@noibn2 show me a thing that starts as one species and becomes a totally different species and I will agree with you, but im sorry most "proof" is using methods like carbon dating that have more proof they are inacurate than acurate... btw therer are christian evolutionists that believe that god created the world and the days are not quite literal.
@karaj555: The Faeroe Island house mouse. (unfortunately youtube wont let me post the link to the article, but I could mail it to you)
Would you happen to be a professional in the field? I'm curious because you seem to dismiss "most proofs" so casually. Care to refer me to a credible scientific journal or a peer-reviewed article that supports that notion? Btw, carbon dating is a method of determinating the approximate age of something, it's not really proof of evolutionary theory
If you don't believe in it, don't bother arguing it. Christians are still going to be bold, serve the Lord, read our Bibles, and get saved. None of the cynicism and lies are going to stop us so God Bless! :-).
What a stupefying title...oh so gravity IS real...so every remark Mark makes must be true...please. FU. Good to know pastors will be judged harder then just a person. Deal with that...
@LLThenu lol u dont think people are bad do you.... you can just say you disagree instead of making a sarcastic statement. It reflects badly on you not him because you kinda sound a bit whiny and childish.
@karaj555 I agree with the content of this srmon clip. If i have been sarcastic, it has been partly by the example of Mark. How many times has he not been sarcastic even to other members of the body. i.e. homeshoolers...(Tim Tebow). I guess the word is not enough to draw a crowd. you have to market it.
The gravity analogy is just awful. Gravity is clearly demonstrable, repeatable, and testable. Sin is pure speculation. This doctrine doesn't pass the most basic common sense test. Furthermore, how can this man say he doesn't like gravity? Without it, earth couldn't support human life.
@Itsjustrocketscience Your gonna remove the comment now? Thats not cool. Besides Science from a Christian perspective is self contradictory. Faith (The basis of Christian belief) is about blind acceptance of "truths" from an ancient book. Science is about rigorous testing and brutal peer review in order to establish truth, or at least put forth evidence for something.
@Itsjustrocketscience Well I say they invented Purgatory but obviously they don't say that. It is one of the many inconsistencies with Catholicism and Christianity as a whole. Children burn in hell though. The Christian doctrine (specifically the one preached in this video) means unborn children and infants are tortured forever in searing agony. That isn't a god I would worship even if I believed he existed.
@Itsjustrocketscience No sir. It doesn't. Unborn children and infants do not go to heaven, according to the Bible. Purgatory was invented by the Catholic church so people could feel comfortable about their dead child, but it was abandoned when parents realized they wouldn't be able to see their children in heaven. This led the Catholic church (and all other Christian churches) to start instating the belief that all children went to heaven. It is not based on the Bible in any way, shape or form.
@LargeGroundhog Hahahaha. Read the Bible. No it doesn't. I became an atheist after being raised as a Christian for the first 16 years of my life. I have read the Bible countless times. Here is a verse for your perusal: 2 Kings 2:23-24. That should clear up how God feels about children.
@chimera667 Reading the Bible doesn't guarantee you understood it as it was intended. You seem angry, and biased.
Those verses confirm that rejecting God, therefore sinning, results ultimately in death. Without partiality. God is the judge, not you or me.
I have faith in God partly because through multiple historical narratives, I'm convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. Faith in what I can't prove, as an extension of what I have evidence for. Logical, and reasonable.
I love this argument because it is hypocritical. You want to tell me that I misunderstood the Bible based completely on how correct you consider your own interpretation.
Those verses show how god thinks of children and perfectly illustrates my point that your god is not merciful by any standard.
There are no contemporary historical documents that prove the Jesus story. That is fact. Also, jumping to conclusions based on a book of historical half-truth is erroneous in the highest regard.
@Grrrrtt So there is a correct way to criticize an ancient text of historical half-truths? Who decides what is the right way to criticize it? Any way it goes the answer is going to be biased and therefore invalid. Same for context. I think that verse is completely in context. Obviously, you don't. Where is the line? Who decides its placement. You cannot correct my context without having a valid alternative and all you seem to be able to provide is your own terrible biased opinion.
@LargeGroundhog Hahahaha. Read the Bible. No it doesn't. I became an atheist after being raised as a Christian for the first 16 years of my life. I have read the Bible countless times. Here is a verse for your perusal: 2 Kings 2:23-24. That should clear up how God feels about children.
So if you begin your life evil and defiled then unborn children and infants that die are all sent to roast in hell forever? This is a fucked up religion.
My only issue with this clip is that he SEEMS to parallel sin with gravity in such a way that, as with gravity, sin is not only natural...but "will always be there" and "cannot be eliminated,"... which is not necessarily true
Imagine an alien coming to earth, perhaps with minions. And he is so powerful he can control the weather and tectonic forces; be everywhere; watch us; read all our minds, and give us eternal life. And he asks us to worship him on our knees, now and forever, and he threatens us with eternal burning if we don’t.
@StrumstickJoe Imagine your mother coming into your room, she tells you to clean up after yourself. You say "no, you're not the boss of me, this is My room." Oh, not to mention you're forty years old, you don't pay rent, you don't work and you don't own the deed to the house.
Not to sound sarcastic, but "Quite the bastard, isn't she?"
Wrong. We are most like the Bible's god when we murder millions, and torture people for their whole lives(god doing it for eternity). That's predominantly what the god of the Bible does.
@brajamtho757 I believe that like most other people before you, you have done what only humans can do. Made a mistake. God doesn't torture anyone. There are no devils in red pajamas that stab you in the ass with pitchforks while you dangle over an enteral pitt of fire. That is "Hollywood Hell", or hell developed by Hollywood.
@brajamtho757 If you actually read the Bible (both Testaments and/or the Torah), you'd see that The True Hell is actually being away from God. "For only God is good and the provider of all good things."
God constantly has this attitude, "If you love me then follow me. If not, then go." God constantly says "come to me and I will be with you" and "If you don't serve me, then I shall give you to your lovers" (ezekiel 16(:39))
It would be evil to punish those who don't believe because there is no evidence upon which to base belief. That would be god punishing those who use their minds, which god gave them, to their greatest potential, which is absurd, regardless of whether that punishment is eternal torment or mere absence of god, if that itself is a kind of torment.
The problem is that it's not a punishment, but rather a result. Put your hand to a flame, you will be burned. All 10 commandments work that way to some degree. Ezekiel explains that best. The Bible also states that all men have seen evidence for God. I know of one man who went out to the wilderness and found that the most complex of things were actually simple. Later on in science they discovered a new "shape" known as a Fractal. Without this shape, nothing that is complex is actually complex.
Fractals are not evidence. There is not a shred of evidence for god, let alone the Biblical god. It's all wishy-washy nonsense.
Calling it a result rather than punishment is only semantics. The bottom line is it would still mean god set us up to fail. He created us, and everything about us, therefore any inherent flaws, including a sin nature, are all his doing, and 100% his responsibility,
@brajamtho757 The only thing that is truly wishy-washy is the thought that I could ever convince you.There's plenty of evidence. However, I can never prove that to someone like you. So I have no reason to try. I know dozens of people, hundreds of testimonies and uncountable 'coincidences' in my life.
Exactly, coincidences. What's more likely, the laws of physics were suspended, and in your favor, while thousand starve daily, or that you're mistaken? The answer is obvious.
@brajamtho757 We are not designed to fall. You're the second person that has tried to convince me that God is responsible for my actions. I will not accept that someone else is responsible for MY choices.
You were born a sinner. Therefore you were given no choice. God throws you in the ocean, and dangles a life preserver and says, "anyone not want to drown?"
@brajamtho757 God did not place the tree in the garden so that we will fall, but rather so that we will have a choice (as well as my own theory about the tree). In the words of a Philosopher, "I'm glad that I am able to use a wooden board to both build my house and to beat my brother with it. Because if the board suddenly turned into bubbles(God stopped me) then that would take away my choice." Meaning if God does not allow sin, then He must forbid free will.
@brajamtho757 Unless of course when you told me that I was wrong, you actually meant that I quoted the wrong person, if that's the case then forgive me for this red herring.
Also something that I should probably correct. (though am late about)
When William made this quote, he was speaking philosophically, not scientifically.
We are about as much "animals" as grapes and dandy lions are "vegetables". I mean you're Technically, not wrong, but you did take the quote out of context there.
What is out of context? The god of the Bible is not forgiving in the least. He's a bloodthirsty psychopath. We're not like the God of the Bible. We're so much better than that.
@brajamtho757 You say this without any examples, so it seems that you are just making things up. (aka, Making claims.) Now if you think like a rational human being, then there must be a reason that you think the way you do. If not then you're just being a child who doesn't want to eat his vegetables.
I've read the bible several times through. God is not bloodthirsty and hates human sacrifices. He constantly says that I want obedience more than sacrifice. Under the understanding that "God is Good and cannot be near 'sin'" then this would make perfect sense. I have read about many horrible things in the bible, but they all made sense when taken in context. I've heard arguments from people like you that go "God shouldn't punish people" then hypocritically go, "why didn't god punish them?"
@brajamtho757 So basically, I'm tired of arguing such hypocritical non-sense with people who don't think better than a child. So let's stop arguing about the Bible entirely and focus on science. If not, I will have to ignore you entirely.
(also can we move to Private messaging. we're kind of crowding the comments board and I don't think they appreciate it.)
And another thing, the difference, is that we all know gravity exists, and it is easily verified. On the other hand, there is no good reason to believe in the Bible, as it has been dis-proven on several accounts.
We know the Biblical creation is a myth, because we know evolution and the Big and the Big Bang are true, therefore the Garden of Eden was a myth, as was the Fall of Man. Thus, there is nothing from which Man needs salvation.
@brajamtho757 "We know the Biblical creation is a myth, because we know evolution... and the Big Bang are true"
This statement is a lie. Sorry, but that is the truth. Many scientists are going for the string theory now a days. Plus, you misunderstand what a "myth" actually is. Myth is a traditional story that states "accepted history". Evolution is a Myth and so is the Bible. Funny how that works, it's a double edged sword that comes out of your mouth. I know that God exists, like I know you do
How does string theory contradict the Big Bang? Evolution has been proven. Check out our chromosome number 2 and how it is the result of a merger of two chromosomes. Strong evidence for common ancestry with the other great apes.
@brajamtho757 Because I asked Him a question, and He answered me. That's proof enough for me, Just like me answering you is proof enough that I exist.
