution as having any validity.”
Do you even know what endogenous retrovirus (or, more properly, endogenous retroviral insertions into DNA) are, and what the big deal is about HUMAN Chromosome #2?
Another one is Vitamin C. If you deny evolution, prove it: eat (or drink or inject) NO Vitamin C AT ALL in ANY form for six months.
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
As an agnostic I I do not support biblical creationism, as I see it flawed. But, the whole theory on life is huge, it is a monstrous problem. Evolutionary theory claims that the first one cellers came about out of dead matter and evolved into humans. Now, philosophically, you have a problem here. Out of dead matter, you can arrange it as you like, you will not get a sensitive, feeling, conscious being. It is not possible. Dead particles cannot be arranged and evolve into feeling beings.
trupiil 2 days ago
@trupiil: “Evolutionary theory claims that the first one cellers came about out of dead matter and evolved into humans.”
Evolutionary theory doesn’t claim any such thing. If you’re going to try to dispute evolutionary theory, learn what it ACTUALLY says FIRST.
Oh, and your final statement is demonstrably wrong. We humans (and all other life) are PROVEN to be made from non-living particles such as individual atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc., arranged as molecules.
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
@COMALiteJ Let me say I am sorry. I thought most evolutionists claim all life developed out of dead matter, where am I wrong here? You correctly name the chemicals found in our body. What does then evolutionary theory claim on the origin of life? Does it only calim its evolution, not its origin to be known?
trupiil 2 days ago
@trupiil, First off, do you deny that atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the various trace minerals, are all NON-LIVING particles? You said that living things CANNOT be assembled from NON-LIVING particles. YOUR words, NOT mine.
Those atoms are assembled into molecules. Are the molecules of water that make up nearly ¾ of our bodies’ mass ALIVE? Yes or no? What about the other molecules? Are even DNA molecules THEMSELVES alive? Yes or no?
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
@COMALiteJ These are interesting questions and I have several approaches. I have no definite results for these questions and I am looking into Kant and Schopenhauer and Klages to find answers. Let me ask you: Did you exist 10 years from now?
trupiil 2 days ago
@trupiil, Secondly:
“What does then evolutionary theory claim on the origin of life?”
Nothing. Each scientific theory is itself about ONE thing. The Theory of Evolution is about HOW species EVOLVE over time. It says NOTHING about how LIFE BEGAN.
This is not a weakness. It’s just how science works. Do we condemn Pythagoras’s Theorem of the Hypoteneuse of a Right Triangle because it doesn’t tell us how to properly conjugate a Latin verb? Same “logic.”
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
@COMALiteJ This is a respectable approach to me. I heard many times claims from scientists that life came about out of dead matter, so I attributed it on evolutionary theory... As I said I do think it is contradictory to assume a sentient being did evolve out of dead matter.
trupiil 2 days ago
@trupiil: “I heard many times claims from scientists that life came about out of dead matter, so I attributed it on evolutionary theory”
Many scientists do theorize that, but it is a different theory (or, rather, group of theories): ABIOGENESIS, NOT evolution.
Evolution works just fine peachy keen whether or not abiogenesis is also true. Evolution doesn’t speculate on nor care where the life came from. It only deals with what happened once life ALREADY existed.
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
I cannot conceive the whole reason why people argue about this. Tree's a million years ago are different than tree's today. If you cant accept that than you blindly disregard your history. Evolution doesn't contradict the possibility of god but it does contradict religious notions of how we came to be. What is there to argue about?
teewilson333 2 days ago
@teewilson333: “Evolution doesn't contradict the possibility of god but it does contradict religious notions of how we came to be. What is there to argue about?”
True. Evolution does NOT say that there is/are no god(s). It does, however, provide a viable explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that doesn’t REQUIRE any god(s), and THAT is what has the religious fundamentalists so upset.
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
READ THE QURAN PEOPLE AND READ IT IN ARABIC WITH THE TRANSLATIONS AND IF YOU READ THE QURAN IN ENGLISH AND ARABIC YOU WILL GET A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THE QURAN IN ARABIC YOU WILL GET THE PURE UNDERSTANDING
mirza4life 2 days ago
@mirza4life Yes, you get the understanding that says terrorize all non-believers, and kill those who commit apostasy, in addition to comparing all non-believers to that of cattle, in addition to misogyny against women. I've read it in Arabic and I've read it in English. It's the same crap spreading the same immoral doctrine, and it ruins societies that it reaches. Immorality at it's finest, and it's death will be celebrated by myself and many others.
