i love the page on old earth creationism on conservapedia: "Modern science is an important element, which provides extensive evidence for an old Earth" ... when a creationist brings up that there is no evidence for an old earth, you can just point to this and say "even conservapedia agrees that there is".
@vspqbd It's the one people most resort to when they've lost an argument. Only the lowest of the low violate rule #6, and occasionally #1 and #3. Sometimes they resort to #2 after being blocked, but for the most part the desperation comes in the absolute NEED to demonize people on the other side.
@vspqbd Their first mistake there is assuming there "is" something to win. All these tactics do is make the point their arguments have no merit. Plus, always phrazing them in the most offensive way possible doesn't help. Granted, technically, the word Jihad "can" mean either thing; but why would Shane be having a spiritual struggle about You-tube?
If you have a refutation of the points in the video, present them. If you have support for your invisible sky daddy, present it. But you WILL desist in levying these FALSE accusations of atheists--including that we will "demolish all those who have faith"--or YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
You can be a reasonable person and post here, or you can continue to be an asshole and be barred. Your choice.
Funny how the atheist holy warrior militia is attack me for calling them whiners. Thanks for proving my point. Why would you care what some stupid website says about you? The only reason you would is you take it personal and are obsessed with your cause. Just ignore Conservapedia and all this stupid "Christian vs Atheist" horseshit.
@CaptainRidley Funny how this not-very-well-disguised apologist is attacking all of us for attacking people who lie and ridicule for the sake of gaining power over others, like an idiotic hypocrite who has to keep finding excuses to avoid the arguments against his delusions.
We would LOVE to ignore all of them; but as long as they are a constant imposition into our private and professional lives, they MUST be opposed.
CaptainRidley, I should let you know that you are committing a SERIOUS violation of Rule #5 of this channel here. A jihad is an act of MASS MURDER, and that is EXACTLY what you are accusing me of doing. Knock it off or YOU WILL BE BLOCKED
@shanedk Nice job on not understanding what the term Jihad means jackass. It means struggle and applies to the inner struggle between the spirit and the flesh. Go ahead and block me it doesn't matter to me. All you would be doing is proving how pro censorship you are to people who question your crusade
@CaptainRidley yeah right, of course it does. I must have got it out of context...or not properly understood it's true meaning in the original ancient arabic
@rkyeun "In Arabic, the word jihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle"..."In western societies the term jihad is often translated by non-Muslims as "holy war". Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous." Patricia Crone, Medieval Islamic Political Thought (Edinburgh University Press, 2005),
The dictionary wins fights over what words mean when compared to "Medieval Islamic Political Thought".
I get that it means struggle. You are struggling to kill all the Jews in your holy war, and struggling to hide the real meanings of your actions with taqiyya. We are not fooled.
@rkyeun I'm not a muslim, I'm a teacher with major in religion. And despite what you want to call it, it still means struggle and a "(Patricia Crone) Ph.D is a scholar, author, Orientalist, and historian of early Islamic history working at the Institute for Advanced Study." wins over a fucking dictonary.
It's used synonymously with "crusade" by Muslims /until/ they get called on it, and then they backpedal and say it means struggle. You can take CaptainRidley's own usage as your example.
@10thAngel Sorry, but that's an Argument from Etymology. The word "influenza" came about because people thought diseases were caused by the influence of the stars: INFLUENce, INFLUENza. So when people say the word are they expressing support for astrology?
This is bogus reasoning. The MODERN AND COMMON USAGE of the word refers to a "holy war," and NOT in a symbolic or metaphorical way.
@shanedk still "In western societies the term jihad is often translated by non-Muslims as "holy war" is utterly correct. Though choosing the other option is an unnecessary fuel for peoples dislikes and hatred. There are thousands of other things to dislike and criticise about Islam (and others), but the jihad thing is a cheapshot and makes it sound like a person have bought into the stupidity.
@CaptainRidley no, debunk marathon my friend. Debunk. unlike you religius people, we dont really see point in violence against a group of people. superstition dies trough education.
@CaptainRidley `Funny how the atheist holy warrior militia is attack me for calling them whiners. Thanks for proving my point." And thank you for reaffirming what an immature hypocrite you are.
"Why would you care what some stupid website says about you?" Because quite a lot of people actually think this site provided unbiased information.
@CaptainRidley "just ignore Consevapedia" you know you right, i guess i shuld ignore those creationist tellin my kids that evolution is a lie and that earth was created in six days. allso, i guess is shuld not critizise people for having supersition controling their life and life of their children.
I've seen this before but I've gotta ask - when you were being mind read by Steven Shaw did you volunteer beforehand or did you think it would be a good show to go to and were actually part of the audience?
Because the only one that can be called over reaction, is the one towards CaptainRidley and was partially justified since he barged in with insults himself.
All christians ought to live like God doesn't exist if they want to get into heaven, for doing the right thing with impressing God in mind is to strive for heaven, which would mean their actions were not done for the satisfaction of helping the poor/hungry/naked etc, but because they wanted to live a better afterlife. So, rationally speaking, only atheists go to heaven.
@4lifejackhammer Actually, according to Christian theology; you got that backasswards. A Christian doesn't help his neighbor because his neighbor needs help, and the Christian feels the need to assist him; a Christian helps his neighbor because the non-provable, invisible sky-dictator commands them too in an unverifyable book.
@dj092768 lol, pretty true now that they mention it. but, the whole dictate of the sky dictator is to do so for love of your neighbor, so really, the bible fucks over all believers, lol.
Why are atheists so damn whiny? Who cares what some stupid website says about you? Isn't there more important things to worry about then carrying on your internet jihad?
@shanedk Nice job automatically assuming I am a Christian. Someone criticizes you and you automatically go into a name calling spaz attack. In short you proved my point exactly.
@CaptainRidley You're not fooling anyone. ONLY someone with an extreme bias toward the other side could have posted such a hateful--not to mention presumptuous--comment.
The people who FUCKING LIE about others aren't carrying out a jihad, but the ones who defend themselves from lies are?
You're a FUCKING LIAR. Go away. You are no use to humanity.
@shanedk Calling someone whiny is "such a hateful presumptuous" comment? Overreacting much? Why do you get so upset that I call Atheists whiners? Not all but I do notice whenever religion is brought up online it is normally atheist who start getting offended and throwing insults around. You are not doing much to disprove the theory. You are doing great at your jihad though. Keep up that holy war with those evil religious people.
@shanedk Why are you getting so upset over this? Your reaction is showing my statement correct. Second off getting offended is a choice and a nonproductive one at that. You have yet to show where I lied. My advice to you: Stop worrying what other people think and live your life. There are good people from all walks of life and crazy people in every camp(yes even atheists). Stop worrying about it and go watch a video that makes you laugh.
@CaptainRidley "Why are you getting so upset over this?" Because your initial comment, as well as those that followed were insulting accusations and immature ad-hominem attacks.