Also listing is a form of Propaganda. You might want to look at each "issue" as individual cases. Trust me, it helps a whole lot.
Also if you wish to argue with ME about evolution, could you do it without talking about the Bible. "Whether the bible is true or not" and "whether evolution is true or not" are two different subjects entirely.
@brajamtho757 Stating that they are true, is not a fact. Prove of evolution doesn't disprove God. And The BIg Band sounds about as crazy as the Bible. Now those are facts.
"There was nothing, then there was something." Sounds the same to me, but like I said. Two different subjects entirely.
But they are true, and the evidence supports them.
Evolution: human chromosome 2 as compared to other ape chromosomes is proof of common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are proof of common descent.
The Big Bang: The cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted to exist based on the big band theory. So the theory was tested, and passed. It also explains the relative abundance of the chemical elements.
It may sound as crazy as the bible. The difference is evidence.
@brajamtho757 Biology 101. Creatures with an odd number of chromosomes can not reproduce. 2nd Similar # of chromosomes do not prove anything about evolution, (just like how all of our organs are more similar with a Pig than any Ape does not prove common descent.)
Big Bang Theory is not even a "theory" because it can not be tested. (If you theorize that a frog looses it's hearing if you cut off its legs, is that a true test?) And doesn't prove that there was not God behind it. Universe expands.
There's no polite way to say this. You need to learn quite a bit more on these subjects. Just stay away from creationist sources and you'll see the evidence against biblical creation is abundant. That's not to say a creator is disproven, but a literal interpretation of the Bible IS disproven.
@brajamtho757 Tell me, Exactly What Creatist source did I use. I used a SCINCE TEXTBOOK and found that creatures with an odd number of chromosomes can not reproduce. In order for us to have less chromosomes (even in merging chromosomes) we would need to have at least one creature that has one less chromosome. However, that has not been observed to happen in real life. Never been tested. And just saying "We see this, so this MUST have happened" is a silly argument.
@brajamtho757 I'll explain further. Let's say I made the statement, "We are on Hawaii because we took a boat. And since we are on Hawaii, then we must have taken a boat." Now While it is possible that we could have taken a boat to get to Hawaii. However, that is not the only way that it could have happened and therefore not THE answer. (Other answers include but not limited to: Timewarp portal, Airplane, blimp, swimming, and being born on the Island to begin with.)
Apes have an extra pair, not just one extra. I assumed you know what I meant.
If you find out more about the details of the DNA similariities and how they likely came about, it's solid evidence for evolution. Endogenous retroviruses are even more definitive.
The Big Bang can be tested. Testing doesn't mean replicating the process. Testing merely means making predictions based on the theory and trying to prove the theory wrong, so far it's passing with flying colors.
@brajamtho757 "Apes have an extra pair, not just one extra. I assumed you know what I meant."
I know what you said, But in order for us to evolve from 'other apes' then How exactly did you think that we lost chromosomes? The last person that stated this argument said that we merged our chromosomes together. If you have a better suggestion then I'd love to hear it, so that I can stop using that guy's excuse.
@brajamtho757 Big Bang: Let me explain in words you can understand. You tested for Radiation. You assume that the radiation is there because of the Bang. However, the Bang is NOT the only way that Radiation is created. Stars are just like the sun (Bible says unique, but who cares.) They radiate Radiation. If the Radiation is not moving then not only would we not be able to detect it, but I would not be Radiative by definition. The star's are a source of Radiation. Radiation is emitted in waves..
Your response indicates the concept of the cosmic microwave background radiation is new to you. It's not just any old type of radiation. It's radiowaves at a very specific wavelength, and it's not associated with any star, galaxy, or any object. It's everywhere, and it's uniform, to one part in 100,000 throughout the WHOLE SKY. There are many more relevant details that link it to the Big Bang. In all seriousness you ought to check it out.
@brajamtho757 It is new to me, but my last comment about "the smoke and the gun" still stands.
Also just to make sure, Did you say "whole sky"? Don't you mean all of space? Sorry, but when you say "sky" it makes me think that people only took pictures of the sky and not actually go up into space and detected the radiation at the 'source'. Heck, one could even say that what you're detecting may actually be what is Static is to a Radio. Is that not possible as well? "Devil talking" LOL
Again, your response reveals your ignorance. That's not an insult. But don't expect me to teach you all there is to know about the background radiation. Your questions will be addressed if you would simply bother to check out just about any old website covering the topic.
If you're not going to do that, take my word, it's from space, not simply the sky/atmosphere. And you accuse me of arguing like a child.
@brajamtho757 waves just like light. How can you not assume that the radiation is coming from them?
In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "Once all other possibilities have been eliminated..." You have not eliminated the stars as a source, so why assume that the Big Bang did it?
Now let's take this and make a simpler for you to understand... You found the smoke, but you don't have the gun. Plus, even if you did find the gun, how does it prove that a God didn't pull the trigger in the first place?
You're not even paying attention. It's uniform. You're calling me stupid when you don't understand the most basic ideas of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Look it up.
@brajamtho757 "You're calling me stupid when you don't understand the most basic ideas"
I am not calling anyone anything. You're making that assumption all on your own. I simply stated that "Circular reasoning" is not solid evidence. How can you say that the radiation came from the Big Bang, when no one has witnessed one? That makes no sense in itself. Hence, why I used metaphor with "ghosts" to explain. The only thing that I can say about you is that you're not trying to understand what I say
You haven't bothered to find out anything about the radiation. You don't care about the truth at all. All you care about is your backwards ideology. If you cared, you would have looked up something on topic and many of your questions would be answered.
@brajamtho757 Now, have you found the answers to those Geology questions that I asked, or are you just going to ignore them? I've had those questions since 5th grade and not a single textbook even mentions answers. I'm not saying that Evolution is false here, but rather that it must have taken a much shorter time. I also happen to know that one of the Argon dating methods is also false. Tested and proven. I also have a few Ideas as to why other dating methods are "incorrect" if you like to hear.
@brajamtho757 "Most of your questions are silly. I'm going to assume your got your questions from Answers in Genesis, or some other deceitful organization."
You can assume all you want. I'm this silly all on my own. I don't use any website, I look, I learn and I ask questions. That is what makes a scientist and a detective. However, my biggest concern is still the Geology, of which you still haven't even touched. I don't mind if you say, "I don't know yet", but stop with the superiority thing.
@brajamtho757 "Apes have an extra pair, not just one extra. I assumed you know what I meant."
The math simply states that a single chromosome merging with another chromosome will be like 2 becoming one. Three (or4) becoming one (or2 Respectively) is twice as less likely to happen.
@brajamtho757 I don't need to look it up. My statement still stands. Look up why Mules can't reproduce. It's a fact of life. Evidence is speaking, but you're not listening. Again I must state, Saying that it happened is not the same as it actually happening. Therefore, it's not actual Evidence.
@brajamtho757 Perhaps comparing what you said about Background Microwave Radiation to smoke and a gun was not the best method.
Okay, let me explain, "How do you know the Bang happened?" "Because we have the Radiation" "Where did the radiation come from?" "It could only be produced by the Bang." "And you know this because?" "Nothing else we know of can produce this radiation so it must have been the Bang." Is that not circular reasoning?
@brajamtho757 Maybe it would be better if I changed my metaphors. No one has seen a Ghost. Scientists say that if Ghosts exist then they would produce an electromagnetic wave. Scientists go to locations where "ghostly activities" have been reported. They find Electromagnetic waves, so they declare that "Ghosts must exist."
That is exactly how you sound to me with the Big Bang, I'm not saying that there was no Bang, but I am saying that your reasons for belief in the bang are extremely faulty.
@brajamtho757 Now, let's also assume that a single ape was able to "evolve" and lose his "extra" chromosomes. Guess what, it will then have to wait until a fellow ape also "Evolves" with the exact same mutation of having less chromosomes AND have them be of the Opposite gender (seeing as though mammals are not Asexual reproducers), AND mate with them, AND produce enough offspring to with each other. Consequently, I'm sorry but after all that, you might as well just say, "God did it."
In other words, Science is for evolution, but Science is also against evolution. Just like our DNA and RNA does it's best to prevent any kind of mutation.
So as a rational scientist… I just can't believe in Evolution, I do not have enough faith in it. lol.
No. Mutation is inevitable. DNA and RNA don't do their best. They simply react chemically, and transcription is not always perfect in many different ways.
@brajamtho757 "No. Mutation is inevitable." Did I ever say that it was impossible? I distinctly remember saying, "So long as the possibility exists then it could happen" Note that this saying doesn't mean it's Impossible, actually it means the opposite. I'm just saying that it's Very unlikely. Out of the 1 in a million there's still five other factors that increase it even more than that.
We don't have to know how it happened. The evidence that it happened is solid.
One in 1000 humans today has a fusion of chromosomes 13 and 14. For two of them to meet, that's just 1 in a million, which over evolutionary timescales is inevitable.
It's called a Robertsonian translocation. Look it up, though I doubt you will.
@brajamtho757 "Robertsonian translocation" Here's where you didn't understand what I'm saying. Other Apes have 24 pairs. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. In order for humans to evolve into modern man, then we'd first need to lose the extra chromosomes. But when a hybrid is made then they are sterile.
"Other translocations occur but do not lead to a viable fetus." The survivors also appear to develop Down Syndrome. Which is yet another variable that I forgot to mention:Survival of the mutant
(Warning: Sarcastic Creationist remarks) In the long run, it still sounds as if flies were fine to begin with and the Radiation only served to screw them up.
When you say that it's likely to happen then you should expect it to happen again, (especially one that we seem to be able to control in this case). Why doesn't anyone do those kinds of experiments?
@brajamtho757 Currently, in the world there are almost 7 billion people, so the chances of this mutation seem more likely Today. But not yesterday. If it's really just as likely today as it was thousands of years ago, then why are there no "apemen" hybrids today? Don't you find it strange that this mutation (which you say is more likely than it is) that it seems to be so elusive. 700 people surly have "evolved" like this again by now.
@brajamtho757 "We are apemen." No, we are the species Homo-HomoSapien. We are the final product other apes are our ancestors. The in-between state is a Hybrid. Plus yet again, you miss the point of the question. If you believe that all of those factors could happen once (let alone enough times so that Inbreeding would not become an issue), then why has it not happened again by now? Where are our homosapein (older version modern day)cousins?