ConfuzedSushi 2 days ago
@ConfuzedSushi, You tell ’em!
In addition to the Quran, another scripture that Muslims hold sacred says that if any apostates preach in any city known to them, and people there LISTEN to the apostates, the ENTIRE CITY has to be the nearest equivalent of NUKED available in the technology of the day! Every living thing therein SLAIN, and the ENTIRE CITY and EVERYTHING IN IT BURNED and NEVER REBUILT!
Guess what scripture that Muslims hold sacred says this?
Deuteronomy Chapter 13.
COMALiteJ 2 days ago
The only "owning" creationists are doing is of the followers who close their minds to the logical science of what we have in front of us. I'm an agnostic who firmly believes that bluntly denying the evidence of evolution is a terrible waste of a mind.
SmilodonCondor 3 days ago
The name of the program show partiality, very suspicious.
EliosMoonElios 3 days ago
The host! O.o <3 The little talk, stupid...
Hermoor 3 days ago
i really don't like the title of this...it sounds like some sort of slavery
InnerMittenSignal 3 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
For Darwinists a difficult chicken-egg dilemma exists because DNA relies on proteins for its production but proteins rely on DNA for their production. So which came first proteins or DNA? One must already be in existence for the other to be made.
tuollihctsuj 3 days ago
@tuollihctsuj Dilemma? Your ignorance is outstanding, how many times do we have to tell you theists what evolution means?
pandorachild 3 days ago
@pandorachild I made a pretty straight forward comment. I understand that you hold onto your faith in materialism and naturalism. Why when someone poses an intelligent question don't you just say "I don't know" or better yet not reply at all. Heck even saying a single-celled organism landed on the back of an alien crystal is more respectable than chastising someone simply posting an OT comment.
tuollihctsuj 3 days ago
@tuollihctsuj Do you understand the difference between faith and belief?
Your idea of an intelligent question only demonstrates your ignorance of evolution.
You are asking about Abiogenesis(how life began) whereas evolution is how life changed over time. I suggest you wiki/abiogenesis and read what real science has to say about it, also have a look at Miller–Urey experiments.
pandorachild 3 days ago
@pandorachild faith=i have faith in this chair to support me, therefore i will sit in it! (:D
belief=i believe this chair is not gonna bust up when i sit in it, so i believe i will sit down!
nuke waste eating bugs will take over, so no more belief arguments will matter anymore! & after we die we will be finding out everything & hanging out with others who made similar decisions to ours when we were living on the earth. good-deed-doers will keep it up, & vandals will have lit their abode on fire!
InnerMittenSignal 3 days ago
@InnerMittenSignal troll me later this guy seems sincere in his ignorance.
pandorachild 3 days ago
@pandorachild & you are insincere in yours (starwars 'emperor' voice! :) btw i don't troll.
InnerMittenSignal 3 days ago
@InnerMittenSignal okay well you just gave me a bad example then used the word belief properly in the preceding paragraph.
pandorachild 3 days ago
@pandorachild I'll check out the experiments per your recommendation. But if scientists don't have an explanation for the first life, then what's the point of speaking about new life forms? What I mean is if there's no determination on pre-existing life then there is no heading for the study of macroevolution. It's like a free for all. Belief in this case is unfounded without determined origin. Therefore it's faith.
tuollihctsuj 3 days ago
@tuollihctsuj We used to think the world was created because the bible told us we where made( created) in the last 10,000 years.Then someone discovered that we actually evolved over time. Creationists argue that we have to know how life began but that isn't what we discovered and we don't have evidence for it yet, now there have been experiments that show we can actually get the building blocks of life via chemical interactions but we have a long way to understand creating life.
pandorachild 3 days ago
@tuollihctsuj Let me know what YOU think about the experiments and then answer this:
If evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone with out a motive for disagreeing with it, and evolution is only the study of how things change over time,
What does creating life have to do with how life changes?
pandorachild 3 days ago
@pandorachild I promise I'll look at the experiments and give a response, but tomorrow night cause it's late and I work in the am.
In your point here we need to define what type of evolution you're speaking about. Bacteria as we know mutate, and they always stay bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. This is not macroevolution. Natural selection has never been observed to create a separate type. We cannot use microevolution to explain macroevolution. later
tuollihctsuj 3 days ago
@tuollihctsuj I can wait until later to explain speciation, but we have observed new species already, yes new bacteria and a few lizards( ring species) and there is abundant transitional fossils that prove this has happened in the past. Dna also confirms it.
pandorachild 3 days ago