the term which explains Craig's deductive argument is called begging the question, basically it says that if one of the premises is not 100% true, him saying the universe has a cause, and you saying pushing things makes them go faster, then the conclusion is wrong, it is the nelie problem, basically, p1: a ball is red p2: an apple is red conclusion: that ball is an apple, it is a type of circular logic, i am right because i am right so i am right, that is begging the question
what i hate about this arguement is that you cannot say something cannot be created from nothing, for never in all human history has anything really being created, just reasembled to some other shape. We know that something was created because we are here but we can't possibly know where it came from, maybe it was nothing or maybe it was the flying spaghetti monster we can't know
The speed of light? Is light constant? Are neutrinos faster, as recent reports have suggested? or is it just a blip in the system? We'll have to wait and see. It just goes to show how careful we have to be with questions of science. So far all the things that "begin" to exist that we could test and demonstrate do have a cause. No one has done a test to the contrary. There are a lot of mathematical theories though. Though at some stage these would have to be verified in the physical world.
@DonswatchingtheTube "The speed of light? Is light constant? Are neutrinos faster, as recent reports have suggested? or is it just a blip in the system?"
According to CERN it was a blip " It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was [sic] due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame."
If it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, then it's not always true that objects pushed forward go faster. Therefore your argument might be valid, but it's not sound (that means your conclusion follows from the premises, but one or more of the premises are false). In order for you to "disprove" WLC's argument, you'd have to show why one or more of his premises is false. This is pretty basic stuff; it's surprising how many people misunderstand it.
@mcnairfan78 It's showing why WLC argument is poor, not really disproving it. No-one can until we totally understand the universe. Like he says in the video, WLC is hiding his God in the gaps of human knowledge.
@Undertaker3879 If you think that the Kalaam Cosmological Argument means "hiding his God in the gaps of human knowledge," then you don't understand the argument. I'm not trying to be mean--just saying. In order to say that an argument is poor, you have to be able to show one or more of three things: 1. The conclusion is no different than the premises; 2. One or more of the premises is false; or 3. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
@mcnairfan78 "If you think that the Kalaam Cosmological Argument means "hiding his God in the gaps of human knowledge," then you don't understand the argument. "
There is also a lot of Begging the Question and Special Pleading.
Also Einstein hated being associated with atheists - especially people like Thunderf00t - Einstein believed there was an intelligence behind the universe (not a personal god) and infact he accepted the arguments put forward by Craig in this video. Why doesn't Thunderf00t mention this?
@atheistrocker100 Einstein also believed that quantum physics couldn't be true, but we have by now thoroughly demonstrated that it is (that's why we go by evidence, rather than beliefs, in science regardless of who is doing the believing). What's your point?
How do you know that Einstein were right? Myself think he was wrong, because I believe things can travel faster than light. For example. About 120 years ago, NOBODY THOUGHT THAT YOU COULD TRAVEL FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF SOUND. Today that is a mere experience... Today, we can push things faster than the speed of light, but who knows. Saying that nothing can break that, is an IGNORANT fool, that live in bubble, afraid to break his/her own rules, of cozyness...
@bravoaya If something is pushed forward at the speed of light, then what happens? Just as a remark on the presenters infallible truth... Then what happens? Either you can't push it forward or?
@bravoaya You cannot travel at the speed of light in the first place, so the question is meaningless. Relativity states that as you increase speed, you increase mass, so more energy is needed for acceleration. As you get closer and closer to light speed, the same amount of force ("push") causes less and less acceleration, so that you never actually get to light speed. Reaching light speed would require an infinite amount of energy.
@bravoaya Thinking that Einstein was wrong does not make him wrong. Learn the physics and prove him wrong. Believeing just get's you back to religion. And that's not science.
@bravoaya There was no theoretical basis for the belief that you couldn't go faster than the speed of sound. People just observed that it was difficult to get there, and made up fantasies about what would happen if you tried to cross it. In contrast, we have a firm scientific theory, which has been tested and verified, saying we can't go faster than light. We need to find new evidence that contradicts this and changes our understanding of the universe before we could say otherwise.
Dr. Craig hasn't created 241 accounts. Because he has nothing to do with DrCraigVideos or YouTube, because that's where the unsophisticated atheists huddle.
@hejcoze For someone who cares so much about logically proving that the Christian God is responsible for the creation of the universe, the first place he would go would be where the 'unsophisticated atheists huddle'.
