thanks for your cool videos :) i have long been an atheist with no thought of ever coming back to 'god', and im glad someone's trying to open some eyes
"Only an idiot would believe that DNA just happened"
They have yet to show DNA formation, but RNA has been empirically proven to form naturally (it's thought DNA can form complimentary to RNA afterwards). The first cells used RNA as do many extremophiles today. Also, there are forms of primitive RNA that can self-replicate and self-encode/translate, so the answer to the "chicken or the egg?" question is: both at the same time.
I'm not sure if anyone noticed this, but the reptile-bird is incorrect. Deinonychus and archeopteryx did not evolve into birds.The evolved from a common ancestor to birds. I think epidexipteryx is now considered a basal avian. Many more theropods are probably there that shouldn't.
Evolutionists deny the facts, not creationists. The transitional forms are still missing and evolution also denies to undeniable scientific laws. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics and the believe by evolutionists that life came from non-life. God and His word are still true.
@mRUSSIA "The transitional forms are still missing"...keep telling you that to preserve your precious little delusion.
"The 2nd law of Thermodynamics and the believe by evolutionists that life came from non-life"...still not a contradiction.Physicists as well as biologist don't see any contradiction here.Only the deluded build up a wannabe contradiction where there is non.
@teddansonLA Have you ever heard of late Dr. Henry Morris? He understood the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics more than you or most evolutionary scientists could ever dream of.
@mRUSSIA I very much doubt it. I looked him up - he believed the craters on the moon were due to a battle between Satan and the angels.
In any case, if he believed that evolution is somehow in conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then he was either clueless about thermodynamics, or evolution (or most likely) both. His wikipedia entry suggests the latter.
Just for a laugh, give me your version of the 2nd law and why evolution contradicts it.
@teddansonLA There are many reputable scientists who believe in Creation who got their PhD's from even secular universities. We are not going to get anywhere if we get into a intellectual debate. Therefore I am going to go for your conscience. Creation proves there is a Creator and your conscience tells you right from wrong.
Did you know the Bible considers lust the same as adultery and hatred the same as murder? Have you ever lied, stolen anything regardless of it's value?
@mRUSSIA I am myself, a reputable scientist who does not believe in creation. Yes, I did know about Jesus saying lust was the same as adultery. I don't agree with him, and I do not believe an all powerful God would care about such trivial things - for they are trivial. I have lied, and stolen and done lots of bad things, but none of them bad enough to warrant an eternity in "hell". I am not a child, you'll have to do much better than that to scare me into sharing your beliefs.
@teddansonLA Well, at least you have heard the gospel and you can't plead ignorance on judgement day. I don't know you but I don't want to see you spend eternity in hell because your intellect refuses to let you believe God's word. There are many scientists who believe in the word of God(Jason Lyle(astro-phycisist) Georgia Purdom(molecular biologist) and Steve Austin(geologist) just to name several out of many. Just come to the Savior with an open, humble heart and let him reveal himself to you.
@mRUSSIA question, how do you KNOW any of this bible stuff or jesus stuff is even true? i have very good reasons (all of them proven to be facts) to believe why all the things science says. but why should i believe anything any religion has to say? they have produced no tangible results that better the lives of me and those around me, but technology has. so how do you know any of this stuff is real and you arent just being overly hopeful that there is somewhere we go when we die?
@teddansonLA Have you ever taken the Lord's name in vain. We are all guilty criminals and have broken God's law(The Ten Commandments). There is a judgement day coming whether you think so or not. God's word says "All liars, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers will spend eternity in the "Lake of Fire."Revelation 20:15.
I have some good news for you, Jesus Christ God's Son came to this earth and died on the cross for our sins. Then He rose from the dead.
@mRUSSIA "I have some good news for you, Jesus Christ God's Son came to this earth and died on the cross for our sins. Then He rose from the dead. "..dunny first makes people with some flaws, then he makes laws that actually condemn these flaws and which makes them go to hell forever.Then he sends himself as a human to sacrifice himself to himself to take away the sins he put in his creation at the beginning.Now that seems very logical to me.
@teddansonLA We are guilty criminals in God's court of law and Jesus paid our fine so now God can let us go free. We are saved by grace through faith, not of 'being good.' It is a gift from God. God word says "No one is good."
So if you will repent(turn from your sins) and put your trust in Jesus Christ, you will be saved.(Have eternal life). Please be open to God's word and do this today. You are not guaranteed tomorrow. Please repent, confess Jesus as your Lord and Savior today.
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
@gastarbeiter1 So much science for this uncivilized stupid brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
The knowledge of the system of creation accumulated by man through his untiring efforts is next to nothing. Although science has taken great steps forward, there is an utter disparity between man, what man has learned, and what he still does not know.
@1tabligh No you never use science.You don't even think for yourself you still only copy and past from this strange little webpage al-islam.Please you have been refuted by dozens of people but you aren't interested in learning as you keep making these copy and paste answers all the time.So do us all a favour and get lost.
@gastarbeiter1 As far as those periods of the past are concerned that are shrouded in total darkness, for all we know, thousands or even millions of human species superior to the present one may have existed. Such species may yet come into being in the future.
@1tabligh Hmm...funny that this hasn't anything to do with my comment.May I conclude that you have a program that posts these comments for you?Or are you really just a praybot?Now please get off even for other creationists you are a shame.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
@gastarbeiter1 We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express order and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
@1tabligh still no connection to my comments.Do you even try?Just troll of if you don't want an honest discussion from man to man not this copy and paste bot you seem to use.
@gastarbeiter1 If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation. Our thought and perception and unable to soar and take flight, and the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe. Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence.
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "again copy and paste"!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?
Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
@1tabligh "Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow"...if the horizon of your mind is only the text of the webpage you copy from then mine then mine is wider as everything you can imagine.
Now if you don't want an honest discussion with your OWN words just get out of here.
Accident cannot perform the task of knowledge, moreover, that is never commingled with ignorance in any way. If, as the materialists imagine, the world of nature did not arise from knowledge and will (despite the signs of creativity and inventiveness apparent in its every phenomenon) then man, too, in order to attain his purposes would have to abandon his advance on the path of knowledge and imprison himself in ignorance in order to conform to the ignorance of nature itself.
@gastarbeiter1 The aim and the purpose pursued by man in the compounding of a whole series of material elements (as, for example, in constructing a building, a car, or a factory) relate to his own being; that is, the ultimate purpose and aim is the maker himself, not the thing made.
"I'm sorry, but that sounds like something a creationist would say"
1tabligh is a dirty muslim. These people cannot be reasoned with.
Did you know ALL(96%) rapes in Norway over the past 5 years have been by muslims? One muslim told his 12 year old victim, "I can do this. Women have no rights in my religion"
That's how unreasonable and irrational these people are. Never trust a non-westernized muslim!
@trueleroix Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
@1tabligh What, matter has ignorance? You expect matter to know something? Is what feasible? What is precise? Precise by what standard? It's almost as if you think the universe displays some kind of design. Sorry if i assume too much, but it sounds like you believe that.
@trueleroix How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
@trueleroix you think the universe displays some kind of design
___
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
@trueleroix Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
@trueleroix I start to think its a bot.Its the same copy and paste stuff from a webpage called al-islam all the time.You won't even get one single direct reply.
@trueleroix If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation. Our thought and perception and unable to soar and take flight, and the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe. Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence.