@brajamtho757 Often Down syndrome is associated with some impairment of cognitive ability and physical growth, and a particular set of facial characteristics. Individuals with Down syndrome tend to have a lower-than-average cognitive ability, often ranging from mild to moderate disabilities. - wikipedia
@Snowmon89 3)...but your god, what’s his excuse…? I mean it – I find it hard to fathom – ZOMGitsCriss on YT, and Christopher Hitchens are so much more articulate than I – if their uploads can’t move you, then I think nothing will. You can find examples in their work of why evolution stands (and is a continuing process), and any kind of magical theist explanation for anything falls.
@StrumstickJoe I think there's an assumption here that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive. That's only true if you're a turbo-fundamentalist. According to Pastor Mark, there are at least 6 valid Biblical ways to interpret Genesis 1. What is mutually exclusive to Christianity is naturalism, which many people wrongly attach to evolution. I hope this helps!
@hornzbiddle1189 It's OK for YOU to mull over the possibility that they are mutually exclusive - and you have to! Because you have to find for yourself some point in the evolution of species that your god decided to "insert" his man-creation into the mix. Or do you believe that he took his planet-full of primordial soup and light the spark of life which he then knew would evolve into higher primates?
Evolution is on-going - I have to go now and talk to snowmon, who's just appeared.
@hornzbiddle1189 BTW At least 6 ways to interpret Genesis!!! Does that not make it obvious to you how possible ANY interpretation is? Can you not see that? And you said VALID - meaning each one is as "true" as the others. Weak. So weak.
Here's another: The "talking snake" story is not about banishment from paradise at all - it is an allegory about a dude being thrown out of the temple (the main troublesome one in Jerusalem) - and doesn't belong at the start of the anthology of mythology at all!
@StrumstickJoe My only point is that evolution is a moot point- it's nonessential to being a Christian. If you want to discuss the validity of the Christian message, what you want to research is the resurrection. It's the foundation of Christian faith. Invalidate it, and you crush Christianity. On the flip side, if in fact Jesus was brutally murdered and was alive a few days later, you have to give a little more attention to his claim that he is God.
@hornzbiddle1189 There is no evidence for JC. Ergo no evidence for the resurrection story - nothing to research!
End of your story.
If someone was brutally murdered (quite common in those days I hear) and you think it was that character - then think on this: in the story, the graves opened up on easter weekend, and hundreds of dead walked the town (as in Thriller!!) so resurrection was positively mundane!!
But there is no record - and since it requires belief in the supernatural, I refute it.
@StrumstickJoe Ever heard of "historical Jesus"? Historians on all sides agree that Jesus was a real person, that he died on a cross, and that his followers claimed to have interacted with Jesus after he came back from the dead. Historians also consider the New Testament a reliable document, so far as it is historical. This much is not in dispute. I'm not trying to convert you (at least not very hard); all I'm trying to do is help you argue intelligently. Are you open-minded or not?
I doubt if there is a single, serious objective historian in the world who believes there is evidence for jesus.
But if he existed, and he died on a cross, and his followers claimed..etc Then you still have not proved divinity.
The NT is contradictory, bloodstained, plagarised stories from centuries before it. The OT is also vindictive and contradictory. Neither has credibility. You are wrong to be claiming verity for this document. Thanks for trying to help me.
@StrumstickJoe I don't like to get into youtube arguments (they generally get unproductive quickly), so this will probably be my last post (or not), but if you're open-minded, the least you can do is a quick google search ("historical validity resurrection" or something- it doesn't really matter). Realize that It's not just me with whom you're disagreeing. It's 99% of the academic field. See where they agree.
Naturalism (which is what divides most Bible historians) is a debate for another day.
@StrumstickJoe I can't attach hyperlinks, but google "Mark Driscoll Doctrine God Makes" and click the top result (3rd result on video search)and go a little after the 7 minute mark to see his explanation of the various Christian views.
@Snowmon89 2)…I’m not repeating … 99% of all the species that have ever lived on earth (including the “homo” species) have become extinct. Homo sapiens only just survived the migration out of Africa following climate change. What kind of planned creation is this? Your god also thought up hammerhead sharks (?) and a fungus that grows exclusively in an ant’s brain, killing it, then growing out a tendril to entrap the next passing ant… etc. Evolution can explain these things…
@StrumstickJoe " 99% … have become extinct." That is all assuming that evolution happened right? Well, here's something that you don't understand. Who cares if a species dies out? All that it really means is that there are no more dodo birds. It's no different than when a man's family name dies out. They weren't able to keep up. "You can't change nature, but nature is change."
@Snowmon89 "Evolution happened"......? That's what you said, yes? It HAPPENED.
We might have found the key to your problem! (This is exciting!)
The last words in my post to hornzbiddle (where do they get these names from?) give you the clue...
Evolution is a continuing process, that has never stopped since the beginning of the universe (or forever whichever is longer) Nobody cares if a species dies out. As I informed you H.Sapiens nearly did.
Chance is all there is; witness the tornadoes etc.
@Snowmon89 1)…I hope you don’t think I’m being sarky in any way, but you seem very well-read and intellectual for a theist. Please understand that as the view I have of theism genuinely leads me to conclude that any rational reasoning would refute it. So I can only assume that you are embedded and unable to move, because all your posts are from so far inside the mythology, that reasoning with you doesn’t seem to have any effect. And your connection to science doesn’t seem to help you. I hope..
@brajamtho757 Now can we please move on to Private Messaging? We've crowded this comments board long enough. Oh, and please pick either the bible or science already. If not, then I'm just going to assume that you (treat it like you) quit entirely.
@brajamtho757 The cosmic microwave background radiation sounds a lot like a red herring to me. You can prove that they exist, but you can't prove what it actually means. Stars radiate heat, light, and radiation (just like our sun) in all directions, who's to say that the radiation did not come from them?
Besides, Columbus theorized that he could reach India by traveling around the world. When he hit the Americas he thought it was india based off of that theory and called the natives "Indians".
If you read up on the subject your questions would be answered. The radiation comes from every direction. It's not from stars, or galaxies, or anything we can see. It's the radiation left over from the Big Bang. Predicted to exist and later found, verifying the Big Bang theory.
@brajamtho757 Predictions are not always true. That's called "fortunetelling" no matter how scientific you try to word it. It's still guessing. How do you know that the radiation is from the Big Bang? Did you witness it? No, you predicted that it would be there, and it apparently is there? You realize what Physics is right? Even when there is "nothing there" there is always something. Take any empty bottle or ballon and I guarantee you that there is something in them. If there wasn't the objects
@brajamtho757 … would collapse or implode. Even if there is radiation, why would that prove big bang? Is there a backwards "black hole" spewing out new matter? Nope. Is there a black hole that destroys matter? Honestly, we don't know. We can't see black holes.
@brajamtho757 Now listen here. We can either talk about the bible or science. NOT BOTH.
*If you want to talk about science then I shall avoid all "creationist" sources. (except when what I'm using an example that sounds similar to what the creationist argument sounds like, and there are quite a few of those.)
*If you want to talk about the Bible then I will use any philosopher that has existed throughout time as my sources. Seeing as though you seem to think that "theists" can't think.
@brajamtho757 "But they are true, and the evidence supports them."
There is plenty of evidence for a God as well. (Such as fractals, nation of Israel, many artifacts, miracles, bees and gravity.) But let me express something to you. When I said that, "God answered me" you said that I was crazy. Where's your evidence for that? "Well, you're crazy because you think God answered you." THAT my friend is called, "circular reasoning". You don't like it when Theist use it, don't use it yourself.
None of that stuff you list has any relevance on the existence of god. There's no logical connection between fractals and god, or bees and god.
You're not crazy. But there's simply no evidence that it was anything other than yourself responding to yourself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Thanks to Carl Sagan and Christopher Hitchens, respectively for those two sentences.
That's because you don't know why they do. Bees are scientifically unable to fly. Hence why I say, "I believe in God like how I believe that Bees can fly. Both are scientifically impossible, but true."
"There are far too many coincidences in my life for it to be anything except for God saying Hi."- mine
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity
@brajamtho757 By nature, I am to fuck, reproduce, eventually die.
By choice, I choose How I do these things and in many cases IF i do these things. I can chose who I marry and choose how I treat my significant other. By Nature, I wish to blame others, by choice I choose to think about the consequences of my own actions.
The simple message here is that: Everyone makes mistakes (it's only natural to), Everyone needs to acknowledge this and learn to forgive and to be forgiven. That's the decision.
@brajamtho757 The Big Bang was abandoned, Darwinism as well. If you actually study the basics of true Geology, you'd see that there are quite a few issues with Fossils and Radioactive dating. (I concluded back in 5th grad that both must be geologically impossibilities.) Even the smartest of men can fall for cults, so why not dumb people fall for lies in science?
So, "no thinking person could possibly believe this stuff" Is a highly overrated and quite a bold statement to make, don't you think?
In much simpler words, to say that "only idiots can…" is just a red herring to get people to stop believing in themselves and/or God and start believing in what you believe. I've heard so many arguments over the years and frankly I've come to a point in my life where I don't care "who's right." and simply say that the world is what it is even if we don't see what is.
"A blind man can no more snuff out the sun by covering his eyes, than he can prove what he hasn't seen doesn't exist."
Tell, me how old is the earth? at least 65 billion correct? How much does the earth move in a single year? The fault line moves roughly 1/8in to 1in. a year. So in a hundred years it's at most 100 in., a thousand at most 1000. In the course of billions of years the earth moves HUNDREDS of yards. How the do the fossil's survive the shifting of the crusts, earthquakes, magma, lava, being dug up, and ect. (my 5th Grade PUBLIC School argument)
@brajamtho757 That was just one of the problems that I had with "fossils". Where's the Creationist argument in that? I loved the concept of Evolution when I was a kid, and my brother loved (and still does love) Archeology. However, we were both forced away from such subjects, not by Creationist, but by Atheists. (Very much like how church ladies "shun the sinners".) True science is not about being right, but about trial and error. I'm studying to be an animator, but I'm more of a scientist thanu
i like gravity and evolution, that says we came from monkeys. I do have a question though, in what period of our development did we exactly made the original sin? 5000 years ago? 50000 years ago?
i believe evolution is true, i cannot say im a christian but i am raised in a christian environment , went to church for years and i do know something about Christianity.
But if there were a heaven, I would not want to go there, because I can think of nothing more hellish than that!
Eternal suffering in a place of niceness; without days or nights; spring or autumn. Eternal boredom with all the most tedious people who ever walked the earth.
Wouldn't want that!
Thank goodness it's not true.
