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)
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)
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
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 were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DEBATE ON EVOLUTION IS NOT OVER, contrary to Hitchen's claim. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives and grant money are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my 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 on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
There really doesn't have to be IMO. Infinite energy + infinite time (human conception and comprehension of change) anything could happen. I imagine a robot intelligent (if that's the right word) enough to reproduce would have a brain with a similar complexity to that of a human meaning that by our standards they would be living organisms (pretty much). I guess my point is as follows: what is a living organism? if it were iron based instead of carbon then would it be a carbon based
Iron based* life form? flesh is just a series of membranes with fluid transport systems which carry signals for reactions like wiring in a computer, also almost exactly like copper wire is the nervous system, using a far less effective (yet self repairing) "wave" of energy to trigger a response. All things considered I don't believe humans are so different to potential mechanics of years to come
NOT NATURE MADE! Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals that make-up an earthworm were scattered and left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to re-organize them into a worm again. It takes an already existing worm to bring about another worm. The worm exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't design or invent the worm! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Again, I believe "time" to be infinite. You probably already know the saying "A monkey with a type writer and an infinite amount of time". I believe that can be applied to the universe, and the molecules out of which humans are made being the most prevalent on our planet, is it so hard to imagine that over infinite time a simple self replicating circular strand of DNA could be form in a pool of carbon, nitrogenous compounds etc. by means of electrocution?
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
DEBATE ON EVOLUTION IS NOT OVER, contrary to Hitchen's claim. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives and grant money are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! 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!
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 INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
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!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
@lolocaustism I watched ShockofGod's video and am watching yours now. I read your description box and: " There is of course no proof that there is no god in the same way that there is no proof of there being a god." stood out. Wouldn't this line if nothing else prove Atheist don't exist as much as people who are Agnostic then? I'm not necasarily "religious" but I believe in God and Jesus on a faith base which is the point to all religon. But was curious to ask bcuz you don't seem extreme.
Atheism is a lack of belief and therefore a neutral position. Even slugs are atheist because they don't have the mental capacity to believe anything. And no, god doesn't have to exist for you to be able to lack belief, because the thing in which atheists lack belief is the fictional mental image and theory created by Christians.
so basically I think god is no more real than the tooth fairy
@jamirflyd When proving anything, it's about existance, not nonexistance.
For eg, if someone comes up with an idea, they need to prove it before they can call it a "theory". If it can't be proven, it is assumed false. Which makes sense, because otherwise we would be spending all our time dissproving rubbish.
Now take God. There is no proof for his existance, but they say: "Prove he doesn't". which is like saying: "prove that there aren't woobles in wobtown." You can't, but it shouldn't matter.
If I and life are two, if I am separate from life, then I am separate from all things, all beings, all people.
But how could I be separate from life? What "I" could there be apart from life, apart from Being? It is utterly impossible. So there is no such thing as "my life," and I don't have life. I am life. I and life are one. It cannot be otherwise. So how could I lose my life? How can I lose something that I don't have in the first place? How can I lose something that I Am?
The way I see it, life is just functionality of the brain and corresponding organs etc. A human dying is like the internal cicuitry of a computer getting fried on a much larger, more complex scale.
Appearance isn't the only thing that can change through evolution. Besides there are several varieties of the modern mosquito as far as I know. Also I don't get the relevance of your argument. Are you trying to say the theory of evolution is false?
@lolocaustism Nope, evolution does happen. Can't argue with that. But what I got an issue with is saying that we developed from monkeys. All those mosquitoes can breed with each other even after millions of years, all types of dogs can breed with each other, BUT we can't breed with monkeys. Thus you can't evolve into a different species. Which means we didn't come from bacteria. We came from God. That's what I'm trying to say.
Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, which isn't necessarily a type of monkey (or such is the theory) And at the end of the day it all comes down to genetic compatability. White humans can breed with black humans as well as middle eastern and chinese etc. although each race is differant in looks and size, much like breeds of dogs for example. But I'm not here to say there is no god because there's no possible way to prove that, just like there's no way to prove otherwise.
@lolocaustism Wolves and dogs can breed because they share a common ancestor. If humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, then we should be able to breed with monkeys. But we can't. Which proves monkeys and humans aren't related, they are are two separate species.
No because humans are too genetically different from monkeys. Technically speaking penguins and rhinos share a common ancestor but they can't breed... We are a seperate species from monkeys, just like guinea pigs are a seperate species from rats, we just share the same family (primates / rodents) if you get what I mean. But I see that all you're trying to argue is that humans are a creation and not product of evolution which is outside the point of this video.