@trueleroix If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant? Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
@1tabligh Don't call me ignorant. First explain to me what is wrong with all of these questions that you ask. Once you have proven that you realize how poorly formed your loaded questions are, then you can ask me a legitimate question, which I will answer. PS, did you write to that website yet asking them to apologize for feeding you all of this garbage? They owe you that at least.
@1tabligh Basically your argument is: You don't understand the designer, thus there is a designer. Think about it, but don't kill yourself when you realize how stupid that is.
Consider the universe together with its sun, moon, stars and Zodiac, which revolve perpetually in accordance with a definite decree and judgement to bring about numerous benefits to the denizens of the earth, Can any man with a discerning mind think that such regulated plan and design on which depend the order and organisation of the universe, can come about without the Omniscient Designer (GOD)?
@trueleroix If someone says that mere chance has brought this about, why does he not say that same thing in connection with a computer? He sees all its component parts manufactured according to a definite plan, each part coupled with the other to serve the needs of the people, And if' he makes the same remarks about the the computer, then what opinion about him will people entertain on hearing his remarks?
Surely this is a brainless stupid fellow with an asinine mind.
@trueleroix Does he not see how the matter and the nature of the computer, which is itself inert and devoid of intellect, would by itself come into being with perfect appropriateness to the requirements of the people?
Can any reasonable man admit it?
Will he deny it in the case of' a computer comprising a little planning and ingenuity, that it is not a piece of workmanship planned and designed,
@trueleroix and YET will be able to say that this stupendous UNIVERSE which is full of projects beyond human ken, functioning for the entire earth's surface and its contents, has come into being by mere CHANCE without Skill, Design or Measure?
Has man the means to see right if anything goes wrong with the sky, just as the computer parts of machinery get out of order?
@1tabligh "and answer the question instead?!"..answer this.Why do you just copy from that webpage and don't want an honest discussion?Are you intellectually unarmed?
"Should I understand from your statement that Islam offers for substantiating the existence of God some universal evidence which may be considered even by those who are not committed to any religion, such as the atheists and the agnostics? If this is what you mean, what is that evidence?"
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
@1tabligh "Talk to me like a scientist, and ask me!"...I asked you already a lot of questions and never got real answers as you are not able to think for yourself but just copy from that webpage which doesn't fit to anything I asked you.So come back when you have grown a brain of you own.
@gastarbeiter1 Yes, he is just parroting a web site, and he keeps doing this stupid, "answer the question" thing. The answer to all of his questions is usually, "no", but he doesn't like that.
@gastarbeiter1 You just got a real reply. THE ANSWER IS NO. Don't try to do a role reversal on this thing. It is a very sad and desperate move, like going to this ridiculous web site that you do.; Don't write me anymore.
@gastarbeiter1 After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction,
This being the case, those who ascribe all the beings in the vast system of the universe, together with their complex and mysterious properties to the *blind* and unconscious forces of matter, are, in reality, doing violence and injustice to logic and human intelligence and waging open war on the truth.
@1tabligh No? and please can you just use your own words instead of just copying from that webpage.I am getting bored.I have heard all of that comments.
So much science for this *fanatic* wannabe a darwinian monkey!
Give your attention for a minute to a typesetter in a printing house. He expends great care and attention when he is setting the letters required for one page of a book, but when he reviews his work, he comes across small errors arising from some slight inattention.
@1tabligh I am still bored.I had all this I answered honestly back then and just got more stupid quotes from that deluded webpage.Don't you have a brain of your own?
It would be still more absurd to claim that a hundred kilograms of molten lead, forced through a tube, should emerge in the form of ready made letters; that a fierce tempest should then pick up those letters and arrange them in a particular and regular order on thousands of metal plates;
@gastarbeiter1 and that these plates should result in the printing of a thousand-page book containing numerous precise scientific discussions and attractive, alluring expressions, all this without the slightest error occurring.
@gastarbeiter1 What do the materialists and the duped wannabe fanatic darwinian baboons who deny God have to say concerning the emergence of the variegated forms of the letters of creation and the precise and complex relations that regulate the heavenly bodies, natural creation and all material objects?
Are the letters of creation (i.e., the atoms and the particles that comprise them) in any way lesser than the letters used in printing?
@1tabligh "Are the letters of creation (i.e., the atoms and the particles that comprise them) in any way lesser than the letters used in printing? "...circular reasoning in calling them particles of CREATION to prove creation is circular.also a false analogy.Using a thing that we know we have invented(letters) and a thing that you only suppose that it has been created.
plus still just copying from that bullshit webpage.You should try another source at least.
@gastarbeiter1 Is it in any way acceptable that these orderly, meaningful letters, this precise and well-organized geometry, the astounding forms depicted in the book of creation, should be the work of ignorance and aimlessness?
That a great and wise power, a miraculous ordering principle, should not be present in the very texture of the world? Do not all phenomena arise from a manifestation of consciousness, awareness and power?
@gastarbeiter1 If the power hidden in the depths of matter does not arise from the universal intelligence, what factor guides it to the elaboration of forms, to an amazing regularity and harmony?
If that power is an agent devoid of intelligence and conscious will, why does it never fall prey to disorder, and why does its compounding of matter never result in collision and destruction?
@1tabligh "If that power is an agent devoid of intelligence and conscious will, why does it never fall prey to disorder"...what is the purpose of a comet?How do you know that it must be intelligence rather then just the structure of our universe.
I only see a person unarmed on intelligence.Try again with you own thoughts some day....
@gastarbeiter1 It is here that belief in the creator bestows meaning on all existence and endows the world with sense and content. Those who possess deep vision and clear thought perceive plainly that an infinite power assures the preservation of the order of the world by means of firm supervision and absolute sovereignty.
Surely the vilest of animals, in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.
@1tabligh "hose who possess deep vision and clear thought perceive plainly that an infinite power assures"..just plain delusion and brainwashing.The lazy minded just says: god did it.Poor praypuppy
@gastarbeiter1 In the past, everyone used to guide and control his own riding beast, and he was similarly accustomed throughout the ages to see an owner or supervisor in control of every piece of property, every scrap of land, every group or organization. Now matters are different. Today's man has gained access to remote-controlled satellites, electronic devices and pilotless planes, all equipped with automatic instruments and gadgets.
@gastarbeiter1 Everyone knows that it is possible to construct a well equipped machine that will react in appropriate ways to various contingencies, without the maker of the device being present or visible. We, therefore, no longer have the right obstinately to deny the existence of God simply because His hand is not visibly at work in the affairs of creation—visibly, that is, to our deficient understanding and knowledge.
@1tabligh "How is that for a wannabe monkey?"How disrespectful of a person to insult someone else although his own horizon is not bigger then the webpage he copies from.And even the analogy is fallacious.ÜPlease try at least another place to copy from.I am getting even more bored....
@gastarbeiter1 In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
@1tabligh "Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?"...yes.Ask quantum physics.And please stop copying from that webpage and try to get your own brain to work.
@transtlantic When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality.
The deficiency lies in all the languages of the world, None of them have a word to define the gender for God. The word He, She, Thou, Thy, It....etc are all merely substitutes, they do not represent the gender of the One who does not have a gender.
why would anyone shout "GENDER"? are you confused about your gender?
Actually my language has a word to define the gender of gods. Deus or Deusa. the god that you call "God" is translated to Deus, in my language. the Monotheistic female gods are called: Deusas.
The BEST pronoun to define "God" or any other god is actully...It. Because you are referring to fantasies with no defined gender, in English.