"Second off getting offended is a choice and a nonproductive one at that." What was the point of your initial post then calling us jihadists?
"My advice to you: Stop worrying what other people think and live your life." Again, what was the point of your original comment if you truly believe this?
@CaptainRidley Theist throw around just as many insults. Like everything else, people who 'happen' to be theist or who 'happen' to be atheist are not necessarily black/white proposals, there's a gradient of shades of gray. I personally have no problem w/ someone elses' beliefs, as long as they don't make unfounded things public policy.
@CaptainRidley oh my gosh, why are theists so damn whiny about their views being argued with? you can choose to believe in God regardless; the problem here is not the arguments against atheism, but the arguments against it while claiming to be "fair." Which is evidently bogus; Wikipedia allows dissension, conservapedia does not.
@4lifejackhammer Trust me Conservapedia is a total joke. I am in no way defending it. I just think it's extremely stupid someone felt so threatened by it that they had to make a Youtube video refuting it. I mention that I feel atheist on the internet tend to be bitchy and in your face any chance they get and people start freaking out. I just think it's ironic how internet angstheist get so pissed when people bring up God in a comment then shove their shit in your face.
@CaptainRidley YOU were the one who accused US of undergoing a program of genocide! You have NO call to claim the moral high ground here. You are a disgusting, dishonest person!
@CaptainRidley "Trust me Conservapedia is a total joke. I am in no way defending it. I just think it's extremely stupid someone felt so threatened by it that they had to make a Youtube video refuting it."
Two problems with your logic, it was written by a youtuber, and if it's such a waste of time why are you commenting on the video.
@CaptainRidley ". I mention that I feel atheist on the internet tend to be bitchy and in your face any chance they get and people start freaking out. "
It's funny how religious people try to get laws passed controlling other peoples behavior, change the school curriculum to something demonstrably false, and make articles like this, but when atheists prove you wrong they're "bitchy".
When Shane knocks on your door holding the God Delusion you can bitch, until then STFU!.
@CaptainRidley I don't think you get it. Atheists are pissed with 'believers' who have had it their own way for far too long, especially when they lie to justify their own position. So we will push back, and we will get angry with lies, and we will mock the stupidity that we encounter.
The ontological argument winds up confusing people a lot more than it should, though I think you did a good job with it. As I see it, the core fallacy of the ontological argument is equivocating existence in the mind (i.e.: an idea which itself corresponds to the physical state of the brain) with existence in reality.
lol, Yes my head was spinning from that, I was trying to make sense of that when my brain attempted to implode. I think anything existing is irrational, simply because how does anything exist at all? It would make more sense for there to be actually nothing than anything. Yet here it all is, simply mind boggling. The fact that anything exist is amazing in and of it's self, and I think so because we really have no way of explaining or understanding it. I enjoy the puzzle, cause I exist as well.
@TorahOfMessiah613 Why would "nothing" be the default state? Or even the more likely state? Consider that there are an infinite number of ways you can have something, but only one way you can have nothing.
Conservatists have picked the wrong group to "prove wrong", because science, when proven wrong, changes to make itself right again. if E=mc2 is debunked by the nutrino experiment, scientists change the theory until it IS right. Thats the good thing about the modern world, and the curse of conservatism. Rational liberal thinking will change and go on forever, but conservatism will one time hit a wall to great to overcome, and, unable to "evolve", it will be grinded into the dust.
"Conservapedia is proven right again: dimwitted liberals mocked Counterexamples to Relativity in August 2010, but once again Conservapedia has been proven right and liberals wrong: neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light."
Ahhhh! they have made that claim so many times in the past, isn't it in one of the verses of the bible?
Evolution is nothing more than a baseless fantasy. It's undone before it even starts.
Mutations never order anything at all.
Orders that result in function do not come from thin air, objects or forces.
Evolution is so lame, it argues that *if* there was abiogenesis, "natural selection" takes over. The only problem is that the new order that evolution needs is just as impossible as billions of abiogenesis' because there is nowhere in nature for the new orders to come from.
@JungleJargon "Evolution is so lame, it argues that *if* there was abiogenesis" Evolution does not require abiogenisis. Statements like this one and others in your comment show that you haven't the faintest clue as to what evolution and the theory of evolution actually is.
@JungleJargon Evolution is a theory of biology; abiogenesis is a theory of chemistry. They aren't even in the same FIELD! YOU are the one who is clueless.
@shanedk You can't have your fantasy cake and eat it too. Both are nothing more than fantasy. Both require the same magic that does not exist so neither of them exist.
@JungleJargon "because all mechanisms that have ordered functions have a maker." Except natural 'mechanisms' don't have ordered functions, they have adapted functions.
You are assuming the conclusion in your premiss, which constitutes circular reasoning, a common logical fallacy commuted by ID-ers.
You do know that ID has failed to stand up in court right?
@JungleJargon "Are you are going to suspend the laws of science for hydrogen" Please visit talkorigins (dot) net and educate yourself about evolution. Hydrogen has nothing to do with it.
And if you are talking about abiogenisis, I've already explained that's not necessary for evolution to exist.
@thomaseshuis You are going to have to explain what you believe in your own words.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
@thomaseshuis The mechanisms that function as ordered inside of you proves that you have a Maker because all mechanisms that function as ordered have a maker so the mechanisms that function as ordered by a preexisting word in life forms prove that you have a very great Maker who is also the Maker of all matter made primarily of the same working parts that function inside of you.
@JungleJargon "The mechanisms that function as ordered inside of you proves that you have a Maker because all mechanisms that function as ordered have a maker` This is circular reasoning.
First of all your assuming everything has to be designed, without proving this.
Secondly your conclusion is presumed in your premise > circular reasoning.
@JungleJargon "so the mechanisms that function as ordered" Except lifeforms do not function as ordered, they function as their bodies have adapted for survival.
I won't continue this discussion until you either:
1. Present evidence that lifeforms are designed (without circular reasoning or other fallacies).
OR
2. You have educated yourself on evolution and managed to disprove it.
Life forms only exist because they are ordered. It is the genome that orders the selection, nothing else does. The preexisting orders make us what we are.
You failed to present anything and there is nothing you can say.
It is not about design, it is about function that is ordered inside of life forms.
@JungleJargon "Your logic is skipping" No it's not, you're logic is flawed.
"Life forms only exist because they are ordered." This is your baseless assumption, not a fact. You have to provide evidence for that, before you can use it as an argument.
"You failed to present anything and there is nothing you can say." That's you, not me.
@thomaseshuis It is a known fact that life forms only exist because of the preexisting word that ordered their existence using nano technology.
I don't have to prove that.
You have to prove that objects made that preexisting word to order life forms.
I cannot learn about what does not happen.
Only the genome reorders the genome. Nothing else does. Natural selection can only select what the genome reorders. That is the reason evolution never happens.