Let's get on with making life better for the maximum number of people we can.
@jesusislord7713 I think this is sarcasm; is it? Two lots of it?
I'm OK with that.
But just a small response to one thing you said: you cannot take on responsibility for other people's faults.
That is what is so crazy about the whole jesus myth: "he died for your sins" - not possible or morally acceptable.
If you ever commit a sin, or just have things go bad on you, or anything - just deal with it. Take responsibility and you will be amazed at how liberating that can be.
@StrumstickJoe You made a good point, but please don't take the Bible out of context. The verse that states that you can't take on the sins of another refers to taking the punishment of your father and vise-versa. And applies when the Father dies before he faces trial for his crime. It means that you can't take "revenge" on the son, when his father was the murderer. (Similar situations also apply.)
What Jesus did was volunteer to take someone's else's place (in this case the world).
@StrumstickJoe In a real life situation. If the police come knocking on my door with a warrant for my father's arrest and put me on trial for his crimes. That would not be fair, nor Justice. If However, my father is found guilty, I can willingly put my life on the line for his sake. There is no law that states that I can't do that. If you disagree (or rather, know that I am wrong), then please show me the verse. I would be happy to do the same.
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity. - Titus 2:9
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - Numbers 31
There’s masses of this stuff, is that your gospel? Forget it. Peace.
@Snowmon89 1)The bible is erratic, contradictory, plagarised, and many other adjectives. It is not a real life stuation.
If you quote the bible to me, and I believe the above, what have you achieved?
What jesus did was nothing, simply that. What you claim he did was nonsensical, and you say he’s still doing stuff? To talk to “him” is delusional. I will quote the bible to you…
@StrumstickJoe Tell me, If I ask a question, and I get an answer from you, does that mean that you don't exist and that I'm delusional. If so then you too must be delusional.
Also listing is a form of Propaganda. If I say, "I'm a 16 year old boy with red hair, that enjoys working as a busboy." It doesn't make a single thing in the list true. You might want to look at each "issue" you have as individual cases. Trust me, it helps a whole lot. Now I'm not arguing with you, honest. †God Bless†
These claims are so ridiculous. God creates Adam, Eve, the Garden, the snake, the tree (with attractive fruit), and man's curiosity. He sets up the whole game...then when man does something based on the desires that were given to him by God, he's "fallen..." and 6 billion people are all deserving of eternal punishment unless they kiss this God's butt. Think of it like putting a loaded pistol in a crib with two babies. If something bad happens, is it their fault?
Someone PLEASE explain to me how our nature is "by choice"
I wasnt born with a neutral mind towards good and evil and i said "Hey! guess what im going to CHOOSE! evil! :) caus i like it......" like this video says we are born with a sinful nature and i completely agree. The problem of election comes in (and i know MHC is calvinist church) so how does it make it fair that some get chosen to be saved and some dont? How is it my friends fault that hes not saved?
Yes.....we are all miserable excuses for people. We are born sinful and commanded to be well. Nice design god. What an inept, fictitious, capricious being......you people should find an another imaginary being to worship that isn't such a prick....just sayin'
@aveyowyns Oh yah.....forgot about Adam and Eve.....the one's with the talking snake right? Makes perfect sense. Friend....my ears are so unplugged ...they actually understand BS when they hear it. Just in case you haven't heard.....it's 2011 and OK to think for yourself.....just thought you should know.
You stated that it was unfair of God to create us flawed and then damn us for our imperfection - I merely corrected that.
If you are going to say something under the assumption: If God exists *(in other words, you basically asked: If God exists, then he wouldn't be a fair God because he created us flawed and then damns us for our imperfection)*, then you better be prepared for an answer that is ALSO under the assumption: If God exists.
@aveyowyns Watch the video again.....sigh. It was the ass hat in the video that was talking about original sin damning us to hell (something that I had no hand in and am yet somehow expected to pay for)......and then his ass hat sheep (that would be you) repeat the lie and the immoral reasoning. If you are going to refer to your bronze aged fairy tales as a point of reference for morality.....then you should be prepared for ridicule. ...........buddy........
Given everything I've ever read abut the christian god, if I am born astranged to him then that is how I prefer to stay, thank you very much... Take your catholic dogma and shove it where the sun don't shine - until the day you can produce actual factual evidence of the existence of your so called "god".
@RogerUhla I don't believe in any supernatural gods no. I have not been given any good evidence to support any such belief. But, if just for a though experiment assuming that a god (the archetypical christian one for example) existed, then by everything I have been told about it, it would be an entity that had bad moral values from my point of view. Petty, angry, jealous and insecure would about sum it up. If a human had those attributes, I would not like to have him as my friend, much less god.
@RogerUhla Well first of all I believe morals are subjective, so all I can really say is that god (if we believe the stories of him) has opposite moral values to me on many points. If we are talking spesifically about the christian god, then spesifically stuff like commanding people to kill eachother, killing people himselves in the thousands/millions, condoning slavery, regarding women as inferior, regarding people who don't believe as you inferior ect. ect. I won't list all the examples...
@TheStigma If morals are subjective then you have no ground upon which to stand to say anything in the Bible is immoral. Also, if morals are subjective, then if I tracked you down, found out who you are, and started posting videos where I accuse you of doing all sorts of things you didn't do, then you can't say I did anything wrong. Illegal, yes, wrong no.
@vedinthorn Of course I have grounds to do that. I have subjective morals, but they are a perfectly valid point of reference. I also happen to know my own subjective morals happen to align well with most other peoples moral compass too, so I know I am not just an abberation. Of course, when I say something is "wrong" or "evil" I can only mean that its wrong from MY perspective - but thats what subjective morals mean after all.
@TheStigma And I have the same grounds to dismiss your subjective morality out of hand. Unless you are actually a superior being to me, you have no objective standard to say my subjective standard is bad. If you appeal to society, I will ask if you ever think a society is wrong, and ask which society is your frame of reference. Then I will ask why a thousand subjective things can actually be used to argue against even one subjective thing. It can't.
@vedinthorn Of course a subjective standard holds weight against another. This is pretty simple really. In todays western democratic societies atleast we operate on the rule of the majority (as a basis atleast). That basically means that whatever the most people can agree on is the right thing to do is considered the right thing to do by society - and there might even be made a law to reeinforce that view. Anything else would be - well some sort of dictatorship.
@TheStigma But your whole argument is unprovable. You don't have a REASON to say that one subjective standard is better than another. By definition, one CAN'T be. I really don't think you understand your own philosophy.
@vedinthorn No, you are missing the point. a subjective standard can't be said to be "bad" or "good". Its all a matter of your viewpoint. However - you can measure morality somewhat on the basis on what it achieves. For example morality that says it ok to treat women like property has the effect of opressing half the population of the earth while giving the other half more power. then you have to decide if thats a good thing or bad thing according your own judgement, and the majority rule ...
@vedinthorn Personally I am against opression, slavery and un-equal treatment of others because I think it retards the development of society as a whole. For example if you deny women the right to education - they will never contribute anything to higher development. Thats the practical view - but I also have empathy for other humans built in from our evolutionary development - and I realize if I were a woman I would not want to be trated that way. Thats my thoughts in a nutshell.
@vedinthorn ... will end up deciding what is acceptable in that society. And here again is a good example of how there is obviously no objective morality in play - because there are several societies on either side of this issue (and many others) that are in disagreement of which is the good thing to do. You can still make arguments for or against the notion based on the practical results it gives the society.
@vedinthorn you still haven't answered me how you can claim to know what the objective moral standard is. Even if what you believe was somehow correct - it wouldn't make any difference unless we were able to distinguish the "false" objective moral standard from the one "true" standard. Its the same problem as when you try to defend one god and reject another really - since neither side has any solid proof to back up its validity.
Very good Mr.Driscoll, now move on to evolution.You don't seem to like that either but evolution exists and you have to deal with it.
noibn2 2 weeks ago
@noibn2 show me a thing that starts as one species and becomes a totally different species and I will agree with you, but im sorry most "proof" is using methods like carbon dating that have more proof they are inacurate than acurate... btw therer are christian evolutionists that believe that god created the world and the days are not quite literal.
karaj555 2 days ago
@karaj555: The Faeroe Island house mouse. (unfortunately youtube wont let me post the link to the article, but I could mail it to you)
Would you happen to be a professional in the field? I'm curious because you seem to dismiss "most proofs" so casually. Care to refer me to a credible scientific journal or a peer-reviewed article that supports that notion? Btw, carbon dating is a method of determinating the approximate age of something, it's not really proof of evolutionary theory
noibn2 14 hours ago
If you don't believe in it, don't bother arguing it. Christians are still going to be bold, serve the Lord, read our Bibles, and get saved. None of the cynicism and lies are going to stop us so God Bless! :-).
VictoriaLeigh93 3 months ago 5
What a stupefying title...oh so gravity IS real...so every remark Mark makes must be true...please. FU. Good to know pastors will be judged harder then just a person. Deal with that...
LLThenu 3 months ago
@LLThenu lol u dont think people are bad do you.... you can just say you disagree instead of making a sarcastic statement. It reflects badly on you not him because you kinda sound a bit whiny and childish.
karaj555 2 days ago
@karaj555 I agree with the content of this srmon clip. If i have been sarcastic, it has been partly by the example of Mark. How many times has he not been sarcastic even to other members of the body. i.e. homeshoolers...(Tim Tebow). I guess the word is not enough to draw a crowd. you have to market it.
LLThenu 2 days ago
The gravity analogy is just awful. Gravity is clearly demonstrable, repeatable, and testable. Sin is pure speculation. This doctrine doesn't pass the most basic common sense test. Furthermore, how can this man say he doesn't like gravity? Without it, earth couldn't support human life.
drumrnva 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drumrnva I think you are missing the point...
aliumdrmer21 2 months ago
@Itsjustrocketscience Your gonna remove the comment now? Thats not cool. Besides Science from a Christian perspective is self contradictory. Faith (The basis of Christian belief) is about blind acceptance of "truths" from an ancient book. Science is about rigorous testing and brutal peer review in order to establish truth, or at least put forth evidence for something.
chimera667 5 months ago
@Itsjustrocketscience Well I say they invented Purgatory but obviously they don't say that. It is one of the many inconsistencies with Catholicism and Christianity as a whole. Children burn in hell though. The Christian doctrine (specifically the one preached in this video) means unborn children and infants are tortured forever in searing agony. That isn't a god I would worship even if I believed he existed.
chimera667 5 months ago
@Itsjustrocketscience No sir. It doesn't. Unborn children and infants do not go to heaven, according to the Bible. Purgatory was invented by the Catholic church so people could feel comfortable about their dead child, but it was abandoned when parents realized they wouldn't be able to see their children in heaven. This led the Catholic church (and all other Christian churches) to start instating the belief that all children went to heaven. It is not based on the Bible in any way, shape or form.
chimera667 5 months ago
@chimera667 I don't know where you're getting your facts from, but the Bible says that unborn children (including abortions nowadays), go to heaven.