Why do you assume that your fairy named God doesn't have a gender? have you seen it?
@transtlantic Things are compound elements atoms etc, made of parts. Every compound elements etc possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God. Your argument for disbelief is foolish, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay.
Things are made out of matter. Not "atoms, etc". they are ONLY made out of atoms. which make parts. You are creating a false dichotomy. tsk tsk...
Atoms do possess shape, and do radiate colour. Which changes if you change the properties of the atom or atoms (molecules). and no...it does not "attact" the senses. Senses implies stimulus, not "attraction".
Thus no god exists.
How do you know what can or not be God? you are just making shit up.
@transtlantic For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses for, He is not a thing-which is compound elements etc or created. If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being compound and created and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator.
We can perceive billions of light years of space...or tiniest of the sub atomic particles...but not "God"? lolol unlikely. You are just making shit up.
"resembled"? do you know what everything resembles? ofc not. you are ignorant of many things. You are just making shit up.
You are just presenting delusion. Unsubstantiated claims. Thus...I can dismiss the retarded buy bull induced shit unproven crap that you claim.
How do you explain AB resistance w/out using evo theory?
@transtlantic God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause; He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him, the eternal source of being. The law of causality applies uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their existence.
God doesn't exist. You have no evidence for It. Does it is irrelevant what you try to talk about It. All you produce is assumptions. You can't have truth without evidence.
"not a phenomenon"...by definition it implies that It is a Fantasy then.
You are just full of shit.
Law of causality does not stop randomness, does intelligent supernatural direction does not exist.
You are just full of shit.
Materialism precedes your fantasies regarding a god named God.
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link."
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes
Causality also allows for randomness. Throwing dice is caused by hands that throw a pair of dice, but the results are obviously random. The very act of throwing is subject to randomness. Thus randomness is everywhere
Everything is material. Is there evidence for Supernatural? or "meta material"? ofc not. you are full of shit
Why do you ignore multiple causes causing different effects?
Fire is made out of three things. three things cause fire. Thus it's multiple, never one. thus no God
@transtlantic However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it.
So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?
@transtlantic just leave him...he will just go on posting nonsense that he copies from his beloved webpage of al-islam.Never seen more bullshit..well maybe on AiG
@gastarbeiter1 Were the typesetter to take a handful of letters and scatter them over the plate instead of carefully arraying them in rows, is it at all possible that the resulting page should be correct in its contents and free of error?
@1tabligh The answer to your "question" is The universe was not made by chance, and nobody has ever shown any evidence of any design, whatsoever. Why did you ask such a stupid question. Have you not seen this question destroyed time and time again? The rest of your comment leads me to believe that English is not your first language, so I understand why it does not make sense to me. Another question is, why would you get information from a website that offers such garbage?
@1tabligh The answer to your "question" is The universe was not made by chance, and nobody has ever shown any evidence of any design, whatsoever. Why did you ask such a stupid question. Have you not seen this question destroyed time and time again? The rest of your comment leads me to believe that English is not your first language, so I understand why it does not make sense to me. Another question is, why would you get information from a website that offers such garbage?
@1tabligh The answer to your "question" is The universe was not made by chance, and nobody has ever shown any evidence of any design, whatsoever. Why did you ask such a stupid question. Have you not seen this question destroyed time and time again? The rest of your comment leads me to believe that English is not your first language, so I understand why it does not make sense to me. Another question is, why would you get information from a website that offers such garbage?
@1tabligh 1. The argument of an ignorant... what? An ignorant what? "An ignorant" is not a thing.
2. You are the one dodging questions: you only respond to question with questions, personal attacks & ~flat earth claims.
3. We know the function of screws... replace that with 'part' and the argument still falls down because you haven't provided evidence that points to the universe being created as most machines are.
4. Most animals have testicals on the outside; that's a BIG design fail.
@PalulukanMakto What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@1tabligh Every scientist, actually. Again, you do not seem to understnad the difference between structure (which may have the appearance of design) and actual design. Crystals are created with structure, but they aren't designed that way. I can create crystals with the shit in my kitchen.
It's a concept that a kindergartener can understand. Either give me an actual response, or I'm done with this conversation; I won't talk AT people, it doesn't get anything done.
@PalulukanMakto Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
@gastarbeiter1 The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim, purpose and will that cannot be denied. It cannot be supposed that the ceaseless process of action and reaction advances in a fixed direction without the intervention and supervision of an intelligence.
@gastarbeiter1 The relationship between the parts of the things made is, therefore, a non-natural relationship; by establishing that relationship, the maker wishes to attain his own purposes and to relive his own deficiencies, for all the efforts of man are a movement from potentiality to actuality and deficiency to perfection.
@1tabligh so you stilll copy from that webpage.Are you able to form a single consistant sentance for yourself or are you just drooling over the keyboard?
"The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim, purpose and will that cannot be denied"
Yeah? I'm denying that right now. Prove your creator hypothesis, and back it up with as much math as say, superstring theory which explains why our universe is finely tuned.
It's too bad you don't apply your own philosophy, "all cause needs shit," to your Allah/Elohim/Yahweh/Supernatural entity hypothesis
Also something else to ponder... a "Deep Thought" if you will. JR> Human DNA is 98% the same as chimpanzee DNA what keeps them from JR> being somehow related, also the water content of a watermelon and JR> a cloud are approximatley the same, what keeps them from being JR> related :)
Hahaha cdk007 you're retarded.I have been studying dinosaurs for several years.. I kno about these animals that look transitional. Just because an animal has gene sequence doesn't mean it evolved. Here's how it works.
God creates life. Environs change, and since God was still in creative mode then, God made another version of the creature with much of the original gene only changed little so it was better suited to the conditions. there are similarities between animals,God creates with order.
@GeserRC A guru is a spiritual leader. I don't believe the spiritual exists, I don't have a single guru unless you're misusing the word and mean something else. I'm not aware of a single atheist dogma. Given that I am an atheist, I'm clearly missing out on our dogma, please inform. I don't think there are any.
@GeserRC Darwin is not a guru, he was a sexist, racist douche bag. I couldn't care what he said. He discovered truth, that is all that mattered. I don't know who Haeckel even is and Dawkins lost all respect when he said atheists should call themselves "brights." Even if I respected these people it's because of evolutionary theory not because of my atheism. There are many atheists who don't believe in evolution.
A dogma is "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority
@GeserRC as incontrovertibly true: "the Christian dogma of the Trinity."" No atheist worth your time decides anything based on incontrovertible truth, everything I believe in is subject to change if necessary. Incontrovertible truth is the pathway of a foolish man. Feel free to try again. I believe that God does not exist and I don't believe any of these things.
Not only "gods" are the subject of religious faith. Atheists believe in evolution as a phenomenon. Phenomena, such as a thunderstorm - also had been an object of worship by ancient peoples. It bases on a misunderstanding of indirect evidences in both cases.
@GeserRC Sir, allow me to assist with your edification. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
@GeserRC James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
@GeserRC You are also a minority in your own religion. The majority of religious believers worldwide (including Christianity) realize evolution is a fact due to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.
@gastarbeiter1 Evolution is not logical because it says we came from a rock..... and because it being possible is not a reason. By reason I mean as in why are we here? Evolution says life was caused by accident.
@10gacituao "Evolution is not logical because it says we came from a rock"...got that from hovind?^^ evolution says that life diverges because of natural selection and mutation and comes from a common ancestor.