@JungleJargon "It is a known fact that life forms only exist because of the preexisting word that ordered their existence using nano technology." Then it should not be difficult for you to provide evidence for that theory. Until you do it's nothing more but a baseless assertion of yours and can therefore be dismissed.
@JungleJargon "I don't have to prove that." You do. Otherwise you can say whatever you want. If you make a claim of knowledge, you have to provide evidence for it.
"You have to prove that objects made that preexisting word to order life forms." I don't since I do not make that claim. Stop posing straw-men fallacies and baseless claims and provide evidence for your nonsensical claims.
"I cannot learn about what does not happen." You can read, so go visit talkorigins and read!
@thomaseshuis I am not saying anything irrational or illogical. Mechanisms that function as ordered in life forms with most of the most common elements require a very great Maker.
It is your belief that objects made you what you are that is irrational and illogical.
The function of hydrogen working as ordered inside of us is evidence that we have a very great maker.
You do believe that objects made you what you are and that is very irrational and illogical.
@johnrainrules You failed to prove or show that a mechanism does not have a maker *and* the Maker of all matter is not made of the matter that He made and there is no evidence of any other Maker than the Maker of the function that hydrogen has inside of us.
The function of hydrogen is an essential part of the mechanisms that require a Maker.
If you understand function, show me a function that does not have a maker.
@JungleJargon "The navigation mechanisms of starlings are ordered by a preexisting word."
No, they aren't. They are COMPLETELY unorganized, undesigned, and leaderless. They KNOW how it works, they've modelled it in computers. It requires NO design or leader AT ALL. The system DOES NOT HAVE A MAKER.
@shanedk The preexisting word that orders all the mechanisms in life forms is written in the DNA.
It has never been proven there is any relationship between life forms that depend on RNA and DNA as far as origin other than that they have the same Maker of the same set of working parts which are most of the most common elements.
@JungleJargon No, it consists of chemical nucleotides that make strings of amino acids. It's all just chemistry.
"We should know that working parts cannot exist without having a maker"
Oh, yes they can! In fact we utilize technology all the time that is made without any intelligently-designed input, including parts for your car, robotics, software, etc.
@shanedk It takes intelligence to make working parts. They don't make themselves to work. We set up everything that makes parts.
The "strings of amino acids" are what ordered everything in the life forms including the many trillions of electric motors inside of us that manufacture energy molecules so we do not die.
@JungleJargon "It takes intelligence to make working parts."
No, it doesn't. If you have a recent car, chances are it has parts that are made SOLELY with random mutation and selection, EXACTLY like evolution works.
@JungleJargon "Without the car or parts company in place, there would be no car parts. There is a mechanism in place that comes up with the best form."
That mechanism is a bottom-up strategy of individuals buying and selling to fulfill their needs creating a system that emerges from individuals trying to meet their needs. No organizing mind needs to impose order on an economy or nature.
@thomaseshuis Humans are not cars although we do exist of working parts that all have to be made and ordered.
You are the one that came with the car part annalogy. You said that car parts don't need a maker. That is just simply wrong.
Do you think that we don't exist of parts? The parts that we consist of have to be ordered and assembled just like any other parts. We have more mechanisms than a car has.
It is wonderful to hear you say that us humans "Consist of parts that have to be ordered and assembled"
You must tell me where the factory is - I have a few bits that are broken, missing and worn out. It is great news to hear now that I can just purchase replacements.
"although we do exist of working parts that all have to be made and ordered."
How can something "exist of working parts" and where can I order these parts? I'm trying to build the perfect woman and all I'm missing are Christina Hendricks breasts.
@JungleJargon "Do you think that we don't exist of parts? "
Of course we "exist of parts", I heard that in a documentary made by Borat.
"The parts that we consist of have to be ordered and assembled just like any other parts."
You do know that the story of Frankenstein was fiction and if you tried to assemble a person like a car you would just end up with a bloody mess, right?
@JungleJargon "Humans are not cars although we do exist of working parts that all have to be made and ordered." No, those parts have to grow and develop. Sticking machine related verbs in your explanation does not make humans equable to machines.
"You are the one that came with the car part annalogy." Really, stop making things up and check the previous comments. I did not start this comparison, shanedk did.
@thomaseshuis Our working parts are nouns and the function of those parts is a verb
all of which requires a Maker.
All working parts require a maker and all mechanisms (also a noun) that function require a maker. That is noun, noun, verb, noun which is physical observable evidence of a Maker.
@JungleJargon "You said that car parts don't need a maker." No, I did not, again check the comment history.
"Do you think that we don't exist of parts?" I think we consist of organs, bones and other tissues, that grow and develop.
"The parts that we consist of have to be ordered and assembled just like any other parts." Again, sticking machine related verbs in your explanations does not make organic life equable to machines.
@JungleJargon "The orders that make all the parts are a physical noun, they are literal machine parts."
No they are biological organs and muscles that evolved to adept. You keep asserting everything must be designed and then try to prove this based on the assumption that they are. That's circular reasoning.
@JungleJargon Don't listen to these two idiots. You are WAY smarter then the millions upon millions of scientists working in the field of biology as we speak! As soon as we publish your BRILLIANT theory "hydrogen proves god" and win a Nobel peace prize, we'll rub it in their non presupposing faces!
@thomaseshuis The working mechanisms that function in life forms as ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have is more than enough evidence of a very great Maker.
Show me a mechanism that does not have a maker, if you want to prove me wrong.
@thomaseshuis Every organ consists of individual working parts that are ordered.
I can only show you mechanisms that do have a maker, if you want to say there are mechanisms that don't have a maker, you have to show me one. Even the mechanisms in life forms are made by a preeexisting word so they do have a maker.
The preexisting word is the definition of God incarnate.
@thomaseshuis The fact that every organ is ordered inside of us is observable, you can genetically remove any organ you want to remove.
The fact that hydrogen works as ordered in the mechanisms in life forms proves that it was made to be the essential working part that it is inside of us because working parts never exist without a maker.
@JungleJargon "proves that it was made to be the essential working part that it is inside of us " No it proves that hydrogen is a base element in organisms, which proves that the earliest organisms were hydrogen based.
You're assuming they have to be designed.
Stop using fallacious logical reasoning and provide evidence.
@JungleJargon `Everything about an organism is based on the nano machine parts they are made entirely of.` They are made of cells. Not nano machine parts. Stop trying to twist definitions and words to fit your baseless hypothesis.
`Every part is ordered to do the function that the life form needs to exist.` No, every part evolved to help the organism, but mostly the species to survive. Many organisms have redundant organs and other parts. Your logic is still flawed.
@thomaseshuis All life forms exist only because of the preexisting word that makes them. This is a very well known biological fact. If you take a way the word, you take away the function.
@JungleJargon "Your problem is that biological life forms consist entirely of mechanisms." No, that's your problem, since you keep claiming this without providing evidence.