LargeGroundhog 4 months ago
@LargeGroundhog Hahahaha. Read the Bible. No it doesn't. I became an atheist after being raised as a Christian for the first 16 years of my life. I have read the Bible countless times. Here is a verse for your perusal: 2 Kings 2:23-24. That should clear up how God feels about children.
chimera667 4 months ago
@chimera667 Reading the Bible doesn't guarantee you understood it as it was intended. You seem angry, and biased.
Those verses confirm that rejecting God, therefore sinning, results ultimately in death. Without partiality. God is the judge, not you or me.
I have faith in God partly because through multiple historical narratives, I'm convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. Faith in what I can't prove, as an extension of what I have evidence for. Logical, and reasonable.
Falkon85 1 month ago
I love this argument because it is hypocritical. You want to tell me that I misunderstood the Bible based completely on how correct you consider your own interpretation.
Those verses show how god thinks of children and perfectly illustrates my point that your god is not merciful by any standard.
There are no contemporary historical documents that prove the Jesus story. That is fact. Also, jumping to conclusions based on a book of historical half-truth is erroneous in the highest regard.
chimera667 1 month ago
@chimera667 if you want to criticize scripture, please do it correctly. Context Context Context.
Grrrrtt 3 weeks ago
@Grrrrtt So there is a correct way to criticize an ancient text of historical half-truths? Who decides what is the right way to criticize it? Any way it goes the answer is going to be biased and therefore invalid. Same for context. I think that verse is completely in context. Obviously, you don't. Where is the line? Who decides its placement. You cannot correct my context without having a valid alternative and all you seem to be able to provide is your own terrible biased opinion.
chimera667 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LargeGroundhog Hahahaha. Read the Bible. No it doesn't. I became an atheist after being raised as a Christian for the first 16 years of my life. I have read the Bible countless times. Here is a verse for your perusal: 2 Kings 2:23-24. That should clear up how God feels about children.
chimera667 4 months ago
So if you begin your life evil and defiled then unborn children and infants that die are all sent to roast in hell forever? This is a fucked up religion.
chimera667 5 months ago
My only issue with this clip is that he SEEMS to parallel sin with gravity in such a way that, as with gravity, sin is not only natural...but "will always be there" and "cannot be eliminated,"... which is not necessarily true
ricplay7890 8 months ago
Imagine an alien coming to earth, perhaps with minions. And he is so powerful he can control the weather and tectonic forces; be everywhere; watch us; read all our minds, and give us eternal life. And he asks us to worship him on our knees, now and forever, and he threatens us with eternal burning if we don’t.
What a bastard, eh?
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Imagine your mother coming into your room, she tells you to clean up after yourself. You say "no, you're not the boss of me, this is My room." Oh, not to mention you're forty years old, you don't pay rent, you don't work and you don't own the deed to the house.
Not to sound sarcastic, but "Quite the bastard, isn't she?"
Snowmon89 8 months ago
William Ward: "we are most like animals when we kill...
we are most like men when we judge...
and we are most like God when we forgive "
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
Wrong. We are most like the Bible's god when we murder millions, and torture people for their whole lives(god doing it for eternity). That's predominantly what the god of the Bible does.
We are animals.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 I believe that like most other people before you, you have done what only humans can do. Made a mistake. God doesn't torture anyone. There are no devils in red pajamas that stab you in the ass with pitchforks while you dangle over an enteral pitt of fire. That is "Hollywood Hell", or hell developed by Hollywood.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 If you actually read the Bible (both Testaments and/or the Torah), you'd see that The True Hell is actually being away from God. "For only God is good and the provider of all good things."
God constantly has this attitude, "If you love me then follow me. If not, then go." God constantly says "come to me and I will be with you" and "If you don't serve me, then I shall give you to your lovers" (ezekiel 16(:39))
Snowmon89 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snowmon89
It would be evil to punish those who don't believe because there is no evidence upon which to base belief. That would be god punishing those who use their minds, which god gave them, to their greatest potential, which is absurd, regardless of whether that punishment is eternal torment or mere absence of god, if that itself is a kind of torment.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
The problem is that it's not a punishment, but rather a result. Put your hand to a flame, you will be burned. All 10 commandments work that way to some degree. Ezekiel explains that best. The Bible also states that all men have seen evidence for God. I know of one man who went out to the wilderness and found that the most complex of things were actually simple. Later on in science they discovered a new "shape" known as a Fractal. Without this shape, nothing that is complex is actually complex.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
Fractals are not evidence. There is not a shred of evidence for god, let alone the Biblical god. It's all wishy-washy nonsense.
Calling it a result rather than punishment is only semantics. The bottom line is it would still mean god set us up to fail. He created us, and everything about us, therefore any inherent flaws, including a sin nature, are all his doing, and 100% his responsibility,
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 The only thing that is truly wishy-washy is the thought that I could ever convince you.There's plenty of evidence. However, I can never prove that to someone like you. So I have no reason to try. I know dozens of people, hundreds of testimonies and uncountable 'coincidences' in my life.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
Exactly, coincidences. What's more likely, the laws of physics were suspended, and in your favor, while thousand starve daily, or that you're mistaken? The answer is obvious.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 We are not designed to fall. You're the second person that has tried to convince me that God is responsible for my actions. I will not accept that someone else is responsible for MY choices.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
You were born a sinner. Therefore you were given no choice. God throws you in the ocean, and dangles a life preserver and says, "anyone not want to drown?"
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 God did not place the tree in the garden so that we will fall, but rather so that we will have a choice (as well as my own theory about the tree). In the words of a Philosopher, "I'm glad that I am able to use a wooden board to both build my house and to beat my brother with it. Because if the board suddenly turned into bubbles(God stopped me) then that would take away my choice." Meaning if God does not allow sin, then He must forbid free will.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Read the works of C.S. Lewis Philosophy's to see more information.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Unless of course when you told me that I was wrong, you actually meant that I quoted the wrong person, if that's the case then forgive me for this red herring.
†God Bless†
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 (WARNING RED HERRING)
Also something that I should probably correct. (though am late about)
When William made this quote, he was speaking philosophically, not scientifically.
We are about as much "animals" as grapes and dandy lions are "vegetables". I mean you're Technically, not wrong, but you did take the quote out of context there.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
What is out of context? The god of the Bible is not forgiving in the least. He's a bloodthirsty psychopath. We're not like the God of the Bible. We're so much better than that.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 You say this without any examples, so it seems that you are just making things up. (aka, Making claims.) Now if you think like a rational human being, then there must be a reason that you think the way you do. If not then you're just being a child who doesn't want to eat his vegetables.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
I've read the bible several times through. God is not bloodthirsty and hates human sacrifices. He constantly says that I want obedience more than sacrifice. Under the understanding that "God is Good and cannot be near 'sin'" then this would make perfect sense. I have read about many horrible things in the bible, but they all made sense when taken in context. I've heard arguments from people like you that go "God shouldn't punish people" then hypocritically go, "why didn't god punish them?"
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
When does murdering your own daughter or mutilating your son's genitals every make sense?
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 So basically, I'm tired of arguing such hypocritical non-sense with people who don't think better than a child. So let's stop arguing about the Bible entirely and focus on science. If not, I will have to ignore you entirely.
(also can we move to Private messaging. we're kind of crowding the comments board and I don't think they appreciate it.)
Snowmon89 8 months ago
And another thing, the difference, is that we all know gravity exists, and it is easily verified. On the other hand, there is no good reason to believe in the Bible, as it has been dis-proven on several accounts.
We know the Biblical creation is a myth, because we know evolution and the Big and the Big Bang are true, therefore the Garden of Eden was a myth, as was the Fall of Man. Thus, there is nothing from which Man needs salvation.
brajamtho757 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brajamtho757 "We know the Biblical creation is a myth, because we know evolution... and the Big Bang are true"
This statement is a lie. Sorry, but that is the truth. Many scientists are going for the string theory now a days. Plus, you misunderstand what a "myth" actually is. Myth is a traditional story that states "accepted history". Evolution is a Myth and so is the Bible. Funny how that works, it's a double edged sword that comes out of your mouth. I know that God exists, like I know you do
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
How does string theory contradict the Big Bang? Evolution has been proven. Check out our chromosome number 2 and how it is the result of a merger of two chromosomes. Strong evidence for common ancestry with the other great apes.
How do you know god exists, let alone which god?
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Because I asked Him a question, and He answered me. That's proof enough for me, Just like me answering you is proof enough that I exist.
Also listing is a form of Propaganda. You might want to look at each "issue" as individual cases. Trust me, it helps a whole lot.
Also if you wish to argue with ME about evolution, could you do it without talking about the Bible. "Whether the bible is true or not" and "whether evolution is true or not" are two different subjects entirely.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
That's not true. Both the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution prove the Bible wrong with regards to origins. That's a fact.
You don't have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It's all in your head, just as for all the other religions of which you would say the same.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Stating that they are true, is not a fact. Prove of evolution doesn't disprove God. And The BIg Band sounds about as crazy as the Bible. Now those are facts.
"There was nothing, then there was something." Sounds the same to me, but like I said. Two different subjects entirely.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
But they are true, and the evidence supports them.
Evolution: human chromosome 2 as compared to other ape chromosomes is proof of common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are proof of common descent.
The Big Bang: The cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted to exist based on the big band theory. So the theory was tested, and passed. It also explains the relative abundance of the chemical elements.
It may sound as crazy as the bible. The difference is evidence.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Biology 101. Creatures with an odd number of chromosomes can not reproduce. 2nd Similar # of chromosomes do not prove anything about evolution, (just like how all of our organs are more similar with a Pig than any Ape does not prove common descent.)