Whats funny is that Craig is regarded as one of the elite in Christian apologist debaters. Just lol.
@Explodymatt Also, you'd need another object already travelling faster than light to push the can of spam, so the argument does kind of break down. But the implication of this false reasoning just shows WLC's argument is just as false.
@Youlube32 Old earth creationsists believe god creatd the earth, but don't reject the scientific theories such as the big bang; and just say god did it.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, 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)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
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 concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is 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
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.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
How dare you hurt my brain with "numbers" (yeah, I saw your squiggles and gibberish). I don't want to learn! I want to know things! All things! All at once! I want a "1 answer fits all" sort of answer, and ignore any question that falls outside it. Someone please recommend a religion for me.
Creationist LOVE to contend that everything came from God/Allah/whatever. OK then, if everything came from a creator, and everything is created, then who or what created God? And while we are on THAT line of thinking, who or what created the person/place/or thing that created God?
in order to push an object traveling at light speed, wouldn't that force need to travel FASTER than light speed? I agree that Craig has great flaws in his formulas, but this example seems a bit stretched. feel free to refute this
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
To these people, I just quote Condescending Wonka: "So you're condescending and witty on the internet? I bet that confidence translates well into the real world." Instead of trolling, destroy your enemies quietly and logically. They love it when you stoop to their level. Makes it easier to hate and dismiss you. Instead, make them question themselves by showing them in their own terms how wrong they are.
@Mogley52 ALTHOUGH MY HEAD IS FULL OF CHEESE (Stilton), I no longer BLA, BLA, BLA...... sun dried tomatos. BLA, BLA, BLA, MORE CAPS LOCK BOLLOCKS. BLA, BLA, BLA FETA WITH GREEK OLIVES, DUH... FREE NAPKINS
BLA, BLA, BLA I NEED SOMEONE TO PAY ATTENTION TO ME SO DESPERATLY!!!
BLA, BLA, BLA JESUS SOMETHING-OR-OTHER, ETC, ETC, ETC...
PLEASE WON'T SOMEONE JUSTIFY MY EXISTANCE BY READING THIS MINDLESS GARBAGE.
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)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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 I'm evolving. So are you, and yet somehow, miraculously, our vital organs still function. All species are in a process of transition, but while a particular animal is alive, they are simply the animal they are, as whole and complete as any other animal. Homo erectus, say, was part of a lineage that led to homo sapiens, but in life the homo erectus was, simply, a homo erectus. Make sense?
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
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 concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
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 Have you not actually watched this clip? Look at your argument, look at the clip. Oh yeah, that's right - whadaya know you're another pseudo-intellectual ...
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
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 concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
If there is a cosmic speed limit, then it follows that premiss 1 of your argument is not true in all cases Thunderf00t. It is not always true that if you push an object, it moves faster.
I've seen all of the videos individually and at the very moment where the editor says "wtf" it was spliced on a video where he previously explained in further detail all the premises and so forth. Bad form on the part of the poster / and or maker of this video. If your going to try to disprove God then dont attempt to do it with slander and miscommunication. Try to do it without even mentioning God and try to prove your view. Is'nt easy is it?
"Try to do it without even mentioning God" ...why? That...doesn't make ANY sense! Why should he have to hobble his argument and not talk about THE THING he is disproving? That's like saying 'Try to describe a monkey without talking about it'. Its just nuts.
And that wasn't even his main point. He was simply showing the flaws in he speakers hypothesis and then using that as a spring board to discuss the scientific method of reasoning.
im so glad for these youtube clips you make. have you actually tried explaining your argument face to face... my mom forced me to go to a pentacostal church when i was younger and im atheist for certain now. There Is No Logic when you argue a point to a christian, or any religeous person for that matter.
"Things don't come into being from nothing" I would suggest viewing A universe from nothing here on youtube, a lengthy video, but very informative and exciting :)
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
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)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
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 concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
If you only had a clue. They already proved it's possible to have speeds faster than light. Science works only because it was made to work.
The directed function of hydrogen inside of us alone proves that we have a Maker greater than all of the matter in the universe consisting of hydrogen and such elements, most of which are essential working parts inside of us that we cannot live without.
Having 17 essential parts in us without a Maker is impossible and the elements still need to be ordered.
You did remember to stick with those "faster than light" discoveries long enough to hear that they made a mistake and that they hadn't found faster than light speeds, right?