"not logical..from a rock"...although its not what evo says..the bible says we come from clay.By your own definition you just said the bible is illogical.
@gastarbeiter1 Actually did kinda get that from hovind, but i saw this evolution timeline once and it said 'Rain caused rocks to turn into first life forms' which basically made me cry with laughter ( no offence).
@10gacituao "Actually did kinda get that from hovind"...thought so.
"Rain caused rocks to turn into first life forms"..no serious scientist says so.From whom did you get that?
"this earth is so complex it makes you wonder if there is a Creator.."...snow has also complex structures.But its just mere physics.Or do you wonder about a creator there also?
@10gacituao "why are we here?"..well I don't know..we could also be somewhere else in the universe or something different.
"Evolution says life was caused by accident. "..it doesn't.Evolution doesn't say anything about how life started.It states how it diversifies.And no not accident but the right comparison of elements in the right place around the right star is what life makes...not accident.
@10gacituao yes complex like the fact the eye is so brittle and the ureter runs through the prostate and we breath and eat using the same pipes. If there is a creator, they are retarded!
@10gacituao lol you obviously haven't studied anatomy at all have you? I would ask you why you think we have an epiglottis then but...you probably wouldn't know what it is.
@10gacituao "We do NOT eat and breath through the same pipe. You sound like some 8 year old who dosen't even know what science is."
....a quote I heard long ago... "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool....than to speak and remove all doubt."
The only reason that we can choke is because we eat and breathe through the "same pipe". Whales and dolphins can't "choke" on their food because they have separate orifices. Your god should have afforded humans the same luxury.
@CynicalSkeptic1 There are two pipes. One to swallow food, one to breathe through. The 'breathing' pipe has got a 'flap' to protect food and other objects from going down the breathing pipe. When we choke, food has gone down our breathing pipe.
@10gacituao By the way, there is no need to discuss the alleged existence of the biblical god. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and multi-faceted (it is also currently being utilized for scientific advancement in medicine and physiology (among other things).
Evolution disproves Creation = No original sin = No need for Yahweh/Jesus to sacrifice himself to himself.
@10gacituao I am so very impressed that you asked me for proof of evolution!! Most Christians tend to completely ignore the overwhelming evidence and rely solely on an ancient holy book (no offense meant). You appear to have an open mind and that is the beginning of enlightenment. Also, i'm NOT asking you to agree with me...I am simply asking you to peruse the information and come to your own conclusion. That is all.
I will post several links concerning evolution in the following comment.
By the way, I was a Christian for 20 years and my parents sent me to Christian schools since kindergarten. Becoming more familiar with my Bible resulted in apostasy.
@10gacituao Jesus died on the cross to pay for our 'sins'. Yet, the only alleged sin that mankind was supposedly responsible for was "original sin". A baby could be born and theoretically lead a "sin free" life...it is possible. So, the "original sin" was the only story that could make all of mankind "guilty" before they were even born. The entire story makes no sense. I cannot possibly be found "guilty" for a crime allegedly committed by my ancestors thousands of years before I was born.
@CynicalSkeptic1 I think the implications are much worse than that if passing on sin is true. Because by that logic, you'd also be responsible for the sins your father did before you were born, as well as every sin your ancestors committed all the way up to present day. How screwed up is that?
LOL...Actually, enormous sections of the Bible are "screwed up". Complete contradictions to science, an abundance of atrocities committed by an allegedly "omni-benevolent" god, ridiculous supernatural stories (which for some reason never occur in present day), etc., etc., etc....
Brilliant!
nkris12 4 days ago
Nice Choice of music. But very facinating video!
marukochan13 1 week ago
Evolution never claimed to get something out of nothing you fucktard
njpilot78 2 weeks ago
Like the music.
TearsOfWar1 2 weeks ago
thanks for your cool videos :) i have long been an atheist with no thought of ever coming back to 'god', and im glad someone's trying to open some eyes
Raiden738 2 weeks ago
If there is a supervising intelligence then who is supervising it and what are it's properties?
dkthg 2 weeks ago
Only an idiot would believe that DNA just happened.
DUH.
themanningsjdsjjj 2 weeks ago
@themanningsjdsjjj Good nobody believes its that simple^^
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themanningsjdsjjj
"Only an idiot would believe that DNA just happened"
They have yet to show DNA formation, but RNA has been empirically proven to form naturally (it's thought DNA can form complimentary to RNA afterwards). The first cells used RNA as do many extremophiles today. Also, there are forms of primitive RNA that can self-replicate and self-encode/translate, so the answer to the "chicken or the egg?" question is: both at the same time.
confettibrains 2 weeks ago
I'm not sure if anyone noticed this, but the reptile-bird is incorrect. Deinonychus and archeopteryx did not evolve into birds.The evolved from a common ancestor to birds. I think epidexipteryx is now considered a basal avian. Many more theropods are probably there that shouldn't.
MammothProductionInc 3 weeks ago
Evolutionists deny the facts, not creationists. The transitional forms are still missing and evolution also denies to undeniable scientific laws. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics and the believe by evolutionists that life came from non-life. God and His word are still true.
mRUSSIA 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mRUSSIA "The transitional forms are still missing"...keep telling you that to preserve your precious little delusion.
"The 2nd law of Thermodynamics and the believe by evolutionists that life came from non-life"...still not a contradiction.Physicists as well as biologist don't see any contradiction here.Only the deluded build up a wannabe contradiction where there is non.
gastarbeiter1 3 weeks ago
@mRUSSIA is it too much to ask that any creationist actually understands the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
teddansonLA 3 days ago
@teddansonLA Have you ever heard of late Dr. Henry Morris? He understood the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics more than you or most evolutionary scientists could ever dream of.
mRUSSIA 3 days ago
@mRUSSIA I very much doubt it. I looked him up - he believed the craters on the moon were due to a battle between Satan and the angels.
In any case, if he believed that evolution is somehow in conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then he was either clueless about thermodynamics, or evolution (or most likely) both. His wikipedia entry suggests the latter.
Just for a laugh, give me your version of the 2nd law and why evolution contradicts it.
teddansonLA 2 days ago
@teddansonLA There are many reputable scientists who believe in Creation who got their PhD's from even secular universities. We are not going to get anywhere if we get into a intellectual debate. Therefore I am going to go for your conscience. Creation proves there is a Creator and your conscience tells you right from wrong.
Did you know the Bible considers lust the same as adultery and hatred the same as murder? Have you ever lied, stolen anything regardless of it's value?
mRUSSIA 2 days ago
@mRUSSIA "Creation proves there is a Creator and your conscience tells you right from wrong."..soesn't seems like that's the case.
gastarbeiter1 2 days ago
@mRUSSIA I am myself, a reputable scientist who does not believe in creation. Yes, I did know about Jesus saying lust was the same as adultery. I don't agree with him, and I do not believe an all powerful God would care about such trivial things - for they are trivial. I have lied, and stolen and done lots of bad things, but none of them bad enough to warrant an eternity in "hell". I am not a child, you'll have to do much better than that to scare me into sharing your beliefs.
teddansonLA 2 days ago
@teddansonLA Well, at least you have heard the gospel and you can't plead ignorance on judgement day. I don't know you but I don't want to see you spend eternity in hell because your intellect refuses to let you believe God's word. There are many scientists who believe in the word of God(Jason Lyle(astro-phycisist) Georgia Purdom(molecular biologist) and Steve Austin(geologist) just to name several out of many. Just come to the Savior with an open, humble heart and let him reveal himself to you.
mRUSSIA 2 days ago
@mRUSSIA question, how do you KNOW any of this bible stuff or jesus stuff is even true? i have very good reasons (all of them proven to be facts) to believe why all the things science says. but why should i believe anything any religion has to say? they have produced no tangible results that better the lives of me and those around me, but technology has. so how do you know any of this stuff is real and you arent just being overly hopeful that there is somewhere we go when we die?
mattakudesu 1 day ago
@teddansonLA Have you ever taken the Lord's name in vain. We are all guilty criminals and have broken God's law(The Ten Commandments). There is a judgement day coming whether you think so or not. God's word says "All liars, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers will spend eternity in the "Lake of Fire."Revelation 20:15.