Big Bang Theory is not even a "theory" because it can not be tested. (If you theorize that a frog looses it's hearing if you cut off its legs, is that a true test?) And doesn't prove that there was not God behind it. Universe expands.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
There's no polite way to say this. You need to learn quite a bit more on these subjects. Just stay away from creationist sources and you'll see the evidence against biblical creation is abundant. That's not to say a creator is disproven, but a literal interpretation of the Bible IS disproven.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Tell me, Exactly What Creatist source did I use. I used a SCINCE TEXTBOOK and found that creatures with an odd number of chromosomes can not reproduce. In order for us to have less chromosomes (even in merging chromosomes) we would need to have at least one creature that has one less chromosome. However, that has not been observed to happen in real life. Never been tested. And just saying "We see this, so this MUST have happened" is a silly argument.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 I'll explain further. Let's say I made the statement, "We are on Hawaii because we took a boat. And since we are on Hawaii, then we must have taken a boat." Now While it is possible that we could have taken a boat to get to Hawaii. However, that is not the only way that it could have happened and therefore not THE answer. (Other answers include but not limited to: Timewarp portal, Airplane, blimp, swimming, and being born on the Island to begin with.)
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
Apes have an extra pair, not just one extra. I assumed you know what I meant.
If you find out more about the details of the DNA similariities and how they likely came about, it's solid evidence for evolution. Endogenous retroviruses are even more definitive.
The Big Bang can be tested. Testing doesn't mean replicating the process. Testing merely means making predictions based on the theory and trying to prove the theory wrong, so far it's passing with flying colors.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 "Apes have an extra pair, not just one extra. I assumed you know what I meant."
I know what you said, But in order for us to evolve from 'other apes' then How exactly did you think that we lost chromosomes? The last person that stated this argument said that we merged our chromosomes together. If you have a better suggestion then I'd love to hear it, so that I can stop using that guy's excuse.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Big Bang: Let me explain in words you can understand. You tested for Radiation. You assume that the radiation is there because of the Bang. However, the Bang is NOT the only way that Radiation is created. Stars are just like the sun (Bible says unique, but who cares.) They radiate Radiation. If the Radiation is not moving then not only would we not be able to detect it, but I would not be Radiative by definition. The star's are a source of Radiation. Radiation is emitted in waves..
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
Your response indicates the concept of the cosmic microwave background radiation is new to you. It's not just any old type of radiation. It's radiowaves at a very specific wavelength, and it's not associated with any star, galaxy, or any object. It's everywhere, and it's uniform, to one part in 100,000 throughout the WHOLE SKY. There are many more relevant details that link it to the Big Bang. In all seriousness you ought to check it out.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 It is new to me, but my last comment about "the smoke and the gun" still stands.
Also just to make sure, Did you say "whole sky"? Don't you mean all of space? Sorry, but when you say "sky" it makes me think that people only took pictures of the sky and not actually go up into space and detected the radiation at the 'source'. Heck, one could even say that what you're detecting may actually be what is Static is to a Radio. Is that not possible as well? "Devil talking" LOL
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
Again, your response reveals your ignorance. That's not an insult. But don't expect me to teach you all there is to know about the background radiation. Your questions will be addressed if you would simply bother to check out just about any old website covering the topic.
If you're not going to do that, take my word, it's from space, not simply the sky/atmosphere. And you accuse me of arguing like a child.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 waves just like light. How can you not assume that the radiation is coming from them?
In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "Once all other possibilities have been eliminated..." You have not eliminated the stars as a source, so why assume that the Big Bang did it?
Now let's take this and make a simpler for you to understand... You found the smoke, but you don't have the gun. Plus, even if you did find the gun, how does it prove that a God didn't pull the trigger in the first place?
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
You're not even paying attention. It's uniform. You're calling me stupid when you don't understand the most basic ideas of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Look it up.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 "You're calling me stupid when you don't understand the most basic ideas"
I am not calling anyone anything. You're making that assumption all on your own. I simply stated that "Circular reasoning" is not solid evidence. How can you say that the radiation came from the Big Bang, when no one has witnessed one? That makes no sense in itself. Hence, why I used metaphor with "ghosts" to explain. The only thing that I can say about you is that you're not trying to understand what I say
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
You haven't bothered to find out anything about the radiation. You don't care about the truth at all. All you care about is your backwards ideology. If you cared, you would have looked up something on topic and many of your questions would be answered.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Now, have you found the answers to those Geology questions that I asked, or are you just going to ignore them? I've had those questions since 5th grade and not a single textbook even mentions answers. I'm not saying that Evolution is false here, but rather that it must have taken a much shorter time. I also happen to know that one of the Argon dating methods is also false. Tested and proven. I also have a few Ideas as to why other dating methods are "incorrect" if you like to hear.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
Most of your questions are silly. I'm going to assume your got your questions from Answers in Genesis, or some other deceitful organization.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brajamtho757 "Most of your questions are silly. I'm going to assume your got your questions from Answers in Genesis, or some other deceitful organization."
You can assume all you want. I'm this silly all on my own. I don't use any website, I look, I learn and I ask questions. That is what makes a scientist and a detective. However, my biggest concern is still the Geology, of which you still haven't even touched. I don't mind if you say, "I don't know yet", but stop with the superiority thing.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 "Apes have an extra pair, not just one extra. I assumed you know what I meant."
The math simply states that a single chromosome merging with another chromosome will be like 2 becoming one. Three (or4) becoming one (or2 Respectively) is twice as less likely to happen.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
Chromosome 2. Wikipedia. Go there. Look it up. Section titled "Evolution."
Evidence. Let it speak.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 I don't need to look it up. My statement still stands. Look up why Mules can't reproduce. It's a fact of life. Evidence is speaking, but you're not listening. Again I must state, Saying that it happened is not the same as it actually happening. Therefore, it's not actual Evidence.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Perhaps comparing what you said about Background Microwave Radiation to smoke and a gun was not the best method.
Okay, let me explain, "How do you know the Bang happened?" "Because we have the Radiation" "Where did the radiation come from?" "It could only be produced by the Bang." "And you know this because?" "Nothing else we know of can produce this radiation so it must have been the Bang." Is that not circular reasoning?
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
It was predicted beforehand. You're infinitely skeptical of good science, yet have zero standard of evidence for belief in the Biblical fairy tale.
The answers to your question are available if you were actually interested in the truth. They are easy to find.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Maybe it would be better if I changed my metaphors. No one has seen a Ghost. Scientists say that if Ghosts exist then they would produce an electromagnetic wave. Scientists go to locations where "ghostly activities" have been reported. They find Electromagnetic waves, so they declare that "Ghosts must exist."
That is exactly how you sound to me with the Big Bang, I'm not saying that there was no Bang, but I am saying that your reasons for belief in the bang are extremely faulty.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
How can you say they are faulty when even the questions you ask demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about it?
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Now, let's also assume that a single ape was able to "evolve" and lose his "extra" chromosomes. Guess what, it will then have to wait until a fellow ape also "Evolves" with the exact same mutation of having less chromosomes AND have them be of the Opposite gender (seeing as though mammals are not Asexual reproducers), AND mate with them, AND produce enough offspring to with each other. Consequently, I'm sorry but after all that, you might as well just say, "God did it."
Snowmon89 8 months ago
In other words, Science is for evolution, but Science is also against evolution. Just like our DNA and RNA does it's best to prevent any kind of mutation.
So as a rational scientist… I just can't believe in Evolution, I do not have enough faith in it. lol.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
No. Mutation is inevitable. DNA and RNA don't do their best. They simply react chemically, and transcription is not always perfect in many different ways.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brajamtho757 "No. Mutation is inevitable." Did I ever say that it was impossible? I distinctly remember saying, "So long as the possibility exists then it could happen" Note that this saying doesn't mean it's Impossible, actually it means the opposite. I'm just saying that it's Very unlikely. Out of the 1 in a million there's still five other factors that increase it even more than that.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
We don't have to know how it happened. The evidence that it happened is solid.
One in 1000 humans today has a fusion of chromosomes 13 and 14. For two of them to meet, that's just 1 in a million, which over evolutionary timescales is inevitable.
It's called a Robertsonian translocation. Look it up, though I doubt you will.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 "Robertsonian translocation" Here's where you didn't understand what I'm saying. Other Apes have 24 pairs. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. In order for humans to evolve into modern man, then we'd first need to lose the extra chromosomes. But when a hybrid is made then they are sterile.
"Other translocations occur but do not lead to a viable fetus." The survivors also appear to develop Down Syndrome. Which is yet another variable that I forgot to mention:Survival of the mutant
Snowmon89 8 months ago
(Warning: Sarcastic Creationist remarks) In the long run, it still sounds as if flies were fine to begin with and the Radiation only served to screw them up.
When you say that it's likely to happen then you should expect it to happen again, (especially one that we seem to be able to control in this case). Why doesn't anyone do those kinds of experiments?
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Currently, in the world there are almost 7 billion people, so the chances of this mutation seem more likely Today. But not yesterday. If it's really just as likely today as it was thousands of years ago, then why are there no "apemen" hybrids today? Don't you find it strange that this mutation (which you say is more likely than it is) that it seems to be so elusive. 700 people surly have "evolved" like this again by now.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
Why are there no apemen hybrids?
We are apemen.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 "We are apemen." No, we are the species Homo-HomoSapien. We are the final product other apes are our ancestors. The in-between state is a Hybrid. Plus yet again, you miss the point of the question. If you believe that all of those factors could happen once (let alone enough times so that Inbreeding would not become an issue), then why has it not happened again by now? Where are our homosapein (older version modern day)cousins?
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Often Down syndrome is associated with some impairment of cognitive ability and physical growth, and a particular set of facial characteristics. Individuals with Down syndrome tend to have a lower-than-average cognitive ability, often ranging from mild to moderate disabilities. - wikipedia
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89 3)...but your god, what’s his excuse…? I mean it – I find it hard to fathom – ZOMGitsCriss on YT, and Christopher Hitchens are so much more articulate than I – if their uploads can’t move you, then I think nothing will. You can find examples in their work of why evolution stands (and is a continuing process), and any kind of magical theist explanation for anything falls.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe I think there's an assumption here that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive. That's only true if you're a turbo-fundamentalist. According to Pastor Mark, there are at least 6 valid Biblical ways to interpret Genesis 1. What is mutually exclusive to Christianity is naturalism, which many people wrongly attach to evolution. I hope this helps!
hornzbiddle1189 8 months ago
@hornzbiddle1189 It's OK for YOU to mull over the possibility that they are mutually exclusive - and you have to! Because you have to find for yourself some point in the evolution of species that your god decided to "insert" his man-creation into the mix. Or do you believe that he took his planet-full of primordial soup and light the spark of life which he then knew would evolve into higher primates?