@JungleJargon Thats not really proof of divine intervention at all. Its quite simple in fact. If hydrogen wasn't present, then life would not have developed with hydrogen being a key part. Atoms would not have bonded on the base level required to form 'life' as we understand it in a format that requires hydrogen to be present in those levels. God is used to explain what science cannot. Why? because the human psyche is too fragile to NOT 'understand' everything on some level.
@Voltaire152 Why do you have to believe that objects made or refined what you are when you have absolutely no evidence of such an irrational and illogical thing.
Saying there is a maker of all directed function, working parts and mechanisms is very logical and rational.
@Mogley52 There are no "kinds" in species classification. Creationists use it to further their bs. And there is no war between evolutionists, just discussion between what had more of an impact random mutation or the environmental changes etc... Gene frequencies change over time if they didnt people would be exact copies of their parents. If that simple thing is true then evolution is true.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
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)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
The funny part is that the Catholic Church,. for years. put out the message that the Earth as we know it, was created sometime between about 3000 and 5000 BC. That is so laughable. Creationism is, once again, based on faith, and the furthest thing from the truth. We know, from incredible amounts of scientific evidence that the world developed much different than the Catholic Church or the bible has stated. Creationism is about faith....and, in my opinion...is based on a fictional story..LOL
WTF did he say in the last few seconds, something about the holy spirit is the best proof he has that xianity is true? Fail. It's really quite pathetic, as WLC is supposed to be one of the most educated and convincing of Xian apologists, along with Norman Geisler, Ravi zacharias, Josh mcdowell etc
Why don't people use Hume's ideas (I think it's Hume) that we can't know causation to refute this argument? We can't say that we know every event has a cause because we cannot ever empirically know that causation actually exists. I've never seen anyone use that argument to counter this.
cause its bullshit
MrMelonMuffins 7 hours ago 5
Still does not address GOD, only straw men. Sick garbage will not from hell you saved, only Christ.
hobblehonker 7 hours ago
pfft. Craig... the anointed sovereign of bullshit.
mouthyweasel 19 hours ago 2
the term which explains Craig's deductive argument is called begging the question, basically it says that if one of the premises is not 100% true, him saying the universe has a cause, and you saying pushing things makes them go faster, then the conclusion is wrong, it is the nelie problem, basically, p1: a ball is red p2: an apple is red conclusion: that ball is an apple, it is a type of circular logic, i am right because i am right so i am right, that is begging the question
Kcfromsca 19 hours ago
what is it with you and spam?
great video :)
anthemofadam 1 day ago
what i hate about this arguement is that you cannot say something cannot be created from nothing, for never in all human history has anything really being created, just reasembled to some other shape. We know that something was created because we are here but we can't possibly know where it came from, maybe it was nothing or maybe it was the flying spaghetti monster we can't know
azur0x 1 day ago
The speed of light? Is light constant? Are neutrinos faster, as recent reports have suggested? or is it just a blip in the system? We'll have to wait and see. It just goes to show how careful we have to be with questions of science. So far all the things that "begin" to exist that we could test and demonstrate do have a cause. No one has done a test to the contrary. There are a lot of mathematical theories though. Though at some stage these would have to be verified in the physical world.
DonswatchingtheTube 1 day ago
@DonswatchingtheTube "The speed of light? Is light constant? Are neutrinos faster, as recent reports have suggested? or is it just a blip in the system?"
According to CERN it was a blip " It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was [sic] due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame."
johnrainrules 16 hours ago
If it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, then it's not always true that objects pushed forward go faster. Therefore your argument might be valid, but it's not sound (that means your conclusion follows from the premises, but one or more of the premises are false). In order for you to "disprove" WLC's argument, you'd have to show why one or more of his premises is false. This is pretty basic stuff; it's surprising how many people misunderstand it.
mcnairfan78 1 day ago
@mcnairfan78 It's showing why WLC argument is poor, not really disproving it. No-one can until we totally understand the universe. Like he says in the video, WLC is hiding his God in the gaps of human knowledge.
Undertaker3879 1 day ago
@Undertaker3879 If you think that the Kalaam Cosmological Argument means "hiding his God in the gaps of human knowledge," then you don't understand the argument. I'm not trying to be mean--just saying. In order to say that an argument is poor, you have to be able to show one or more of three things: 1. The conclusion is no different than the premises; 2. One or more of the premises is false; or 3. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
mcnairfan78 1 day ago
@mcnairfan78 "If you think that the Kalaam Cosmological Argument means "hiding his God in the gaps of human knowledge," then you don't understand the argument. "
There is also a lot of Begging the Question and Special Pleading.
johnrainrules 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my videos for a rebuttal of WLC and his objective morality argument.