I have some good news for you, Jesus Christ God's Son came to this earth and died on the cross for our sins. Then He rose from the dead.
mRUSSIA 2 days ago
@mRUSSIA "I have some good news for you, Jesus Christ God's Son came to this earth and died on the cross for our sins. Then He rose from the dead. "..dunny first makes people with some flaws, then he makes laws that actually condemn these flaws and which makes them go to hell forever.Then he sends himself as a human to sacrifice himself to himself to take away the sins he put in his creation at the beginning.Now that seems very logical to me.
gastarbeiter1 2 days ago
@teddansonLA We are guilty criminals in God's court of law and Jesus paid our fine so now God can let us go free. We are saved by grace through faith, not of 'being good.' It is a gift from God. God word says "No one is good."
So if you will repent(turn from your sins) and put your trust in Jesus Christ, you will be saved.(Have eternal life). Please be open to God's word and do this today. You are not guaranteed tomorrow. Please repent, confess Jesus as your Lord and Savior today.
mRUSSIA 2 days ago
The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh Oh no not you again.Please just go away Mr. Praypuppy.
gastarbeiter1 3 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 So much science for this uncivilized stupid brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
The knowledge of the system of creation accumulated by man through his untiring efforts is next to nothing. Although science has taken great steps forward, there is an utter disparity between man, what man has learned, and what he still does not know.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh No you never use science.You don't even think for yourself you still only copy and past from this strange little webpage al-islam.Please you have been refuted by dozens of people but you aren't interested in learning as you keep making these copy and paste answers all the time.So do us all a favour and get lost.
gastarbeiter1 3 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 As far as those periods of the past are concerned that are shrouded in total darkness, for all we know, thousands or even millions of human species superior to the present one may have existed. Such species may yet come into being in the future.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh Hmm...funny that this hasn't anything to do with my comment.May I conclude that you have a program that posts these comments for you?Or are you really just a praybot?Now please get off even for other creationists you are a shame.
gastarbeiter1 3 weeks ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh Hm, again.No connection whatsoever to the comment and again a copy and paste answer.Please just go you are a shame.
gastarbeiter1 3 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express order and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh still no connection to my comments.Do you even try?Just troll of if you don't want an honest discussion from man to man not this copy and paste bot you seem to use.
gastarbeiter1 3 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation. Our thought and perception and unable to soar and take flight, and the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe. Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh again copy and paste..just go away.
gastarbeiter1 3 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 again copy and paste
___
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "again copy and paste"!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?
Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh "Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow"...if the horizon of your mind is only the text of the webpage you copy from then mine then mine is wider as everything you can imagine.
Now if you don't want an honest discussion with your OWN words just get out of here.
gastarbeiter1 3 weeks ago
Accident cannot perform the task of knowledge, moreover, that is never commingled with ignorance in any way. If, as the materialists imagine, the world of nature did not arise from knowledge and will (despite the signs of creativity and inventiveness apparent in its every phenomenon) then man, too, in order to attain his purposes would have to abandon his advance on the path of knowledge and imprison himself in ignorance in order to conform to the ignorance of nature itself.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh so you acknowledge that your horizon is limited to that webpage you copy from?
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 The aim and the purpose pursued by man in the compounding of a whole series of material elements (as, for example, in constructing a building, a car, or a factory) relate to his own being; that is, the ultimate purpose and aim is the maker himself, not the thing made.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh I'm sorry, but that sounds like something a creationist would say.
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trueleroix
"I'm sorry, but that sounds like something a creationist would say"
1tabligh is a dirty muslim. These people cannot be reasoned with.
Did you know ALL(96%) rapes in Norway over the past 5 years have been by muslims? One muslim told his 12 year old victim, "I can do this. Women have no rights in my religion"
That's how unreasonable and irrational these people are. Never trust a non-westernized muslim!
confettibrains 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh What, matter has ignorance? You expect matter to know something? Is what feasible? What is precise? Precise by what standard? It's almost as if you think the universe displays some kind of design. Sorry if i assume too much, but it sounds like you believe that.
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix you think the universe displays some kind of design
___
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Itseems you do not understand the difference between structure and design.
PalulukanMakto 2 weeks ago
@PalulukanMakto The Manifestations of God in Nature!
We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh That's what I thought; you can't think for yourself. Good day.
PalulukanMakto 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Dude, sorry man, but that sounds like creationist stuff. I hate to insult you, but you really sound like a creationist.
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix I start to think its a bot.Its the same copy and paste stuff from a webpage called al-islam all the time.You won't even get one single direct reply.
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation. Our thought and perception and unable to soar and take flight, and the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe. Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh You should write to the website that yuo got this from, and tell them to stop publishing this garbage.
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant? Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Don't call me ignorant. First explain to me what is wrong with all of these questions that you ask. Once you have proven that you realize how poorly formed your loaded questions are, then you can ask me a legitimate question, which I will answer. PS, did you write to that website yet asking them to apologize for feeding you all of this garbage? They owe you that at least.
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Basically your argument is: You don't understand the designer, thus there is a designer. Think about it, but don't kill yourself when you realize how stupid that is.
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix You don't understand the designer
___
Common sense!
Consider the universe together with its sun, moon, stars and Zodiac, which revolve perpetually in accordance with a definite decree and judgement to bring about numerous benefits to the denizens of the earth, Can any man with a discerning mind think that such regulated plan and design on which depend the order and organisation of the universe, can come about without the Omniscient Designer (GOD)?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix If someone says that mere chance has brought this about, why does he not say that same thing in connection with a computer? He sees all its component parts manufactured according to a definite plan, each part coupled with the other to serve the needs of the people, And if' he makes the same remarks about the the computer, then what opinion about him will people entertain on hearing his remarks?
Surely this is a brainless stupid fellow with an asinine mind.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix Does he not see how the matter and the nature of the computer, which is itself inert and devoid of intellect, would by itself come into being with perfect appropriateness to the requirements of the people?
Can any reasonable man admit it?
Will he deny it in the case of' a computer comprising a little planning and ingenuity, that it is not a piece of workmanship planned and designed,
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix and YET will be able to say that this stupendous UNIVERSE which is full of projects beyond human ken, functioning for the entire earth's surface and its contents, has come into being by mere CHANCE without Skill, Design or Measure?
Has man the means to see right if anything goes wrong with the sky, just as the computer parts of machinery get out of order?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix How is that for YOUR "don't kill yourself when you realize how stupid that is." and answer the question instead?!
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh "and answer the question instead?!"..answer this.Why do you just copy from that webpage and don't want an honest discussion?Are you intellectually unarmed?
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 Talk to me like a scientist, and ask me!
"Should I understand from your statement that Islam offers for substantiating the existence of God some universal evidence which may be considered even by those who are not committed to any religion, such as the atheists and the agnostics? If this is what you mean, what is that evidence?"