It is my professional opinion that professor Dr John G. Jackson was on the right trail because contrary to black nationalist teachings of groups (Nation of Islam, Moorish Science Temple of America, Black Panther Party, e.t.c.) his research led him to an earlier era of black uprisings against tyranny through a medium of Freethought (i.e. Atheist) activism which questioned the ruling hierarchy of the ancient priest kings.
The best scientist in history in my opinion is Nikola Tesla (i.e. inventor of flying saucer technology) and he was an Atheist Humanist. Another great Atheist scientist is Fred Hoyle and his Steady State Theory (i.e. infinite universe). We have Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins and his idea of the Selfish Gene. Travelling back a few years we have the Atheist mathematician Simon Pierre Laplace
white people are natural born atheists and homosexuals. I find it funny how they keep arguing about a book that condemns the white race (edomites according to the Bible) and is the only race that can't have salvation.
But at least in north america and europe there is a good mix of cultures and equal opertunity to learn about different faiths. In some middle eastern countries they are never given that "privilege" and are therefore doomed from birth. For this reason I oppose the moral teaching of the bible.
Wrong! That statement is historically inaccurate. Atheism has its root in ancient Africa (i.e. Egypt). Egyptologist, James P. Allen, investigates that in Ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom (i.e. 2040-1640 B.C.E.) there was a poem (i.e. The Song of The Harper) found in the tomb of King Intef… which suggests that ‘a person should enjoy the good things in life, avoid contemplation of death, and expresses doubt about the reality of an afterlife’:
“Make holiday, don’t weary of it! Look there is no one allowed to take their things with them, and there is no one who goes away comes back again.” [End Quote, ‘Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and culture of Hieroglyphs’, 1999]
Dr. John G. Jackson, Rutgers University lecturer of the Black Studies Department and member of the Rationalist Press Association of London, questions how the early priest-kings formed a ruling class and reduced the masses to slavery gives a good general idea of how it came about. You can read his book: [Jackson, G. John. “Man, God, and Civlization”. Lushena Books Inc, 1972]
Professor Hector Hawton succintly describes the political turmoil among the ancient Egyptians:
"Confronted by the spectacle of tottering thrones, the hungry plague smitten masses, whose miseries no words of power could relieve, lost faith in kings, priests, and gods. They ceased even to search for the empty boon of a paradise after death." [Hawton, Hector. “The Flight from Reality”. Watts & Co., London, 1941.]
Whites are not the only "naturalized" born Atheists; yet, we see that the black race of ancient Africa were the first leading Atheist. You need to re-check your history my friend!
@lolocaustism im saying this because i tried to ask him a couple of questions about the Bible a few days ago. Then he said if I could prove Atheism, he would answer my questions. I tried to prove it to him, but then he said i was wrong and he wouldnt answer me until i could prove it. And, of course, i knew he was going to say that. You're better off jumping off a cliff and trying to survive the fall than to prove Atheism to a devout Born-again Christian.
Atheism needs no proof... it's not a faith. It's not, as he calls it, faith that there is no god, it's a lack of faith in god. It's a thin line but it makes the difference and hardcore theists like him have trouble understanding that. As I said in this video, there IS proof for what atheists believe in (i.e. science). Anyways, ask him what his definition of "existance" is. He won't be able to phrase it in such a way that god will fall into it. You win [:
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 5 months 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 5 months 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 5 months 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 5 months 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 were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DEBATE ON EVOLUTION IS NOT OVER, contrary to Hitchen's claim. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives and grant money are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months 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 on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52
There really doesn't have to be IMO. Infinite energy + infinite time (human conception and comprehension of change) anything could happen. I imagine a robot intelligent (if that's the right word) enough to reproduce would have a brain with a similar complexity to that of a human meaning that by our standards they would be living organisms (pretty much). I guess my point is as follows: what is a living organism? if it were iron based instead of carbon then would it be a carbon based
lolocaustism 5 months ago
@lolocaustism
Iron based* life form? flesh is just a series of membranes with fluid transport systems which carry signals for reactions like wiring in a computer, also almost exactly like copper wire is the nervous system, using a far less effective (yet self repairing) "wave" of energy to trigger a response. All things considered I don't believe humans are so different to potential mechanics of years to come
lolocaustism 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT NATURE MADE! Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals that make-up an earthworm were scattered and left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to re-organize them into a worm again. It takes an already existing worm to bring about another worm. The worm exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't design or invent the worm! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52
Again, I believe "time" to be infinite. You probably already know the saying "A monkey with a type writer and an infinite amount of time". I believe that can be applied to the universe, and the molecules out of which humans are made being the most prevalent on our planet, is it so hard to imagine that over infinite time a simple self replicating circular strand of DNA could be form in a pool of carbon, nitrogenous compounds etc. by means of electrocution?
lolocaustism 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
DEBATE ON EVOLUTION IS NOT OVER, contrary to Hitchen's claim. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives and grant money are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months 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 5 months 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
shockofgod deletes negative comments on his video and blocks ratings. Thank you for a related video to moan about what a moron he is :-)
My favourite sentence on his video was: "Jesus told us this, and he wouldn't have told us this if it wasn't true."