/watch?v=R8h6twvzKcA
Thanks.
gerhitchman 1 day ago
Also Einstein hated being associated with atheists - especially people like Thunderf00t - Einstein believed there was an intelligence behind the universe (not a personal god) and infact he accepted the arguments put forward by Craig in this video. Why doesn't Thunderf00t mention this?
atheistrocker100 1 day ago
@atheistrocker100 Einstein also believed that quantum physics couldn't be true, but we have by now thoroughly demonstrated that it is (that's why we go by evidence, rather than beliefs, in science regardless of who is doing the believing). What's your point?
Dilandau3000 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atheistrocker100 "and infact he accepted the arguments put forward by Craig in this video. Why doesn't Thunderf00t mention this?"
Because it is a lie.
johnrainrules 1 day ago
Typical Thunderf00t deceiving people. William Lane Craig is NOT a creationist. You atheists are so untrustworthy.
atheistrocker100 1 day ago
what was the clip of the human talking to the alien from?
mydesirescometrue 1 day ago
...part 37?
CGSmij08 2 days ago
"If…she…weighs the same as a duck…she’s made of wood!"
rgrannell1 2 days ago
How do you know that Einstein were right? Myself think he was wrong, because I believe things can travel faster than light. For example. About 120 years ago, NOBODY THOUGHT THAT YOU COULD TRAVEL FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF SOUND. Today that is a mere experience... Today, we can push things faster than the speed of light, but who knows. Saying that nothing can break that, is an IGNORANT fool, that live in bubble, afraid to break his/her own rules, of cozyness...
bravoaya 2 days ago
@bravoaya meant can't push things or objects faster than the speed of light...
bravoaya 2 days ago
@bravoaya If something is pushed forward at the speed of light, then what happens? Just as a remark on the presenters infallible truth... Then what happens? Either you can't push it forward or?
bravoaya 2 days ago
@bravoaya You cannot travel at the speed of light in the first place, so the question is meaningless. Relativity states that as you increase speed, you increase mass, so more energy is needed for acceleration. As you get closer and closer to light speed, the same amount of force ("push") causes less and less acceleration, so that you never actually get to light speed. Reaching light speed would require an infinite amount of energy.
Dilandau3000 2 days ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@bravoaya Thinking that Einstein was wrong does not make him wrong. Learn the physics and prove him wrong. Believeing just get's you back to religion. And that's not science.
krispern 2 days ago
@bravoaya do you know the science behind the concept of a constant speed of light? It is in almost no way related to the speed of sound...
nlbarrie 2 days ago
@bravoaya There was no theoretical basis for the belief that you couldn't go faster than the speed of sound. People just observed that it was difficult to get there, and made up fantasies about what would happen if you tried to cross it. In contrast, we have a firm scientific theory, which has been tested and verified, saying we can't go faster than light. We need to find new evidence that contradicts this and changes our understanding of the universe before we could say otherwise.
Dilandau3000 2 days ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
nyan spam!!!! lol
rufuguru 2 days ago
That folks, it's what's known as being caught in a false dichotomy!
Ganrlyn 3 days ago
Comment removed
MLangan86 3 days ago
Dr. Craig hasn't created 241 accounts. Because he has nothing to do with DrCraigVideos or YouTube, because that's where the unsophisticated atheists huddle.
hejcoze 3 days ago
@hejcoze For someone who cares so much about logically proving that the Christian God is responsible for the creation of the universe, the first place he would go would be where the 'unsophisticated atheists huddle'.
Whats funny is that Craig is regarded as one of the elite in Christian apologist debaters. Just lol.
LondonIrishRover 2 days ago
0:50 It took me a few moments to realize that this wasn't Mahmud Ahmadinedschad
Razzfazz87 3 days ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
Thunderf00t, your spam can argument has a flaw that the argument from first cause does not.
Your premises are actually correct, and the conclusion that pushing a moving can of spam will result in a faster can of spam is also correct.
However, you have a third hidden premise that a can of spam moving at the speed of light can be found. This is the one that is false.
This in no way invalidates the rest of your reasoning.