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
Come back when you get something out of nothing!
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh "Talk to me like a scientist, and ask me!"...I asked you already a lot of questions and never got real answers as you are not able to think for yourself but just copy from that webpage which doesn't fit to anything I asked you.So come back when you have grown a brain of you own.
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 Yes, he is just parroting a web site, and he keeps doing this stupid, "answer the question" thing. The answer to all of his questions is usually, "no", but he doesn't like that.
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix Yeah I just wait for the moment I see a real reply I will keep asking for that^^
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 You just got a real reply. THE ANSWER IS NO. Don't try to do a role reversal on this thing. It is a very sad and desperate move, like going to this ridiculous web site that you do.; Don't write me anymore.
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix I think that was to the wrong guy^^
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 yeah, sorry, dude.
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
@trueleroix no problem
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction,
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 planning and precision.
This being the case, those who ascribe all the beings in the vast system of the universe, together with their complex and mysterious properties to the *blind* and unconscious forces of matter, are, in reality, doing violence and injustice to logic and human intelligence and waging open war on the truth.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh No? and please can you just use your own words instead of just copying from that webpage.I am getting bored.I have heard all of that comments.
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 I am getting bored
___
So much science for this *fanatic* wannabe a darwinian monkey!
Give your attention for a minute to a typesetter in a printing house. He expends great care and attention when he is setting the letters required for one page of a book, but when he reviews his work, he comes across small errors arising from some slight inattention.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh I am still bored.I had all this I answered honestly back then and just got more stupid quotes from that deluded webpage.Don't you have a brain of your own?
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 Poor wannabe monkey!
It would be still more absurd to claim that a hundred kilograms of molten lead, forced through a tube, should emerge in the form of ready made letters; that a fierce tempest should then pick up those letters and arrange them in a particular and regular order on thousands of metal plates;
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 and that these plates should result in the printing of a thousand-page book containing numerous precise scientific discussions and attractive, alluring expressions, all this without the slightest error occurring.
Could anyone support such a theory?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh "Could anyone support such a theory? "..glad nobody says so.
and still.You seem to not have a mind of your own as you still just copy from that shitty webpage.Are you so smallminded?
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
@gastarbeiter1 What do the materialists and the duped wannabe fanatic darwinian baboons who deny God have to say concerning the emergence of the variegated forms of the letters of creation and the precise and complex relations that regulate the heavenly bodies, natural creation and all material objects?
Are the letters of creation (i.e., the atoms and the particles that comprise them) in any way lesser than the letters used in printing?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh "Are the letters of creation (i.e., the atoms and the particles that comprise them) in any way lesser than the letters used in printing? "...circular reasoning in calling them particles of CREATION to prove creation is circular.also a false analogy.Using a thing that we know we have invented(letters) and a thing that you only suppose that it has been created.
plus still just copying from that bullshit webpage.You should try another source at least.
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
@gastarbeiter1 Is it in any way acceptable that these orderly, meaningful letters, this precise and well-organized geometry, the astounding forms depicted in the book of creation, should be the work of ignorance and aimlessness?
That a great and wise power, a miraculous ordering principle, should not be present in the very texture of the world? Do not all phenomena arise from a manifestation of consciousness, awareness and power?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@gastarbeiter1 If the power hidden in the depths of matter does not arise from the universal intelligence, what factor guides it to the elaboration of forms, to an amazing regularity and harmony?
If that power is an agent devoid of intelligence and conscious will, why does it never fall prey to disorder, and why does its compounding of matter never result in collision and destruction?
1tabligh 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "If that power is an agent devoid of intelligence and conscious will, why does it never fall prey to disorder"...what is the purpose of a comet?How do you know that it must be intelligence rather then just the structure of our universe.
I only see a person unarmed on intelligence.Try again with you own thoughts some day....
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
@gastarbeiter1 It is here that belief in the creator bestows meaning on all existence and endows the world with sense and content. Those who possess deep vision and clear thought perceive plainly that an infinite power assures the preservation of the order of the world by means of firm supervision and absolute sovereignty.
Surely the vilest of animals, in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.
The Quran Chapter 8, Verse 22
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh "hose who possess deep vision and clear thought perceive plainly that an infinite power assures"..just plain delusion and brainwashing.The lazy minded just says: god did it.Poor praypuppy
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
@gastarbeiter1 In the past, everyone used to guide and control his own riding beast, and he was similarly accustomed throughout the ages to see an owner or supervisor in control of every piece of property, every scrap of land, every group or organization. Now matters are different. Today's man has gained access to remote-controlled satellites, electronic devices and pilotless planes, all equipped with automatic instruments and gadgets.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@gastarbeiter1 Everyone knows that it is possible to construct a well equipped machine that will react in appropriate ways to various contingencies, without the maker of the device being present or visible. We, therefore, no longer have the right obstinately to deny the existence of God simply because His hand is not visibly at work in the affairs of creation—visibly, that is, to our deficient understanding and knowledge.
How is that for a wannabe monkey?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh "How is that for a wannabe monkey?"How disrespectful of a person to insult someone else although his own horizon is not bigger then the webpage he copies from.And even the analogy is fallacious.ÜPlease try at least another place to copy from.I am getting even more bored....
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
@gastarbeiter1 In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
1tabligh 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?"...yes.Ask quantum physics.And please stop copying from that webpage and try to get your own brain to work.
gastarbeiter1 1 week ago
@1tabligh
How do you explain fire? when fire is made by a transformation of three things.
Atoms are both the mover and the cause of motion. You are delsuonal and fucked up.
How do you explain AB resistance w/out using evo theory?
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality.
1tabligh 6 days ago
@1tabligh
"first cause"? word salad. WHat cause is that? or was?
God doesn't exist. you are just promoting your non sequitur.
"He"? why not "She"?
You are just making shit up, not actually explaining how Atoms are both the mover and the cause of motion.
You are just making shit up, never proving the existence of a "first cause".
You are just making shit up, you are assuming there was a "first" and not multiple first causes.
You are just making shit up and failing to answer to my challenge.
transtlantic 6 days ago
@transtlantic GENDER.
The deficiency lies in all the languages of the world, None of them have a word to define the gender for God. The word He, She, Thou, Thy, It....etc are all merely substitutes, they do not represent the gender of the One who does not have a gender.
1tabligh 6 days ago
@1tabligh
why would anyone shout "GENDER"? are you confused about your gender?
Actually my language has a word to define the gender of gods. Deus or Deusa. the god that you call "God" is translated to Deus, in my language. the Monotheistic female gods are called: Deusas.
The BEST pronoun to define "God" or any other god is actully...It. Because you are referring to fantasies with no defined gender, in English.
Why do you assume that your fairy named God doesn't have a gender? have you seen it?
transtlantic 5 days ago
@transtlantic Things are compound elements atoms etc, made of parts. Every compound elements etc possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God. Your argument for disbelief is foolish, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay.
1tabligh 5 days ago
@1tabligh
Things are made out of matter. Not "atoms, etc". they are ONLY made out of atoms. which make parts. You are creating a false dichotomy. tsk tsk...
Atoms do possess shape, and do radiate colour. Which changes if you change the properties of the atom or atoms (molecules). and no...it does not "attact" the senses. Senses implies stimulus, not "attraction".
Thus no god exists.
How do you know what can or not be God? you are just making shit up.