Genius stuff
questionwhatyouhear 5 months ago
@questionwhatyouhear
Yeah lol he's a real clever guy [:
lolocaustism 5 months ago
@lolocaustism I watched ShockofGod's video and am watching yours now. I read your description box and: " There is of course no proof that there is no god in the same way that there is no proof of there being a god." stood out. Wouldn't this line if nothing else prove Atheist don't exist as much as people who are Agnostic then? I'm not necasarily "religious" but I believe in God and Jesus on a faith base which is the point to all religon. But was curious to ask bcuz you don't seem extreme.
jamirflyd 7 months ago
@jamirflyd
Atheism is a lack of belief and therefore a neutral position. Even slugs are atheist because they don't have the mental capacity to believe anything. And no, god doesn't have to exist for you to be able to lack belief, because the thing in which atheists lack belief is the fictional mental image and theory created by Christians.
so basically I think god is no more real than the tooth fairy
lolocaustism 7 months ago
@jamirflyd When proving anything, it's about existance, not nonexistance.
For eg, if someone comes up with an idea, they need to prove it before they can call it a "theory". If it can't be proven, it is assumed false. Which makes sense, because otherwise we would be spending all our time dissproving rubbish.
Now take God. There is no proof for his existance, but they say: "Prove he doesn't". which is like saying: "prove that there aren't woobles in wobtown." You can't, but it shouldn't matter.
questionwhatyouhear 5 months ago
If I and life are two, if I am separate from life, then I am separate from all things, all beings, all people.
But how could I be separate from life? What "I" could there be apart from life, apart from Being? It is utterly impossible. So there is no such thing as "my life," and I don't have life. I am life. I and life are one. It cannot be otherwise. So how could I lose my life? How can I lose something that I don't have in the first place? How can I lose something that I Am?
It is impossible.
danielrrjd 11 months ago
@danielrrjd
The way I see it, life is just functionality of the brain and corresponding organs etc. A human dying is like the internal cicuitry of a computer getting fried on a much larger, more complex scale.
lolocaustism 11 months ago
I agree with every single thing that you said... :)
MoMoMel908 1 year ago
@MoMoMel908
Cheers man, it's good to know I'm not crazy :P is only christian were open minded enough to watch this
lolocaustism 1 year ago
Mosquitoes in 28 million years have not changed at all. They are EXACTLY the same.
socceric17 1 year ago
@socceric17
I'd like to see proof for that lol
lolocaustism 1 year ago
@lolocaustism Look up a picture of a fossilized mosquito and compare it to a modern day mosquito.
socceric17 1 year ago
@socceric17
Appearance isn't the only thing that can change through evolution. Besides there are several varieties of the modern mosquito as far as I know. Also I don't get the relevance of your argument. Are you trying to say the theory of evolution is false?
lolocaustism 1 year ago
@lolocaustism Nope, evolution does happen. Can't argue with that. But what I got an issue with is saying that we developed from monkeys. All those mosquitoes can breed with each other even after millions of years, all types of dogs can breed with each other, BUT we can't breed with monkeys. Thus you can't evolve into a different species. Which means we didn't come from bacteria. We came from God. That's what I'm trying to say.
socceric17 1 year ago
@socceric17
Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, which isn't necessarily a type of monkey (or such is the theory) And at the end of the day it all comes down to genetic compatability. White humans can breed with black humans as well as middle eastern and chinese etc. although each race is differant in looks and size, much like breeds of dogs for example. But I'm not here to say there is no god because there's no possible way to prove that, just like there's no way to prove otherwise.
lolocaustism 1 year ago
@lolocaustism Wolves and dogs can breed because they share a common ancestor. If humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, then we should be able to breed with monkeys. But we can't. Which proves monkeys and humans aren't related, they are are two separate species.
socceric17 1 year ago
@socceric17
No because humans are too genetically different from monkeys. Technically speaking penguins and rhinos share a common ancestor but they can't breed... We are a seperate species from monkeys, just like guinea pigs are a seperate species from rats, we just share the same family (primates / rodents) if you get what I mean. But I see that all you're trying to argue is that humans are a creation and not product of evolution which is outside the point of this video.