Otherwise, great video :D
Explodymatt 3 days ago
@Explodymatt Also, you'd need another object already travelling faster than light to push the can of spam, so the argument does kind of break down. But the implication of this false reasoning just shows WLC's argument is just as false.
ImJoeYeah 3 days ago
Thunderf00t, your spam can argument has a flaw that the argument from first cause does not.
Your premises are actually correct, and the conclusion that pushing a moving can of spam will result in a faster can of spam is also correct.
However, you have a third hidden premise that a can of spam moving at the speed of light can be found. This is the one that is false.
This in no way invalidates the rest of your reasoning.
Otherwise, great video :D
Explodymatt 3 days ago
Wait Wait I know the Answer because they are fucking stupid and it's funny to laugh at their retarded Idea.. Er wait I mean Intelligent Design?
shadowVX 3 days ago
William Lane Craig isn't a creationist, you dumb shit.
MrParanormalist 3 days ago
@MrParanormalist Yes, he is. He is not the sort of creationist that believes in a 6000 year old Earth, but he is a creationist.
SonOfNye 3 days ago
@MrParanormalist Yes he is, you intellectually challenged cretin.
MermaFX 3 days ago
@MermaFX No he's not, you self-righteous fuckwad.
MrParanormalist 2 days ago
@MermaFX He actually does accept evolution, so in that regard he is not a creationist.
Youlube32 2 days ago
@Youlube32 "that regard" is irrelevant, and whether or not one accepts evolution has no bearing on whether or not they are a creationist.
MermaFX 1 day ago
@MermaFX Really? I thought creationism entailed a rejection of evolution. So are deists technically creationists then?
Youlube32 1 day ago
@Youlube32 Old earth creationsists believe god creatd the earth, but don't reject the scientific theories such as the big bang; and just say god did it.
MrYakushi12345 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, 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 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is 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 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 4 days ago
watching this video will make people's brain dumber.
Voltar143 4 days ago
Hooray for flying SPAM!!!!!!!!!!!
Theenemy38 4 days ago
I still like his red suspenders.
NBM397 4 days ago
How dare you hurt my brain with "numbers" (yeah, I saw your squiggles and gibberish). I don't want to learn! I want to know things! All things! All at once! I want a "1 answer fits all" sort of answer, and ignore any question that falls outside it. Someone please recommend a religion for me.
Lairdesangfroid 5 days ago
@Lairdesangfroid No need for a religion. The answer is 42. Now move on.
TheSngcoach 5 days ago
@TheSngcoach You earned a gold star for that one.
Lairdesangfroid 4 days ago
The people who laugh at creationists are in such a huge minority that who cares why they laugh?!
drjackflash 5 days ago
@drjackflash I don't really think the people that believe in evolution are in the minority man. I think creationist are definitely the minority
Azrael1486 5 days ago
@drjackflash Does it really matter how many of us there are when the evidence is overwhelmingly in our favor?
Zero9656 5 days ago
Creationist LOVE to contend that everything came from God/Allah/whatever. OK then, if everything came from a creator, and everything is created, then who or what created God? And while we are on THAT line of thinking, who or what created the person/place/or thing that created God?
Thumbs up please.
AeonPhoenixZero 6 days ago 3
@AeonPhoenixZero How about an infinite regression? God created by God Created by another God in an infinite expanding universe.
shimwah 5 days ago
@shimwah Personally, I like the cyclical universe theory myself. Not that the big bang theory isn't any more or less valid.
AeonPhoenixZero 5 days ago
@AeonPhoenixZero Their answer to that is "nothing created god, he´s eternal".
My counter argument is "Well if god can be eternal, why can´t matter?"
That usually shuts them up on that point; they can´t explain and try to discretely move towards a new subject. Science & reasoning FTW!
LoverofLiszt 3 hours ago
@LoverofLiszt Yes, what you have described is the fallacy of Special Pleading, and Kalam falls apart because of it.
johnrainrules 2 hours ago
@LoverofLiszt That's sort of where I was going with that:)
AeonPhoenixZero 1 hour ago
Never mind his 'science', I don't like his braces! (I think you say suspenders in America?)