"everything is"...proof?
transtlantic 5 days ago
@transtlantic For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses for, He is not a thing-which is compound elements etc or created. If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being compound and created and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator.
1tabligh 5 days ago
@1tabligh
We can perceive billions of light years of space...or tiniest of the sub atomic particles...but not "God"? lolol unlikely. You are just making shit up.
"resembled"? do you know what everything resembles? ofc not. you are ignorant of many things. You are just making shit up.
You are just presenting delusion. Unsubstantiated claims. Thus...I can dismiss the retarded buy bull induced shit unproven crap that you claim.
How do you explain AB resistance w/out using evo theory?
transtlantic 5 days ago
@transtlantic God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause; He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him, the eternal source of being. The law of causality applies uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their existence.
1tabligh 4 days ago
@1IDiot
God doesn't exist. You have no evidence for It. Does it is irrelevant what you try to talk about It. All you produce is assumptions. You can't have truth without evidence.
"not a phenomenon"...by definition it implies that It is a Fantasy then.
You are just full of shit.
Law of causality does not stop randomness, does intelligent supernatural direction does not exist.
You are just full of shit.
Materialism precedes your fantasies regarding a god named God.
God = made up fairy
transtlantic 4 days ago
The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link."
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes
1tabligh 4 days ago
@1IDiot
Causality also allows for randomness. Throwing dice is caused by hands that throw a pair of dice, but the results are obviously random. The very act of throwing is subject to randomness. Thus randomness is everywhere
Everything is material. Is there evidence for Supernatural? or "meta material"? ofc not. you are full of shit
Why do you ignore multiple causes causing different effects?
Fire is made out of three things. three things cause fire. Thus it's multiple, never one. thus no God
transtlantic 4 days ago
@transtlantic However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it.
So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?
1tabligh 4 days ago
@transtlantic just leave him...he will just go on posting nonsense that he copies from his beloved webpage of al-islam.Never seen more bullshit..well maybe on AiG
gastarbeiter1 5 days ago
@gastarbeiter1 Were the typesetter to take a handful of letters and scatter them over the plate instead of carefully arraying them in rows, is it at all possible that the resulting page should be correct in its contents and free of error?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh The answer to your "question" is The universe was not made by chance, and nobody has ever shown any evidence of any design, whatsoever. Why did you ask such a stupid question. Have you not seen this question destroyed time and time again? The rest of your comment leads me to believe that English is not your first language, so I understand why it does not make sense to me. Another question is, why would you get information from a website that offers such garbage?
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh The answer to your "question" is The universe was not made by chance, and nobody has ever shown any evidence of any design, whatsoever. Why did you ask such a stupid question. Have you not seen this question destroyed time and time again? The rest of your comment leads me to believe that English is not your first language, so I understand why it does not make sense to me. Another question is, why would you get information from a website that offers such garbage?
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh The answer to your "question" is The universe was not made by chance, and nobody has ever shown any evidence of any design, whatsoever. Why did you ask such a stupid question. Have you not seen this question destroyed time and time again? The rest of your comment leads me to believe that English is not your first language, so I understand why it does not make sense to me. Another question is, why would you get information from a website that offers such garbage?
trueleroix 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh 1. The argument of an ignorant... what? An ignorant what? "An ignorant" is not a thing.
2. You are the one dodging questions: you only respond to question with questions, personal attacks & ~flat earth claims.
3. We know the function of screws... replace that with 'part' and the argument still falls down because you haven't provided evidence that points to the universe being created as most machines are.
4. Most animals have testicals on the outside; that's a BIG design fail.
PalulukanMakto 2 weeks ago
@PalulukanMakto What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Every scientist, actually. Again, you do not seem to understnad the difference between structure (which may have the appearance of design) and actual design. Crystals are created with structure, but they aren't designed that way. I can create crystals with the shit in my kitchen.
It's a concept that a kindergartener can understand. Either give me an actual response, or I'm done with this conversation; I won't talk AT people, it doesn't get anything done.
PalulukanMakto 1 week ago
@PalulukanMakto Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@gastarbeiter1 The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim, purpose and will that cannot be denied. It cannot be supposed that the ceaseless process of action and reaction advances in a fixed direction without the intervention and supervision of an intelligence.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh That's only your assertion and again shows your limited horizon as it still just copies from that shitty and fallacious webpage.
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
@gastarbeiter1 The relationship between the parts of the things made is, therefore, a non-natural relationship; by establishing that relationship, the maker wishes to attain his own purposes and to relive his own deficiencies, for all the efforts of man are a movement from potentiality to actuality and deficiency to perfection.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh so you stilll copy from that webpage.Are you able to form a single consistant sentance for yourself or are you just drooling over the keyboard?
gastarbeiter1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
"The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim, purpose and will that cannot be denied"
Yeah? I'm denying that right now. Prove your creator hypothesis, and back it up with as much math as say, superstring theory which explains why our universe is finely tuned.
It's too bad you don't apply your own philosophy, "all cause needs shit," to your Allah/Elohim/Yahweh/Supernatural entity hypothesis
confettibrains 2 weeks ago
Brilliant video.
Creationism really has no ground to stand on.
FrankLightheart 3 weeks ago
yeap, theory of evolution is "useless...", try to make use of own brain... not stick "invisible friend":D
NSGJanusz 3 weeks ago
Also something else to ponder... a "Deep Thought" if you will. JR> Human DNA is 98% the same as chimpanzee DNA what keeps them from JR> being somehow related, also the water content of a watermelon and JR> a cloud are approximatley the same, what keeps them from being JR> related :)
perez85tkd 3 weeks ago
The theory of evolution is useless......
tgillspy2 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgillspy2 "The theory of evolution is useless......"..only to those who don't understand it.I may ask is history also useless?
gastarbeiter1 3 weeks ago
plus I'm creationist, I believe in the Biblical God and in Jesus and I believe the Earth was created @least 4 billion years ago.
It's young earth creationism that gives creationism overall a bad name.
angryspidertv 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angryspidertv
No, its the magical invisible sky daddy that gives Creationism a bad name.
odinata 1 month ago
Hahaha cdk007 you're retarded.I have been studying dinosaurs for several years.. I kno about these animals that look transitional. Just because an animal has gene sequence doesn't mean it evolved. Here's how it works.
God creates life. Environs change, and since God was still in creative mode then, God made another version of the creature with much of the original gene only changed little so it was better suited to the conditions. there are similarities between animals,God creates with order.
angryspidertv 1 month ago
The theory of evolution is not logical. All credit for the ToE - just a (religious) belief in this theory.
GeserRC 1 month ago
@GeserRC In what way is it religious?
richjammcl 1 month ago
@richjammcl
It has:
1. own "gurus"
2. own dogmas
3. it does not accept other views, which are not based on its dogmas
GeserRC 3 weeks ago
@GeserRC A guru is a spiritual leader. I don't believe the spiritual exists, I don't have a single guru unless you're misusing the word and mean something else. I'm not aware of a single atheist dogma. Given that I am an atheist, I'm clearly missing out on our dogma, please inform. I don't think there are any.
richjammcl 3 weeks ago
@richjammcl
Guru's, for example: Darwin self and his followers, Ernst Haeckel, R. Dawkins and others...
An example of the dogma of the theory of evolution: "humans and monkeys have a common ancestor."