Evolution is on-going - I have to go now and talk to snowmon, who's just appeared.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@hornzbiddle1189 BTW At least 6 ways to interpret Genesis!!! Does that not make it obvious to you how possible ANY interpretation is? Can you not see that? And you said VALID - meaning each one is as "true" as the others. Weak. So weak.
Here's another: The "talking snake" story is not about banishment from paradise at all - it is an allegory about a dude being thrown out of the temple (the main troublesome one in Jerusalem) - and doesn't belong at the start of the anthology of mythology at all!
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe My only point is that evolution is a moot point- it's nonessential to being a Christian. If you want to discuss the validity of the Christian message, what you want to research is the resurrection. It's the foundation of Christian faith. Invalidate it, and you crush Christianity. On the flip side, if in fact Jesus was brutally murdered and was alive a few days later, you have to give a little more attention to his claim that he is God.
hornzbiddle1189 8 months ago
@hornzbiddle1189 There is no evidence for JC. Ergo no evidence for the resurrection story - nothing to research!
End of your story.
If someone was brutally murdered (quite common in those days I hear) and you think it was that character - then think on this: in the story, the graves opened up on easter weekend, and hundreds of dead walked the town (as in Thriller!!) so resurrection was positively mundane!!
But there is no record - and since it requires belief in the supernatural, I refute it.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Ever heard of "historical Jesus"? Historians on all sides agree that Jesus was a real person, that he died on a cross, and that his followers claimed to have interacted with Jesus after he came back from the dead. Historians also consider the New Testament a reliable document, so far as it is historical. This much is not in dispute. I'm not trying to convert you (at least not very hard); all I'm trying to do is help you argue intelligently. Are you open-minded or not?
hornzbiddle1189 8 months ago
@hornzbiddle1189 1st question.No!
I doubt if there is a single, serious objective historian in the world who believes there is evidence for jesus.
But if he existed, and he died on a cross, and his followers claimed..etc Then you still have not proved divinity.
The NT is contradictory, bloodstained, plagarised stories from centuries before it. The OT is also vindictive and contradictory. Neither has credibility. You are wrong to be claiming verity for this document. Thanks for trying to help me.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe I don't like to get into youtube arguments (they generally get unproductive quickly), so this will probably be my last post (or not), but if you're open-minded, the least you can do is a quick google search ("historical validity resurrection" or something- it doesn't really matter). Realize that It's not just me with whom you're disagreeing. It's 99% of the academic field. See where they agree.
Naturalism (which is what divides most Bible historians) is a debate for another day.
hornzbiddle1189 8 months ago
@hornzbiddle1189 You're right, so goodbye!
I'm going to read all yours, and the others, and my posts again, so that I can try to make sense of what has been said.
I feel you haven't read mine, because there has been no real reply. Your beliefs in your statistics are ill-founded.
But, all the best, have a good life that benefits others, and then return to the stars. You will never find out there is no magic realm. ;-)
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe I can't attach hyperlinks, but google "Mark Driscoll Doctrine God Makes" and click the top result (3rd result on video search)and go a little after the 7 minute mark to see his explanation of the various Christian views.
hornzbiddle1189 8 months ago
@Snowmon89 2)…I’m not repeating … 99% of all the species that have ever lived on earth (including the “homo” species) have become extinct. Homo sapiens only just survived the migration out of Africa following climate change. What kind of planned creation is this? Your god also thought up hammerhead sharks (?) and a fungus that grows exclusively in an ant’s brain, killing it, then growing out a tendril to entrap the next passing ant… etc. Evolution can explain these things…
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe " 99% … have become extinct." That is all assuming that evolution happened right? Well, here's something that you don't understand. Who cares if a species dies out? All that it really means is that there are no more dodo birds. It's no different than when a man's family name dies out. They weren't able to keep up. "You can't change nature, but nature is change."
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89 "Evolution happened"......? That's what you said, yes? It HAPPENED.
We might have found the key to your problem! (This is exciting!)
The last words in my post to hornzbiddle (where do they get these names from?) give you the clue...
Evolution is a continuing process, that has never stopped since the beginning of the universe (or forever whichever is longer) Nobody cares if a species dies out. As I informed you H.Sapiens nearly did.
Chance is all there is; witness the tornadoes etc.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@Snowmon89 Just a note to add - I was picking up on your user of the past tense. (Just in case that wasn't clear)
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@Snowmon89 1)…I hope you don’t think I’m being sarky in any way, but you seem very well-read and intellectual for a theist. Please understand that as the view I have of theism genuinely leads me to conclude that any rational reasoning would refute it. So I can only assume that you are embedded and unable to move, because all your posts are from so far inside the mythology, that reasoning with you doesn’t seem to have any effect. And your connection to science doesn’t seem to help you. I hope..
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Now can we please move on to Private Messaging? We've crowded this comments board long enough. Oh, and please pick either the bible or science already. If not, then I'm just going to assume that you (treat it like you) quit entirely.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 The cosmic microwave background radiation sounds a lot like a red herring to me. You can prove that they exist, but you can't prove what it actually means. Stars radiate heat, light, and radiation (just like our sun) in all directions, who's to say that the radiation did not come from them?
Besides, Columbus theorized that he could reach India by traveling around the world. When he hit the Americas he thought it was india based off of that theory and called the natives "Indians".
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
If you read up on the subject your questions would be answered. The radiation comes from every direction. It's not from stars, or galaxies, or anything we can see. It's the radiation left over from the Big Bang. Predicted to exist and later found, verifying the Big Bang theory.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Predictions are not always true. That's called "fortunetelling" no matter how scientific you try to word it. It's still guessing. How do you know that the radiation is from the Big Bang? Did you witness it? No, you predicted that it would be there, and it apparently is there? You realize what Physics is right? Even when there is "nothing there" there is always something. Take any empty bottle or ballon and I guarantee you that there is something in them. If there wasn't the objects
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 … would collapse or implode. Even if there is radiation, why would that prove big bang? Is there a backwards "black hole" spewing out new matter? Nope. Is there a black hole that destroys matter? Honestly, we don't know. We can't see black holes.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Now listen here. We can either talk about the bible or science. NOT BOTH.
*If you want to talk about science then I shall avoid all "creationist" sources. (except when what I'm using an example that sounds similar to what the creationist argument sounds like, and there are quite a few of those.)
*If you want to talk about the Bible then I will use any philosopher that has existed throughout time as my sources. Seeing as though you seem to think that "theists" can't think.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Evolution Pt2
But since you're on the subject of similarities equaling similar decent let's continue with that:
Our eyes are the most similar to squids.
Humans and Sheep produce the same chemicals from their thyroid glands.
Cytochrome C differences show that Rattlesnake's are more closely related to us than snapping turtles
While humans themselves are closer to Peking Ducks than we are horses.
I can go on like this all night, but I've got to get some sleep.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 "But they are true, and the evidence supports them."
There is plenty of evidence for a God as well. (Such as fractals, nation of Israel, many artifacts, miracles, bees and gravity.) But let me express something to you. When I said that, "God answered me" you said that I was crazy. Where's your evidence for that? "Well, you're crazy because you think God answered you." THAT my friend is called, "circular reasoning". You don't like it when Theist use it, don't use it yourself.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
None of that stuff you list has any relevance on the existence of god. There's no logical connection between fractals and god, or bees and god.
You're not crazy. But there's simply no evidence that it was anything other than yourself responding to yourself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Thanks to Carl Sagan and Christopher Hitchens, respectively for those two sentences.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
That's because you don't know why they do. Bees are scientifically unable to fly. Hence why I say, "I believe in God like how I believe that Bees can fly. Both are scientifically impossible, but true."
"There are far too many coincidences in my life for it to be anything except for God saying Hi."- mine
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity
Snowmon89 8 months ago
My belief in the Bible is because of a personal relationship. and My doubts about evolution have NOTHING to do with my beliefs about the Bible.
So I will only argue one subject or the other, not both. You pick, and so will I.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 Sorry that last statement to you was actually for Joe. My mistake.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
No thinking person believes this stuff.
This man spreads foolish lies. And I quote:
"..by nature, and subsequently by choice, a sinner..."
You cannot be something both by nature and by choice. If you are something by nature, you have no choice.
God makes us play a game are incapable of winning and then tortures us forever for losing. A god who would do that is a piece of shit.
brajamtho757 9 months ago
@brajamtho757 By nature, I am to fuck, reproduce, eventually die.
By choice, I choose How I do these things and in many cases IF i do these things. I can chose who I marry and choose how I treat my significant other. By Nature, I wish to blame others, by choice I choose to think about the consequences of my own actions.
The simple message here is that: Everyone makes mistakes (it's only natural to), Everyone needs to acknowledge this and learn to forgive and to be forgiven. That's the decision.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 The Big Bang was abandoned, Darwinism as well. If you actually study the basics of true Geology, you'd see that there are quite a few issues with Fossils and Radioactive dating. (I concluded back in 5th grad that both must be geologically impossibilities.) Even the smartest of men can fall for cults, so why not dumb people fall for lies in science?
So, "no thinking person could possibly believe this stuff" Is a highly overrated and quite a bold statement to make, don't you think?
Snowmon89 8 months ago
In much simpler words, to say that "only idiots can…" is just a red herring to get people to stop believing in themselves and/or God and start believing in what you believe. I've heard so many arguments over the years and frankly I've come to a point in my life where I don't care "who's right." and simply say that the world is what it is even if we don't see what is.
"A blind man can no more snuff out the sun by covering his eyes, than he can prove what he hasn't seen doesn't exist."
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
I suppose "true" geology is geology that agrees with the bible.
So you're fifth grade education was enough to understand the fossil record and radiometric dating. That's quite arrogant, and extremely ignorant.
What lies of science?
No thinking person believes this stuff because it's logically inconsistent, and only a bit of open-minded thinking reveals it to be so.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 "What lies of science?"
Tell, me how old is the earth? at least 65 billion correct? How much does the earth move in a single year? The fault line moves roughly 1/8in to 1in. a year. So in a hundred years it's at most 100 in., a thousand at most 1000. In the course of billions of years the earth moves HUNDREDS of yards. How the do the fossil's survive the shifting of the crusts, earthquakes, magma, lava, being dug up, and ect. (my 5th Grade PUBLIC School argument)
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@brajamtho757 That was just one of the problems that I had with "fossils". Where's the Creationist argument in that? I loved the concept of Evolution when I was a kid, and my brother loved (and still does love) Archeology. However, we were both forced away from such subjects, not by Creationist, but by Atheists. (Very much like how church ladies "shun the sinners".) True science is not about being right, but about trial and error. I'm studying to be an animator, but I'm more of a scientist thanu
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89
And Christianity is a cult.