JimTLonW6 6 days ago
in order to push an object traveling at light speed, wouldn't that force need to travel FASTER than light speed? I agree that Craig has great flaws in his formulas, but this example seems a bit stretched. feel free to refute this
pathologicaldoubt 6 days ago
haha it's Hovind® 2.0
from "how can a dog produce a non-dog?" to "whatever begins to exist has a cause"
benatssu 6 days ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 days ago
Comment removed
TheAutisticGuitarist 6 days ago
OMG SpamCat!
SuperWikiMan 6 days ago
0:00 - 0:59 seconds...the ramblings of a crazy man.
2000 years ago they called this person Jesus...
DIGITALSCREAMS 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 HEY EVERY ONE.... LOOK AT ME!!
I'M THE CAPS-LOCK WANKER... BLA, BLA, BLA... LOADS OF TEXT BUT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF ANY INTEREST TO SAY. BLA, BLA, BLA...... SCIENCE PROVES RELIGION....BLA, BLA, BLA..... BIBLE SAYS IT'S TRUE SO IT'S GOTTA BE.......BLA, BLA, BLA.
I'VE LEARNED HOW TO COPY & PASTE BULL-SHIT FROM DU INTERNET.....AIN'T I SMART?...BLA, BLA, BLA.
STUPIDITY & IGNORANCE ROCKS!!!!
LET'S ALL ABUSE THE COMMENTS SECTION WITH RELIGIOUS HORSE SHIT POSING AS SCIENCE...
squidfanny 6 days ago 2
To these people, I just quote Condescending Wonka: "So you're condescending and witty on the internet? I bet that confidence translates well into the real world." Instead of trolling, destroy your enemies quietly and logically. They love it when you stoop to their level. Makes it easier to hate and dismiss you. Instead, make them question themselves by showing them in their own terms how wrong they are.
RestrictThis5 5 days ago
@Mogley52 ALTHOUGH MY HEAD IS FULL OF CHEESE (Stilton), I no longer BLA, BLA, BLA...... sun dried tomatos. BLA, BLA, BLA, MORE CAPS LOCK BOLLOCKS. BLA, BLA, BLA FETA WITH GREEK OLIVES, DUH... FREE NAPKINS
BLA, BLA, BLA I NEED SOMEONE TO PAY ATTENTION TO ME SO DESPERATLY!!!
BLA, BLA, BLA JESUS SOMETHING-OR-OTHER, ETC, ETC, ETC...
PLEASE WON'T SOMEONE JUSTIFY MY EXISTANCE BY READING THIS MINDLESS GARBAGE.
squidfanny 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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 1 week ago
@Mogley52 I'm evolving. So are you, and yet somehow, miraculously, our vital organs still function. All species are in a process of transition, but while a particular animal is alive, they are simply the animal they are, as whole and complete as any other animal. Homo erectus, say, was part of a lineage that led to homo sapiens, but in life the homo erectus was, simply, a homo erectus. Make sense?
Kaddywompous 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 1 week ago
Glad to see a new 'why do people laugh at creationists?' video. Thnx Tfoot!
Clifton100 1 week ago
@matsarch no, in science, it isn't widely accepted until its a published, peer reviewed repeatable experiment, which has indeed been repeated.
JohnSnowstorm 1 week ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Ha ha! What a waste of your time, rummaging around in confused ignorance!
jollyjarvis 1 week 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 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Have you not actually watched this clip? Look at your argument, look at the clip. Oh yeah, that's right - whadaya know you're another pseudo-intellectual ...
jollyjarvis 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 1 week ago
Spam warp, engage!
TheTokkin 1 week ago
If there is a cosmic speed limit, then it follows that premiss 1 of your argument is not true in all cases Thunderf00t. It is not always true that if you push an object, it moves faster.
mojorhythm 1 week ago
I've seen all of the videos individually and at the very moment where the editor says "wtf" it was spliced on a video where he previously explained in further detail all the premises and so forth. Bad form on the part of the poster / and or maker of this video. If your going to try to disprove God then dont attempt to do it with slander and miscommunication. Try to do it without even mentioning God and try to prove your view. Is'nt easy is it?
Zerox001001 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zerox001001 "If your going to try to disprove God" "Try to do it without even mentioning God "
I love it when religious people try to enforce these absurd double standards when they are caught saying something illogical and untrue.
But then WLC's creationist apologetics is based on the fallacy of Special Pleading.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@Zerox001001
"Try to do it without even mentioning God" ...why? That...doesn't make ANY sense! Why should he have to hobble his argument and not talk about THE THING he is disproving? That's like saying 'Try to describe a monkey without talking about it'. Its just nuts.