GeserRC 3 weeks ago
@GeserRC Darwin is not a guru, he was a sexist, racist douche bag. I couldn't care what he said. He discovered truth, that is all that mattered. I don't know who Haeckel even is and Dawkins lost all respect when he said atheists should call themselves "brights." Even if I respected these people it's because of evolutionary theory not because of my atheism. There are many atheists who don't believe in evolution.
A dogma is "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority
richjammcl 3 weeks ago
@GeserRC as incontrovertibly true: "the Christian dogma of the Trinity."" No atheist worth your time decides anything based on incontrovertible truth, everything I believe in is subject to change if necessary. Incontrovertible truth is the pathway of a foolish man. Feel free to try again. I believe that God does not exist and I don't believe any of these things.
richjammcl 3 weeks ago
@GeserRC
Definition of Religion: "the service or worship of a god or supernatural entity"
Definition of Atheism: "the lack of belief in god(s)"
Obviously, it would appear to be impossible for Atheism to be a religion since Atheists DON'T BELIEVE IN GODS.
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
GeserRC 3 weeks ago
@CynicalSkeptic1
@CynicalSkeptic1
Not only "gods" are the subject of religious faith. Atheists believe in evolution as a phenomenon. Phenomena, such as a thunderstorm - also had been an object of worship by ancient peoples. It bases on a misunderstanding of indirect evidences in both cases.
GeserRC 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeserRC Sir, allow me to assist with your edification. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeserRC James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeserRC Here are some links about evolution if you are interested:
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/section1
anthro(dot)palomar(dot)edu/evolve/evolve_3
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
evolution(dot)berkeley(dot)edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2
txtwriter(dot)com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeserRC You are also a minority in your own religion. The majority of religious believers worldwide (including Christianity) realize evolution is a fact due to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.
Here is another link for your convenience:
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
You can also Google "Least likely to believe in religion" and see what you find....
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
Palin is hard evidence against evolution.
AsianHideOut 1 month ago
Things you must give up:
Logic: No, because evolution is not a logical answer to life on earth.
Human reason: Evolution says there is no reason for life, God says there is
The scientific method: I'm not even going to bother deny this.
10gacituao 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@10gacituao
Why doesn't the science agree with you?
odinata 1 month ago
@10gacituao "No, because evolution is not a logical answer to life on earth."..why exactly?
"Evolution says there is no reason for life,"..itz says there is..the reason is because its possible.
gastarbeiter1 1 month ago
@gastarbeiter1 Evolution is not logical because it says we came from a rock..... and because it being possible is not a reason. By reason I mean as in why are we here? Evolution says life was caused by accident.
10gacituao 1 month ago
@10gacituao "Evolution is not logical because it says we came from a rock"...got that from hovind?^^ evolution says that life diverges because of natural selection and mutation and comes from a common ancestor.
"not logical..from a rock"...although its not what evo says..the bible says we come from clay.By your own definition you just said the bible is illogical.
gastarbeiter1 1 month ago
@gastarbeiter1 Actually did kinda get that from hovind, but i saw this evolution timeline once and it said 'Rain caused rocks to turn into first life forms' which basically made me cry with laughter ( no offence).
10gacituao 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@10gacituao "Actually did kinda get that from hovind"...thought so.
"Rain caused rocks to turn into first life forms"..no serious scientist says so.From whom did you get that?
"this earth is so complex it makes you wonder if there is a Creator.."...snow has also complex structures.But its just mere physics.Or do you wonder about a creator there also?
gastarbeiter1 1 month ago
@10gacituao "why are we here?"..well I don't know..we could also be somewhere else in the universe or something different.
"Evolution says life was caused by accident. "..it doesn't.Evolution doesn't say anything about how life started.It states how it diversifies.And no not accident but the right comparison of elements in the right place around the right star is what life makes...not accident.
gastarbeiter1 1 month ago
@gastarbeiter1 and also the life on this earth is so complex it makes you wonder if there is a Creator..
10gacituao 1 month ago
@10gacituao yes complex like the fact the eye is so brittle and the ureter runs through the prostate and we breath and eat using the same pipes. If there is a creator, they are retarded!
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@atheistcommonsense We do NOT eat and breath through the same pipe. You sound like some 8 year old who dosen't even know what science is.
10gacituao 1 month ago
@10gacituao umm its precisely why we choke retard, take a basic anatomy class! Or should i have said swallow and breath for laymens like you!!
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@10gacituao lol you obviously haven't studied anatomy at all have you? I would ask you why you think we have an epiglottis then but...you probably wouldn't know what it is.
HeroOfTime712 1 month ago
@10gacituao It's a good thing you're just pretending to be a moron. Phew !
allieron 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
CynicalSkeptic1 4 weeks ago
@10gacituao "We do NOT eat and breath through the same pipe. You sound like some 8 year old who dosen't even know what science is."
....a quote I heard long ago... "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool....than to speak and remove all doubt."
The only reason that we can choke is because we eat and breathe through the "same pipe". Whales and dolphins can't "choke" on their food because they have separate orifices. Your god should have afforded humans the same luxury.
CynicalSkeptic1 4 weeks ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 There are two pipes. One to swallow food, one to breathe through. The 'breathing' pipe has got a 'flap' to protect food and other objects from going down the breathing pipe. When we choke, food has gone down our breathing pipe.
10gacituao 3 weeks ago
@10gacituao Exactly!! Which cannot happen with dolphins or whales!!
Your comment did nothing to refute my point.
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
@10gacituao By the way, there is no need to discuss the alleged existence of the biblical god. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and multi-faceted (it is also currently being utilized for scientific advancement in medicine and physiology (among other things).
Evolution disproves Creation = No original sin = No need for Yahweh/Jesus to sacrifice himself to himself.
Christianity's foundation disintegrates.
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Can you PLEASE give me some proof of evolution? And why did Jesus get crucified, anyway?
10gacituao 3 weeks ago
@10gacituao I am so very impressed that you asked me for proof of evolution!! Most Christians tend to completely ignore the overwhelming evidence and rely solely on an ancient holy book (no offense meant). You appear to have an open mind and that is the beginning of enlightenment. Also, i'm NOT asking you to agree with me...I am simply asking you to peruse the information and come to your own conclusion. That is all.
I will post several links concerning evolution in the following comment.
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
@10gacituao Here are a few links for your convenience.
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/section1
anthro(dot)palomar(dot)edu/evolve/evolve_3
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
evolution(dot)berkeley(dot)edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2
txtwriter(dot)com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents
By the way, I was a Christian for 20 years and my parents sent me to Christian schools since kindergarten. Becoming more familiar with my Bible resulted in apostasy.
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
@10gacituao Jesus died on the cross to pay for our 'sins'. Yet, the only alleged sin that mankind was supposedly responsible for was "original sin". A baby could be born and theoretically lead a "sin free" life...it is possible. So, the "original sin" was the only story that could make all of mankind "guilty" before they were even born. The entire story makes no sense. I cannot possibly be found "guilty" for a crime allegedly committed by my ancestors thousands of years before I was born.
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 I think the implications are much worse than that if passing on sin is true. Because by that logic, you'd also be responsible for the sins your father did before you were born, as well as every sin your ancestors committed all the way up to present day. How screwed up is that?
FrankLightheart 3 weeks ago
@FrankLightheart You asked "How screwed up is that?"
LOL...Actually, enormous sections of the Bible are "screwed up". Complete contradictions to science, an abundance of atrocities committed by an allegedly "omni-benevolent" god, ridiculous supernatural stories (which for some reason never occur in present day), etc., etc., etc....
CynicalSkeptic1 3 weeks ago