@shanedk You are all kidding yourselves trying to say that enginering parts is by evolution. Everything they put in place is because they put it in place to find the optimal parts and there is no genome determining the outcome.
161 are Conservapedians
evilkillerpenguin 1 week ago
i love the page on old earth creationism on conservapedia: "Modern science is an important element, which provides extensive evidence for an old Earth" ... when a creationist brings up that there is no evidence for an old earth, you can just point to this and say "even conservapedia agrees that there is".
pegasusfreedom 2 weeks ago
The article isn't locked because they think its perfect. It locked because what a fragile lie it is.
HConstantine 2 weeks ago 2
CaptainRidley has been blocked for repeated Rule 5 violations.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
Man, it's like you've had to block more people for violations of rule 5 than all the others combined.
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@vspqbd It's the one people most resort to when they've lost an argument. Only the lowest of the low violate rule #6, and occasionally #1 and #3. Sometimes they resort to #2 after being blocked, but for the most part the desperation comes in the absolute NEED to demonize people on the other side.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
"but for the most part, the desperation comes in the absolute NEED to demonize people on the other side."
Of course. Because if experience has taught me anything, that's all they have: They can't win the argument any other way.
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@vspqbd Their first mistake there is assuming there "is" something to win. All these tactics do is make the point their arguments have no merit. Plus, always phrazing them in the most offensive way possible doesn't help. Granted, technically, the word Jihad "can" mean either thing; but why would Shane be having a spiritual struggle about You-tube?
dj092768 2 weeks ago
CaptainRidley, THIRD AND FINAL WARNING.
If you have a refutation of the points in the video, present them. If you have support for your invisible sky daddy, present it. But you WILL desist in levying these FALSE accusations of atheists--including that we will "demolish all those who have faith"--or YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
You can be a reasonable person and post here, or you can continue to be an asshole and be barred. Your choice.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
Religion, humanity's worst invention.
naganokumas 2 weeks ago
Wait, Conservapedia matters?
termanedieter11 2 weeks ago
it's the conservapedia it's written by a bunch of religious & dishonest lunatics
everybody that isn't one of them knows that.
but i guess it's nice of you to defend rational reasoning.
Whether it is useful is doubtful,
the people that would need to listen to this are probably the one's
that clicked on the video with Love Jesus in the title.
Anyway thanks for fighting the good fight
unamaxify 2 weeks ago
Funny how the atheist holy warrior militia is attack me for calling them whiners. Thanks for proving my point. Why would you care what some stupid website says about you? The only reason you would is you take it personal and are obsessed with your cause. Just ignore Conservapedia and all this stupid "Christian vs Atheist" horseshit.
CaptainRidley 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley
Cool story bro.
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley Funny how this not-very-well-disguised apologist is attacking all of us for attacking people who lie and ridicule for the sake of gaining power over others, like an idiotic hypocrite who has to keep finding excuses to avoid the arguments against his delusions.
We would LOVE to ignore all of them; but as long as they are a constant imposition into our private and professional lives, they MUST be opposed.
shanedk 2 weeks ago 2
@shanedk Exactly! A jihad!
CaptainRidley 2 weeks ago
CaptainRidley, I should let you know that you are committing a SERIOUS violation of Rule #5 of this channel here. A jihad is an act of MASS MURDER, and that is EXACTLY what you are accusing me of doing. Knock it off or YOU WILL BE BLOCKED
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
That he equates simple opposition to something with mass murder ("jihad") speaks fare more (and far worse) about him than it does us...
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@vspqbd *far
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Nice job on not understanding what the term Jihad means jackass. It means struggle and applies to the inner struggle between the spirit and the flesh. Go ahead and block me it doesn't matter to me. All you would be doing is proving how pro censorship you are to people who question your crusade
CaptainRidley 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley No, look it up: a jihad is a holy war. As in, guns and bombs and killing people.
shanedk 2 weeks ago 2
Comment removed
aussiesam01 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley yeah right, of course it does. I must have got it out of context...or not properly understood it's true meaning in the original ancient arabic
aussiesam01 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Well, a jihad ain't an act of mass murder though. But it is of course used wrong, and over used. Excellent video by the way =)
10thAngel 2 weeks ago
@10thAngel
ji·had ['ji-hahd] noun
a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.
rkyeun 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun "In Arabic, the word jihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle"..."In western societies the term jihad is often translated by non-Muslims as "holy war". Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous." Patricia Crone, Medieval Islamic Political Thought (Edinburgh University Press, 2005),
pfft dictionaries... learn2universitybooks
10thAngel 2 weeks ago
The dictionary wins fights over what words mean when compared to "Medieval Islamic Political Thought".
I get that it means struggle. You are struggling to kill all the Jews in your holy war, and struggling to hide the real meanings of your actions with taqiyya. We are not fooled.
rkyeun 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
10thAngel 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun I'm not a muslim, I'm a teacher with major in religion. And despite what you want to call it, it still means struggle and a "(Patricia Crone) Ph.D is a scholar, author, Orientalist, and historian of early Islamic history working at the Institute for Advanced Study." wins over a fucking dictonary.
10thAngel 2 weeks ago
@10thAngel
My apologies for assuming you were a Muslim. I've leveled upon you a grave insult and I'm ashamed of it.
rkyeun 2 weeks ago
@10thAngel Argument from Authority fallacy.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun Actually 10thAngel is right. In Arabic jihad has a different meaning then it has in the Western language.
It's the same as the English definition of agnosticism and the original Greek definition.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis
It's used synonymously with "crusade" by Muslims /until/ they get called on it, and then they backpedal and say it means struggle. You can take CaptainRidley's own usage as your example.
rkyeun 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun "It's used synonymously with "crusade" by Muslims /until/ they get called on it"
It is only used that way by Muslim extremists as far as I know.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
@10thAngel Sorry, but that's an Argument from Etymology. The word "influenza" came about because people thought diseases were caused by the influence of the stars: INFLUENce, INFLUENza. So when people say the word are they expressing support for astrology?
This is bogus reasoning. The MODERN AND COMMON USAGE of the word refers to a "holy war," and NOT in a symbolic or metaphorical way.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@10thAngel Plus, let's go back to his original post. He said:
"Isn't there more important things to worry about then carrying on your internet jihad?"
Now let's substitute your meaning:
"Isn't there more important things to worry about then carrying on your internet struggle?"
Are you REALLY telling me that sentence has the same meaning and context?
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@10thAngel Oh, and consider that he also referred to us as the "atheist holy warrior militia."
The warning stands.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk still "In western societies the term jihad is often translated by non-Muslims as "holy war" is utterly correct. Though choosing the other option is an unnecessary fuel for peoples dislikes and hatred. There are thousands of other things to dislike and criticise about Islam (and others), but the jihad thing is a cheapshot and makes it sound like a person have bought into the stupidity.