And that wasn't even his main point. He was simply showing the flaws in he speakers hypothesis and then using that as a spring board to discuss the scientific method of reasoning.
Reason.
projectorraven 1 week ago
im so glad for these youtube clips you make. have you actually tried explaining your argument face to face... my mom forced me to go to a pentacostal church when i was younger and im atheist for certain now. There Is No Logic when you argue a point to a christian, or any religeous person for that matter.
flotowcameron 1 week ago
"Things don't come into being from nothing" I would suggest viewing A universe from nothing here on youtube, a lengthy video, but very informative and exciting :)
zangetsu2k8 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 1 week ago
anyone has a link the the video on 8:40
infernoboi92 1 week ago
If you only had a clue. They already proved it's possible to have speeds faster than light. Science works only because it was made to work.
The directed function of hydrogen inside of us alone proves that we have a Maker greater than all of the matter in the universe consisting of hydrogen and such elements, most of which are essential working parts inside of us that we cannot live without.
Having 17 essential parts in us without a Maker is impossible and the elements still need to be ordered.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
@JungleJargon No, nothing has been proved to have speeds faster than light in a vacuum. You don't know what you're talking about do you?
kaga13 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
@JungleJargon
You did remember to stick with those "faster than light" discoveries long enough to hear that they made a mistake and that they hadn't found faster than light speeds, right?
Hellraiser1026 1 week ago
@Hellraiser1026 They said it was verified that speeds faster than light were found.
It is not my fault if they changed the results without nearly as much publicity.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
@JungleJargon Thats not really proof of divine intervention at all. Its quite simple in fact. If hydrogen wasn't present, then life would not have developed with hydrogen being a key part. Atoms would not have bonded on the base level required to form 'life' as we understand it in a format that requires hydrogen to be present in those levels. God is used to explain what science cannot. Why? because the human psyche is too fragile to NOT 'understand' everything on some level.
Voltaire152 1 week ago
@Voltaire152 Why do you have to believe that objects made or refined what you are when you have absolutely no evidence of such an irrational and illogical thing.
Saying there is a maker of all directed function, working parts and mechanisms is very logical and rational.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
@Mogley52 There are no "kinds" in species classification. Creationists use it to further their bs. And there is no war between evolutionists, just discussion between what had more of an impact random mutation or the environmental changes etc... Gene frequencies change over time if they didnt people would be exact copies of their parents. If that simple thing is true then evolution is true.
MrGpt2010 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 tissues, organs, reproductive systems 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 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn'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, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 1 week ago
Commas, bitches! They're important!
CorneliusSneedley 1 week ago
The funny part is that the Catholic Church,. for years. put out the message that the Earth as we know it, was created sometime between about 3000 and 5000 BC. That is so laughable. Creationism is, once again, based on faith, and the furthest thing from the truth. We know, from incredible amounts of scientific evidence that the world developed much different than the Catholic Church or the bible has stated. Creationism is about faith....and, in my opinion...is based on a fictional story..LOL
paulfornasier 1 week ago 2
William Lane Craig: logic fail
WTF did he say in the last few seconds, something about the holy spirit is the best proof he has that xianity is true? Fail. It's really quite pathetic, as WLC is supposed to be one of the most educated and convincing of Xian apologists, along with Norman Geisler, Ravi zacharias, Josh mcdowell etc
tekbarrier 1 week ago
Transwarp spam speed! I damn near fell out of my chair laughing
lowpinglag 1 week ago
WLG's first premise is a direct fail. Not only does he have to prove that things can come from nothing, he has to prove that it has a cause too.
Good luck staring into space WLG.
blackman6270 1 week ago
Why don't people use Hume's ideas (I think it's Hume) that we can't know causation to refute this argument? We can't say that we know every event has a cause because we cannot ever empirically know that causation actually exists. I've never seen anyone use that argument to counter this.
scrustle 1 week ago
Fish in a barrel
SevenRiderAirForce 1 week ago
Kind of long-winded, but definitely roots out the failings of "common sense" appeals as the reason WLC is full of crap.
ATL45 1 week ago
If every event has a cause, then why would the universe have a beginning?
VerumAdNauseam 1 week ago
Even if this guy was for WLC i couldn't listen to his voice.
repthe9011 1 week ago
Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause
Premise 2: God does not have a cause
Conclusion : God does not exist
blackrod2000 1 week ago