The only difference between cults and religions is that cults are other peoples religions.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
"i dont like gravity , it is"
i like gravity and evolution, that says we came from monkeys. I do have a question though, in what period of our development did we exactly made the original sin? 5000 years ago? 50000 years ago?
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 question: Are u by chance a Christian? Do you believe in the Theory of Evoulution? Hope to hear a reply from you.
InDaClub12 10 months ago
@InDaClub12
i believe evolution is true, i cannot say im a christian but i am raised in a christian environment , went to church for years and i do know something about Christianity.
niinja2 10 months ago
Comment removed
jesusislord7713 10 months ago
Comment removed
niinja2 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jesusislord7713
i believe the word jesus means love
I am the truth , the light and the way.
love is the truth the light and the way.
and i think this is the only way through which the light of heaven can shine within our hearts, through love of accepting others and ourselves.
niinja2 10 months ago
@jesusislord7713 There was no Jesus, and there is no heaven.
But if there were a heaven, I would not want to go there, because I can think of nothing more hellish than that!
Eternal suffering in a place of niceness; without days or nights; spring or autumn. Eternal boredom with all the most tedious people who ever walked the earth.
Wouldn't want that!
Thank goodness it's not true.
Let's get on with making life better for the maximum number of people we can.
Peace.
StrumstickJoe 9 months ago
Comment removed
jesusislord7713 9 months ago
@jesusislord7713 I think this is sarcasm; is it? Two lots of it?
I'm OK with that.
But just a small response to one thing you said: you cannot take on responsibility for other people's faults.
That is what is so crazy about the whole jesus myth: "he died for your sins" - not possible or morally acceptable.
If you ever commit a sin, or just have things go bad on you, or anything - just deal with it. Take responsibility and you will be amazed at how liberating that can be.
Free yourself. Goodbye.
StrumstickJoe 9 months ago
Comment removed
jesusislord7713 9 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Because why?
jesusislord7713 9 months ago
@StrumstickJoe You made a good point, but please don't take the Bible out of context. The verse that states that you can't take on the sins of another refers to taking the punishment of your father and vise-versa. And applies when the Father dies before he faces trial for his crime. It means that you can't take "revenge" on the son, when his father was the murderer. (Similar situations also apply.)
What Jesus did was volunteer to take someone's else's place (in this case the world).
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe In a real life situation. If the police come knocking on my door with a warrant for my father's arrest and put me on trial for his crimes. That would not be fair, nor Justice. If However, my father is found guilty, I can willingly put my life on the line for his sake. There is no law that states that I can't do that. If you disagree (or rather, know that I am wrong), then please show me the verse. I would be happy to do the same.
Snowmon89 8 months ago
@Snowmon89 2)bible to you…
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity. - Titus 2:9
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - Numbers 31
There’s masses of this stuff, is that your gospel? Forget it. Peace.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@Snowmon89 1)The bible is erratic, contradictory, plagarised, and many other adjectives. It is not a real life stuation.
If you quote the bible to me, and I believe the above, what have you achieved?
What jesus did was nothing, simply that. What you claim he did was nonsensical, and you say he’s still doing stuff? To talk to “him” is delusional. I will quote the bible to you…
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Tell me, If I ask a question, and I get an answer from you, does that mean that you don't exist and that I'm delusional. If so then you too must be delusional.
Also listing is a form of Propaganda. If I say, "I'm a 16 year old boy with red hair, that enjoys working as a busboy." It doesn't make a single thing in the list true. You might want to look at each "issue" you have as individual cases. Trust me, it helps a whole lot. Now I'm not arguing with you, honest. †God Bless†
Snowmon89 8 months ago
Comment removed
jesusislord7713 9 months ago
These claims are so ridiculous. God creates Adam, Eve, the Garden, the snake, the tree (with attractive fruit), and man's curiosity. He sets up the whole game...then when man does something based on the desires that were given to him by God, he's "fallen..." and 6 billion people are all deserving of eternal punishment unless they kiss this God's butt. Think of it like putting a loaded pistol in a crib with two babies. If something bad happens, is it their fault?
Threshingfloor814 1 year ago
Someone PLEASE explain to me how our nature is "by choice"
I wasnt born with a neutral mind towards good and evil and i said "Hey! guess what im going to CHOOSE! evil! :) caus i like it......" like this video says we are born with a sinful nature and i completely agree. The problem of election comes in (and i know MHC is calvinist church) so how does it make it fair that some get chosen to be saved and some dont? How is it my friends fault that hes not saved?
CallmeMell 1 year ago
@CallmeMell
He says that our sin nature allows that we choose evil. He never said anything about choosing God.
aveyowyns 1 year ago
Adam is a myth... deal with it.
vozuluzov 1 year ago
Yes.....we are all miserable excuses for people. We are born sinful and commanded to be well. Nice design god. What an inept, fictitious, capricious being......you people should find an another imaginary being to worship that isn't such a prick....just sayin'
ProofPleez 1 year ago
@ProofPleez
Do you listen with your ears plugged?
God did not create us flawed - we inheritted the flaw of sin through Adam's sin... Got it?
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns Oh yah.....forgot about Adam and Eve.....the one's with the talking snake right? Makes perfect sense. Friend....my ears are so unplugged ...they actually understand BS when they hear it. Just in case you haven't heard.....it's 2011 and OK to think for yourself.....just thought you should know.
ProofPleez 1 year ago
@ProofPleez
You stated that it was unfair of God to create us flawed and then damn us for our imperfection - I merely corrected that.
If you are going to say something under the assumption: If God exists *(in other words, you basically asked: If God exists, then he wouldn't be a fair God because he created us flawed and then damns us for our imperfection)*, then you better be prepared for an answer that is ALSO under the assumption: If God exists.
Think for myself? Yeah, okay buddy.
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns Watch the video again.....sigh. It was the ass hat in the video that was talking about original sin damning us to hell (something that I had no hand in and am yet somehow expected to pay for)......and then his ass hat sheep (that would be you) repeat the lie and the immoral reasoning. If you are going to refer to your bronze aged fairy tales as a point of reference for morality.....then you should be prepared for ridicule. ...........buddy........
ProofPleez 1 year ago
@ProofPleez
Once again, completely irrelevant to what I said.
Good day,
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns and to you sir
ProofPleez 1 year ago
Given everything I've ever read abut the christian god, if I am born astranged to him then that is how I prefer to stay, thank you very much... Take your catholic dogma and shove it where the sun don't shine - until the day you can produce actual factual evidence of the existence of your so called "god".
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma you don't believe in God?
RogerUhla 1 year ago
@RogerUhla I don't believe in any supernatural gods no. I have not been given any good evidence to support any such belief. But, if just for a though experiment assuming that a god (the archetypical christian one for example) existed, then by everything I have been told about it, it would be an entity that had bad moral values from my point of view. Petty, angry, jealous and insecure would about sum it up. If a human had those attributes, I would not like to have him as my friend, much less god.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma What do you mean 'bad moral values?'
RogerUhla 1 year ago
@RogerUhla Well first of all I believe morals are subjective, so all I can really say is that god (if we believe the stories of him) has opposite moral values to me on many points. If we are talking spesifically about the christian god, then spesifically stuff like commanding people to kill eachother, killing people himselves in the thousands/millions, condoning slavery, regarding women as inferior, regarding people who don't believe as you inferior ect. ect. I won't list all the examples...
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma If morals are subjective then you have no ground upon which to stand to say anything in the Bible is immoral. Also, if morals are subjective, then if I tracked you down, found out who you are, and started posting videos where I accuse you of doing all sorts of things you didn't do, then you can't say I did anything wrong. Illegal, yes, wrong no.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn Of course I have grounds to do that. I have subjective morals, but they are a perfectly valid point of reference. I also happen to know my own subjective morals happen to align well with most other peoples moral compass too, so I know I am not just an abberation. Of course, when I say something is "wrong" or "evil" I can only mean that its wrong from MY perspective - but thats what subjective morals mean after all.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma And I have the same grounds to dismiss your subjective morality out of hand. Unless you are actually a superior being to me, you have no objective standard to say my subjective standard is bad. If you appeal to society, I will ask if you ever think a society is wrong, and ask which society is your frame of reference. Then I will ask why a thousand subjective things can actually be used to argue against even one subjective thing. It can't.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn Of course a subjective standard holds weight against another. This is pretty simple really. In todays western democratic societies atleast we operate on the rule of the majority (as a basis atleast). That basically means that whatever the most people can agree on is the right thing to do is considered the right thing to do by society - and there might even be made a law to reeinforce that view. Anything else would be - well some sort of dictatorship.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma But your whole argument is unprovable. You don't have a REASON to say that one subjective standard is better than another. By definition, one CAN'T be. I really don't think you understand your own philosophy.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn No, you are missing the point. a subjective standard can't be said to be "bad" or "good". Its all a matter of your viewpoint. However - you can measure morality somewhat on the basis on what it achieves. For example morality that says it ok to treat women like property has the effect of opressing half the population of the earth while giving the other half more power. then you have to decide if thats a good thing or bad thing according your own judgement, and the majority rule ...
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma Why would you be against oppressing people?
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn Personally I am against opression, slavery and un-equal treatment of others because I think it retards the development of society as a whole. For example if you deny women the right to education - they will never contribute anything to higher development. Thats the practical view - but I also have empathy for other humans built in from our evolutionary development - and I realize if I were a woman I would not want to be trated that way. Thats my thoughts in a nutshell.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@vedinthorn ... will end up deciding what is acceptable in that society. And here again is a good example of how there is obviously no objective morality in play - because there are several societies on either side of this issue (and many others) that are in disagreement of which is the good thing to do. You can still make arguments for or against the notion based on the practical results it gives the society.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma So because people get the answers to questions wrong or differently, that means there isn't one? That doesn't add up logically.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn you still haven't answered me how you can claim to know what the objective moral standard is. Even if what you believe was somehow correct - it wouldn't make any difference unless we were able to distinguish the "false" objective moral standard from the one "true" standard. Its the same problem as when you try to defend one god and reject another really - since neither side has any solid proof to back up its validity.
TheStigma 1 year ago