But yes, Ridley is an ass.
10thAngel 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley "Exactly! A jihad!'
You don't even know what a jihad is do you? You're just using a negative word you heard once.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley no, debunk marathon my friend. Debunk. unlike you religius people, we dont really see point in violence against a group of people. superstition dies trough education.
gethsoftware 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley `Funny how the atheist holy warrior militia is attack me for calling them whiners. Thanks for proving my point." And thank you for reaffirming what an immature hypocrite you are.
"Why would you care what some stupid website says about you?" Because quite a lot of people actually think this site provided unbiased information.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley "just ignore Consevapedia" you know you right, i guess i shuld ignore those creationist tellin my kids that evolution is a lie and that earth was created in six days. allso, i guess is shuld not critizise people for having supersition controling their life and life of their children.
gethsoftware 2 weeks ago
I've seen this before but I've gotta ask - when you were being mind read by Steven Shaw did you volunteer beforehand or did you think it would be a good show to go to and were actually part of the audience?
pythor2 2 weeks ago
@pythor2 I was part of the audience and he asked for a volunteer.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
While I agree with the contents of the video shanedk's over reaction to critical comments is disappointing.
RealNRD 2 weeks ago
@RealNRD Which reactions would that be then?
Because the only one that can be called over reaction, is the one towards CaptainRidley and was partially justified since he barged in with insults himself.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
All christians ought to live like God doesn't exist if they want to get into heaven, for doing the right thing with impressing God in mind is to strive for heaven, which would mean their actions were not done for the satisfaction of helping the poor/hungry/naked etc, but because they wanted to live a better afterlife. So, rationally speaking, only atheists go to heaven.
4lifejackhammer 2 weeks ago
@4lifejackhammer Actually, according to Christian theology; you got that backasswards. A Christian doesn't help his neighbor because his neighbor needs help, and the Christian feels the need to assist him; a Christian helps his neighbor because the non-provable, invisible sky-dictator commands them too in an unverifyable book.
dj092768 2 weeks ago
@dj092768 lol, pretty true now that they mention it. but, the whole dictate of the sky dictator is to do so for love of your neighbor, so really, the bible fucks over all believers, lol.
4lifejackhammer 2 weeks ago
Why are atheists so damn whiny? Who cares what some stupid website says about you? Isn't there more important things to worry about then carrying on your internet jihad?
CaptainRidley 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley OUR internet jihad??? We're not the one making baseless attacks and telling outright LIES against other people!
So, YOUR side gets to do that, but if our side points out your bullshit it's called a jihad? FUCK YOU, HYPOCRITE!
Christianity is IMMORAL.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Nice job automatically assuming I am a Christian. Someone criticizes you and you automatically go into a name calling spaz attack. In short you proved my point exactly.
CaptainRidley 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley You're not fooling anyone. ONLY someone with an extreme bias toward the other side could have posted such a hateful--not to mention presumptuous--comment.
The people who FUCKING LIE about others aren't carrying out a jihad, but the ones who defend themselves from lies are?
You're a FUCKING LIAR. Go away. You are no use to humanity.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Calling someone whiny is "such a hateful presumptuous" comment? Overreacting much? Why do you get so upset that I call Atheists whiners? Not all but I do notice whenever religion is brought up online it is normally atheist who start getting offended and throwing insults around. You are not doing much to disprove the theory. You are doing great at your jihad though. Keep up that holy war with those evil religious people.
CaptainRidley 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley You know perfectly well you said a LOT more than "whiny"--jihad? REALLY???
HONEST people DO--and SHOULD--get offended when people LIE. But apparently you don't know the first thing about what honest people are like...
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk Why are you getting so upset over this? Your reaction is showing my statement correct. Second off getting offended is a choice and a nonproductive one at that. You have yet to show where I lied. My advice to you: Stop worrying what other people think and live your life. There are good people from all walks of life and crazy people in every camp(yes even atheists). Stop worrying about it and go watch a video that makes you laugh.
CaptainRidley 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley "Why are you getting so upset over this?" Because your initial comment, as well as those that followed were insulting accusations and immature ad-hominem attacks.
"Second off getting offended is a choice and a nonproductive one at that." What was the point of your initial post then calling us jihadists?
"My advice to you: Stop worrying what other people think and live your life." Again, what was the point of your original comment if you truly believe this?
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley "Why are you getting so upset over this?"
BECAUSE YOU ACCUSED ME OF UNDERGOING A PROGRAM OF GENOCIDE!!! DON'T YOU FUCKING GET IT???
Or do you just casually sling around words like "jihad" without knowing what they actually mean?
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
He calls you angry and whiny when he bursts into the comment section, bellowing about your "internet jihad" and crap? Really?
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley Theist throw around just as many insults. Like everything else, people who 'happen' to be theist or who 'happen' to be atheist are not necessarily black/white proposals, there's a gradient of shades of gray. I personally have no problem w/ someone elses' beliefs, as long as they don't make unfounded things public policy.
dj092768 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley "Someone criticizes you and you automatically go into a name calling spaz attack."
Yea, because this is a completely rational and mature argument: "Why are atheists so damn whiny?" isn't it?
Grow up, you're either intentionally trolling or intentionally offensive, either way you're hardly in a position to judge.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley oh my gosh, why are theists so damn whiny about their views being argued with? you can choose to believe in God regardless; the problem here is not the arguments against atheism, but the arguments against it while claiming to be "fair." Which is evidently bogus; Wikipedia allows dissension, conservapedia does not.
4lifejackhammer 2 weeks ago
@4lifejackhammer Trust me Conservapedia is a total joke. I am in no way defending it. I just think it's extremely stupid someone felt so threatened by it that they had to make a Youtube video refuting it. I mention that I feel atheist on the internet tend to be bitchy and in your face any chance they get and people start freaking out. I just think it's ironic how internet angstheist get so pissed when people bring up God in a comment then shove their shit in your face.
CaptainRidley 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley YOU were the one who accused US of undergoing a program of genocide! You have NO call to claim the moral high ground here. You are a disgusting, dishonest person!
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley "Trust me Conservapedia is a total joke. I am in no way defending it. I just think it's extremely stupid someone felt so threatened by it that they had to make a Youtube video refuting it."
Two problems with your logic, it was written by a youtuber, and if it's such a waste of time why are you commenting on the video.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley ". I mention that I feel atheist on the internet tend to be bitchy and in your face any chance they get and people start freaking out. "
It's funny how religious people try to get laws passed controlling other peoples behavior, change the school curriculum to something demonstrably false, and make articles like this, but when atheists prove you wrong they're "bitchy".