lolocaustism 1 year ago
It is my professional opinion that professor Dr John G. Jackson was on the right trail because contrary to black nationalist teachings of groups (Nation of Islam, Moorish Science Temple of America, Black Panther Party, e.t.c.) his research led him to an earlier era of black uprisings against tyranny through a medium of Freethought (i.e. Atheist) activism which questioned the ruling hierarchy of the ancient priest kings.
apollomiami83 1 year ago
Comment removed
apollomiami83 1 year ago
Comment removed
apollomiami83 1 year ago
The best scientist in history in my opinion is Nikola Tesla (i.e. inventor of flying saucer technology) and he was an Atheist Humanist. Another great Atheist scientist is Fred Hoyle and his Steady State Theory (i.e. infinite universe). We have Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins and his idea of the Selfish Gene. Travelling back a few years we have the Atheist mathematician Simon Pierre Laplace
apollomiami83 1 year ago
very well said :)
TheAlmightyNetley 1 year ago
white people are natural born atheists and homosexuals. I find it funny how they keep arguing about a book that condemns the white race (edomites according to the Bible) and is the only race that can't have salvation.
endofsuffering83 1 year ago
@endofsuffering83
But at least in north america and europe there is a good mix of cultures and equal opertunity to learn about different faiths. In some middle eastern countries they are never given that "privilege" and are therefore doomed from birth. For this reason I oppose the moral teaching of the bible.
lolocaustism 1 year ago
Wrong! That statement is historically inaccurate. Atheism has its root in ancient Africa (i.e. Egypt). Egyptologist, James P. Allen, investigates that in Ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom (i.e. 2040-1640 B.C.E.) there was a poem (i.e. The Song of The Harper) found in the tomb of King Intef… which suggests that ‘a person should enjoy the good things in life, avoid contemplation of death, and expresses doubt about the reality of an afterlife’:
apollomiami83 1 year ago
“Make holiday, don’t weary of it! Look there is no one allowed to take their things with them, and there is no one who goes away comes back again.” [End Quote, ‘Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and culture of Hieroglyphs’, 1999]
apollomiami83 1 year ago
Dr. John G. Jackson, Rutgers University lecturer of the Black Studies Department and member of the Rationalist Press Association of London, questions how the early priest-kings formed a ruling class and reduced the masses to slavery gives a good general idea of how it came about. You can read his book: [Jackson, G. John. “Man, God, and Civlization”. Lushena Books Inc, 1972]
apollomiami83 1 year ago
Professor Hector Hawton succintly describes the political turmoil among the ancient Egyptians:
"Confronted by the spectacle of tottering thrones, the hungry plague smitten masses, whose miseries no words of power could relieve, lost faith in kings, priests, and gods. They ceased even to search for the empty boon of a paradise after death." [Hawton, Hector. “The Flight from Reality”. Watts & Co., London, 1941.]
apollomiami83 1 year ago
Whites are not the only "naturalized" born Atheists; yet, we see that the black race of ancient Africa were the first leading Atheist. You need to re-check your history my friend!
apollomiami83 1 year ago
Certain Zulus of Africa:
“No, we see them, but cannot tell how they came; we suppose that they came by themselves.” [End Quote]
apollomiami83 1 year ago
shockofgod's a dick
PhazonShroom 1 year ago
@PhazonShroom
I wouldn't go as far as to say that... he has some misguided views to say the very least.
lolocaustism 1 year ago
@lolocaustism im saying this because i tried to ask him a couple of questions about the Bible a few days ago. Then he said if I could prove Atheism, he would answer my questions. I tried to prove it to him, but then he said i was wrong and he wouldnt answer me until i could prove it. And, of course, i knew he was going to say that. You're better off jumping off a cliff and trying to survive the fall than to prove Atheism to a devout Born-again Christian.
PhazonShroom 1 year ago
@PhazonShroom
Atheism needs no proof... it's not a faith. It's not, as he calls it, faith that there is no god, it's a lack of faith in god. It's a thin line but it makes the difference and hardcore theists like him have trouble understanding that. As I said in this video, there IS proof for what atheists believe in (i.e. science). Anyways, ask him what his definition of "existance" is. He won't be able to phrase it in such a way that god will fall into it. You win [:
lolocaustism 1 year ago
@lolocaustism it's funny because i actually tried to explain what Atheism really is to him...
PhazonShroom 1 year ago
@PhazonShroom
hah. good luck with that.
lolocaustism 1 year ago
tbh Liam ur fuckin genius at timez
Blackposie 1 year ago