When Shane knocks on your door holding the God Delusion you can bitch, until then STFU!.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley I don't think you get it. Atheists are pissed with 'believers' who have had it their own way for far too long, especially when they lie to justify their own position. So we will push back, and we will get angry with lies, and we will mock the stupidity that we encounter.
asianlife53 2 weeks ago
@CaptainRidley someone writes up a whole essay on why atheists are evil, and that's not whiny, but the video disagreeing with it, is.
That's some strange logic you have there.
TheYoo2b 2 weeks ago
When a rose grows in a crack in the pavement, does that prove that the pavement is designed for the rose to grow in?
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Good one!
I guess God made the crack...
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk I can't really take credit for it. I believe I read in either 'The God Delusion' or 'God is not great'. Not sure which.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Must have been the latter, because I don't recall it from reading TGD.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
3:30 That is my true love! How did he know?
sinistar99 3 weeks ago
The ontological argument winds up confusing people a lot more than it should, though I think you did a good job with it. As I see it, the core fallacy of the ontological argument is equivocating existence in the mind (i.e.: an idea which itself corresponds to the physical state of the brain) with existence in reality.
quidproquo2004 3 weeks ago
By the way, to whomever keeps marking the posts on the evolution side as spam: you, sir, are a dishonest coward and an intellectual weakling.
Just like all creationists, really.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
lol, Yes my head was spinning from that, I was trying to make sense of that when my brain attempted to implode. I think anything existing is irrational, simply because how does anything exist at all? It would make more sense for there to be actually nothing than anything. Yet here it all is, simply mind boggling. The fact that anything exist is amazing in and of it's self, and I think so because we really have no way of explaining or understanding it. I enjoy the puzzle, cause I exist as well.
TorahOfMessiah613 4 weeks ago
@TorahOfMessiah613 Why would "nothing" be the default state? Or even the more likely state? Consider that there are an infinite number of ways you can have something, but only one way you can have nothing.
shanedk 4 weeks ago
Wow...I they have a "cretinopedia" the christians...and again, they lie and talk about honesty.
LowresTV 1 month ago
Question ....if man was created in the image of God; then, God must have a penis. What does he do with it?
dstachon2002 1 month ago
@dstachon2002 Ask 'virgin' Mary!
Hairysteed 3 weeks ago
Good video. I am glad I am a subscriber.
FaganRoberts 1 month ago
Ahhh, the worst enemy of the christian: argument.
jeans1515 1 month ago
A western religitard dies and faces Lord Brahme
"Uh, my lord created and loves you too"
Brahme: "Fucking hell....."
ganados0 1 month ago
Conservatists have picked the wrong group to "prove wrong", because science, when proven wrong, changes to make itself right again. if E=mc2 is debunked by the nutrino experiment, scientists change the theory until it IS right. Thats the good thing about the modern world, and the curse of conservatism. Rational liberal thinking will change and go on forever, but conservatism will one time hit a wall to great to overcome, and, unable to "evolve", it will be grinded into the dust.
Prinsgezindepatriot 1 month ago
Have you seen their latest "victory"
"Conservapedia is proven right again: dimwitted liberals mocked Counterexamples to Relativity in August 2010, but once again Conservapedia has been proven right and liberals wrong: neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light."
Ahhhh! they have made that claim so many times in the past, isn't it in one of the verses of the bible?
Wordavee1 2 months ago
@Wordavee1 And of course, that isn't what happened.
shanedk 2 months ago
Oh come on, who does take Conservapedia for serious?
semperFi4ever100 2 months ago
@semperFi4ever100
Republicans.
rkyeun 1 month ago
Evolution is nothing more than a baseless fantasy. It's undone before it even starts.
Mutations never order anything at all.
Orders that result in function do not come from thin air, objects or forces.
Evolution is so lame, it argues that *if* there was abiogenesis, "natural selection" takes over. The only problem is that the new order that evolution needs is just as impossible as billions of abiogenesis' because there is nowhere in nature for the new orders to come from.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon "Orders that result in functions do not come from thin air, objects, or forces"
Well I guess that means the events in Genesis never happened then.
johnrainrules 3 months ago in playlist More videos from shanedk
@JungleJargon "Evolution is so lame, it argues that *if* there was abiogenesis" Evolution does not require abiogenisis. Statements like this one and others in your comment show that you haven't the faintest clue as to what evolution and the theory of evolution actually is.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis Evolution does require the same magic of abiogenesis because objects never order anything and only the genome reorders the genome.
You don't have a clue.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Evolution is a theory of biology; abiogenesis is a theory of chemistry. They aren't even in the same FIELD! YOU are the one who is clueless.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk You can't have your fantasy cake and eat it too. Both are nothing more than fantasy. Both require the same magic that does not exist so neither of them exist.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "Both require the same magic that does not exist"
No, only creationism does that.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk You are not making an argument.
Abiogenesis requires magic (that never happens).
Evolution requires magic (that never happens).
Creation requires a Maker which is logical because all mechanisms that have ordered functions have a maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "Abiogenesis requires magic (that never happens)." Abiogenisis is not necessary for evolution. And no, it does not require magic.
"Evolution requires magic (that never happens)." Nope, just adaptation and variation.
"Creation requires a Maker" who requires magic to create things, which according to you is illogical. And who made the Maker?
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "because all mechanisms that have ordered functions have a maker." Except natural 'mechanisms' don't have ordered functions, they have adapted functions.
You are assuming the conclusion in your premiss, which constitutes circular reasoning, a common logical fallacy commuted by ID-ers.
You do know that ID has failed to stand up in court right?
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis Are you are going to suspend the laws of science for hydrogen and most of the most common elements to order themselves to function?
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "Are you are going to suspend the laws of science for hydrogen" Please visit talkorigins (dot) net and educate yourself about evolution. Hydrogen has nothing to do with it.
And if you are talking about abiogenisis, I've already explained that's not necessary for evolution to exist.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thomaseshuis You are going to have to explain what you believe in your own words.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon And you still have not provided any evidence for the existence of your god...
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis The mechanisms that function as ordered inside of you proves that you have a Maker because all mechanisms that function as ordered have a maker so the mechanisms that function as ordered by a preexisting word in life forms prove that you have a very great Maker who is also the Maker of all matter made primarily of the same working parts that function inside of you.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "The mechanisms that function as ordered inside of you proves that you have a Maker because all mechanisms that function as ordered have a maker` This is circular reasoning.
First of all your assuming everything has to be designed, without proving this.
Secondly your conclusion is presumed in your premise > circular reasoning.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "so the mechanisms that function as ordered" Except lifeforms do not function as ordered, they function as their bodies have adapted for survival.
I won't continue this discussion until you either:
1. Present evidence that lifeforms are designed (without circular reasoning or other fallacies).
OR
2. You have educated yourself on evolution and managed to disprove it.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis Your logic is skipping.
Life forms only exist because they are ordered. It is the genome that orders the selection, nothing else does. The preexisting orders make us what we are.
You failed to present anything and there is nothing you can say.
It is not about design, it is about function that is ordered inside of life forms.
So you did not even address any of the issues.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "Your logic is skipping" No it's not, you're logic is flawed.
"Life forms only exist because they are ordered." This is your baseless assumption, not a fact. You have to provide evidence for that, before you can use it as an argument.
"You failed to present anything and there is nothing you can say." That's you, not me.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "it is about function that is ordered inside of life forms." Except you've failed to prove that life forms are ordered and not evolved.
You are still begging the question.
Again educate yourself on the theory of evultion or provide evidence that life forms are 'ordered'.
"So you did not even address any of the issues." I did, your failure to understand my rebuttals is your problem, not mine.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis It is a known fact that life forms only exist because of the preexisting word that ordered their existence using nano technology.
I don't have to prove that.
You have to prove that objects made that preexisting word to order life forms.
I cannot learn about what does not happen.
Only the genome reorders the genome. Nothing else does. Natural selection can only select what the genome reorders. That is the reason evolution never happens.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "It is a known fact that life forms only exist because of the preexisting word that ordered their existence using nano technology." Then it should not be difficult for you to provide evidence for that theory. Until you do it's nothing more but a baseless assertion of yours and can therefore be dismissed.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "I don't have to prove that." You do. Otherwise you can say whatever you want. If you make a claim of knowledge, you have to provide evidence for it.
"You have to prove that objects made that preexisting word to order life forms." I don't since I do not make that claim. Stop posing straw-men fallacies and baseless claims and provide evidence for your nonsensical claims.
"I cannot learn about what does not happen." You can read, so go visit talkorigins and read!
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis I am not saying anything irrational or illogical. Mechanisms that function as ordered in life forms with most of the most common elements require a very great Maker.
It is your belief that objects made you what you are that is irrational and illogical.
The function of hydrogen working as ordered inside of us is evidence that we have a very great maker.
You do believe that objects made you what you are and that is very irrational and illogical.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "Mechanisms that function as ordered in life forms with most of the most common elements require a very great Maker."
And that maker would require an even greater maker, the invisible pink unicorn.
"The function of hydrogen working as ordered inside of us is evidence that we have a very great maker."
This statement is evidence you don't understand the "function of hydrogen".
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules You failed to prove or show that a mechanism does not have a maker *and* the Maker of all matter is not made of the matter that He made and there is no evidence of any other Maker than the Maker of the function that hydrogen has inside of us.
The function of hydrogen is an essential part of the mechanisms that require a Maker.
If you understand function, show me a function that does not have a maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "show me a function that does not have a maker."
Read "I, Pencil" by Leonard Read.
Or look up the discoveries about the navigation mechanism of starlings.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk The navigation mechanisms of starlings are ordered by a preexisting word.
...and you can't use design as evidence of no design.
Show me a Mechanism that does no have a maker.
Even life forms are ordered by a preexisting word.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "The navigation mechanisms of starlings are ordered by a preexisting word."
No, they aren't. They are COMPLETELY unorganized, undesigned, and leaderless. They KNOW how it works, they've modelled it in computers. It requires NO design or leader AT ALL. The system DOES NOT HAVE A MAKER.
All you creationists can do is deny reality.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk It was the preexisting word written in starling DNA that ordered the all the mechanisms.
You are the one denying reality.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Please show us this "preexisting word," along with evidence that it actually existed.
REAL science says that things got started with RNA, not DNA.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk The preexisting word that orders all the mechanisms in life forms is written in the DNA.
It has never been proven there is any relationship between life forms that depend on RNA and DNA as far as origin other than that they have the same Maker of the same set of working parts which are most of the most common elements.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "The preexisting word that orders all the mechanisms in life forms is written in the DNA."
Where?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk DNA consists entirely of written directives that determines everything a particular life fom is.
The structure of DNA that contains all of the information consists of elements that are each absolutely essential working parts.
We should know that working parts cannot exist without having a maker the same as mechanisms cannot exist without having a maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon No, it consists of chemical nucleotides that make strings of amino acids. It's all just chemistry.
"We should know that working parts cannot exist without having a maker"
Oh, yes they can! In fact we utilize technology all the time that is made without any intelligently-designed input, including parts for your car, robotics, software, etc.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk It takes intelligence to make working parts. They don't make themselves to work. We set up everything that makes parts.
The "strings of amino acids" are what ordered everything in the life forms including the many trillions of electric motors inside of us that manufacture energy molecules so we do not die.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "It takes intelligence to make working parts."
No, it doesn't. If you have a recent car, chances are it has parts that are made SOLELY with random mutation and selection, EXACTLY like evolution works.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Do you even know what you are saying?
Without the car or parts company in place, there would be no car parts. There is a mechanism in place that comes up with the best form.
The same is true with the genome, without the genome in place there would be no possibility of any ordering of structures and such.
I suppose the parts jumped onto my car too, I need two new doors do you think they could make themselves and jump onto my car?
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "Without the car or parts company in place, there would be no car parts. There is a mechanism in place that comes up with the best form."
That mechanism is a bottom-up strategy of individuals buying and selling to fulfill their needs creating a system that emerges from individuals trying to meet their needs. No organizing mind needs to impose order on an economy or nature.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Read "I, Pencil" by Leonard Read.
shanedk 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "Without the car or parts company in place, there would be no car parts." Except humans aren't cars, nor are any other lifeforms.
"The same is true with the genome," Again this is your baseless assertion, you have to provide evidence for it.
"I suppose the parts jumped onto my car too" Again natural organisms aren't cars.
thomaseshuis 4 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Humans are not cars although we do exist of working parts that all have to be made and ordered.
You are the one that came with the car part annalogy. You said that car parts don't need a maker. That is just simply wrong.
Do you think that we don't exist of parts? The parts that we consist of have to be ordered and assembled just like any other parts. We have more mechanisms than a car has.
You are back tracking and your logic is skipping.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
It is wonderful to hear you say that us humans "Consist of parts that have to be ordered and assembled"
You must tell me where the factory is - I have a few bits that are broken, missing and worn out. It is great news to hear now that I can just purchase replacements.
Do you have a price list ?
tellnet 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "Humans are not cars"
Thanks for the update.
"although we do exist of working parts that all have to be made and ordered."
How can something "exist of working parts" and where can I order these parts? I'm trying to build the perfect woman and all I'm missing are Christina Hendricks breasts.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "Do you think that we don't exist of parts? "
Of course we "exist of parts", I heard that in a documentary made by Borat.
"The parts that we consist of have to be ordered and assembled just like any other parts."
You do know that the story of Frankenstein was fiction and if you tried to assemble a person like a car you would just end up with a bloody mess, right?
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "Humans are not cars although we do exist of working parts that all have to be made and ordered." No, those parts have to grow and develop. Sticking machine related verbs in your explanation does not make humans equable to machines.
"You are the one that came with the car part annalogy." Really, stop making things up and check the previous comments. I did not start this comparison, shanedk did.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Our working parts are nouns and the function of those parts is a verb
all of which requires a Maker.
All working parts require a maker and all mechanisms (also a noun) that function require a maker. That is noun, noun, verb, noun which is physical observable evidence of a Maker.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "Our working parts are nouns and the function of those parts is a verb"
Except our parts and their function developed as an evolutionary reaction to the environment.
You are still making baseless assertions.
"all of which requires a Maker." No, evolution is a perfectly adequate explanation.
"All working parts require a maker and all mechanisms" Except your blatantly wrong and have failed to prove this.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "You said that car parts don't need a maker." No, I did not, again check the comment history.
"Do you think that we don't exist of parts?" I think we consist of organs, bones and other tissues, that grow and develop.
"The parts that we consist of have to be ordered and assembled just like any other parts." Again, sticking machine related verbs in your explanations does not make organic life equable to machines.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis The parts that you mentioned are all ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have.
The orders that make all the parts are a physical noun, they are literal machine parts.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon You keep claiming ""All working parts require a maker" without having proven this.
"The parts that you mentioned are all ordered by a preexisting word written in"
Yet another baseless claim.
Provide evidence for claims like these.
"with the function that the elements were made to have." No, they evolved to adept to the changing environment.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "The orders that make all the parts are a physical noun, they are literal machine parts."
No they are biological organs and muscles that evolved to adept. You keep asserting everything must be designed and then try to prove this based on the assumption that they are. That's circular reasoning.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "You are back tracking and your logic is skipping.` No, you are attacking me with straw-man arguments. Again google straw-man fallacy.
This won't hide the fact that you have failed to provide evidence that organic life is designed.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon Don't listen to these two idiots. You are WAY smarter then the millions upon millions of scientists working in the field of biology as we speak! As soon as we publish your BRILLIANT theory "hydrogen proves god" and win a Nobel peace prize, we'll rub it in their non presupposing faces!
TacoBurgher327 3 weeks ago
@TacoBurgher327 You are assuming that the world will willingly accept the turth.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon Poe'd!!!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk You really think so?
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@TacoBurgher327 "You are WAY smarter then the millions upon millions of scientists working in the field of biology as we speak! "
Ah, you gotta love that confirmation bias. The levels of stupidity it can reach.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis The working mechanisms that function in life forms as ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have is more than enough evidence of a very great Maker.
Show me a mechanism that does not have a maker, if you want to prove me wrong.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "The working mechanisms" They are working organs.
For the last time, using machine related words, does not make human anatomy equable to machines.
"Show me a mechanism that does not have a maker,"
No, you are making the claim therefore you have to provide evidence. Furthermore organisms are just that organisms, not mechanisms.
But to humour you:
Proteles cristatus
Vanessa indica
Limnocorax flavirostra
Homo sapiens.
And many, many more.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Every organ consists of individual working parts that are ordered.
I can only show you mechanisms that do have a maker, if you want to say there are mechanisms that don't have a maker, you have to show me one. Even the mechanisms in life forms are made by a preeexisting word so they do have a maker.
The preexisting word is the definition of God incarnate.
Organisms consist of mechanisms.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "Every organ consists of individual working parts that are ordered." No, each organ consits of living cells that growed to form organs.
You are assuming they are ordered, you have to provide evidence for that.
Organs and cells are not ordered, they grew due to data stored in teh dna of those cells which develop through evolution.
Even if this theory is false, that does not prove your theory. You still have to proof they were designed.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis The fact that every organ is ordered inside of us is observable, you can genetically remove any organ you want to remove.
The fact that hydrogen works as ordered in the mechanisms in life forms proves that it was made to be the essential working part that it is inside of us because working parts never exist without a maker.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "The fact that every organ is ordered inside of us" Except they aren't ordered.
Stop trying to make organisms into machines by using the wrong words.
Provide evidence that things are ordered or designed.
"you can genetically remove any organ you want to remove." No, you cannot.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "The fact that hydrogen works as ordered in the mechanisms in life forms " Yet another baseless form of hand waving.
Again, provide evidence for your wild assumptions.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "proves that it was made to be the essential working part that it is inside of us " No it proves that hydrogen is a base element in organisms, which proves that the earliest organisms were hydrogen based.
You're assuming they have to be designed.
Stop using fallacious logical reasoning and provide evidence.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "because working parts never exist without a maker." And yet another baseless assumption.
You have not proven this.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "if you want to say there are mechanisms that don't have a maker"" I don't.
I say organisms aren't machines.
You are the one claiming they are and that they are assigned >you< have the burden of proof not me.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Everything about an organism is based on the nano machine parts they are made entirely of.
Every part is ordered to do the function that the life form needs to exist.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon `Everything about an organism is based on the nano machine parts they are made entirely of.` They are made of cells. Not nano machine parts. Stop trying to twist definitions and words to fit your baseless hypothesis.
`Every part is ordered to do the function that the life form needs to exist.` No, every part evolved to help the organism, but mostly the species to survive. Many organisms have redundant organs and other parts. Your logic is still flawed.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "Even the mechanisms in life forms are made by a preeexisting word"
This is a claim, you have not proven this.
Provide evidence for the existence of this so called 'word'.
Until you do, you haven't proven anything.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis All life forms exist only because of the preexisting word that makes them. This is a very well known biological fact. If you take a way the word, you take away the function.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon `All life forms exist only because of the preexisting word that makes them.` Another baseless assumption, provide evidence for this.
`This is a very well known biological fact` No it's not. I challenge you to cite a biology text book that states this.
"If you take a way the word, you take away the function." Complete gibberish.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "Organisms consist of mechanisms." No they don't.
For the last time using machine like words to describe organic systems does not make them mechanisms!
Your logic is severely flawed.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Your problem is that biological life forms consist entirely of mechanisms.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "Your problem is that biological life forms consist entirely of mechanisms." No, that's your problem, since you keep claiming this without providing evidence.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "if you want to say there are mechanisms that don't have a maker, you have to show me one."
I have several examples in my book.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk If you had an example of a mechanism that does not have a maker, you would have given it.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon I've got TONS. Read up on how NASA is EVOLVING, NOT DESIGNING, many parts such as hi-tech communications antennae: gooDOTgl/ANLk2
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk You are all kidding yourselves trying to say that enginering parts is by evolution. Everything they put in place is because they put it in place to find the optimal parts and there is no genome determining the outcome.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon "Everything they put in place is because they put it in place to find the optimal parts"
ABSOLUTELY FALSE. There is NO such human optimization with genetic algorithms. In fact, when they've tried that, the algorithm has worked LESS well!
"there is no genome determining the outcome."
BULLSHIT. There is ABSOLUTELY a genome and that is what mutates from generation to generation.
All you can do is DENY REALITY.
shanedk 3 weeks ago