Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I think people shouldn't even debate Comfort. They only give him more respect and power. And these debates don't go anywhere, he brings you to his level, and you can't have a honest and serious debate with such an idiot. Let's just ignore him and try to save the rest of the people from believing this nonsense.
@TheKenny4292 "If you died right now, would you go to Heaven or Hell?"
i dont know what will happen after i die and neither do you, but the christian hell you are reffering to is not the first idea of hell, the notion of hell is almost as old as people themselves infact the name "hell" was named after the norse god of the underworld "hel" so i find it a bit silly when christians matter of factly claim to know which hell if any is real, for all you know the norse "hell" may be real
@TheKenny4292 thats false the dew claw is not used to hold on to food it would make no difference if what there or not which would make it vsetigal, btw which species of dogs have a dew claw that touches the ground?
@bigmanoooo1 and regarding the did the wolf gain wings question, no quadrapedal animal would develop wings and still be a quadraped because wings are always modified fore limbs
@TheKenny4292 "Did the wolf gain hands to grab and dig in the snow with, or wings so he can better traverse the environment?"
look very closely at a dogs front paws, you may notice that is an unneeded toe and the position of which suggest that dogs at one point dod have a thumb like appendage at some point, btw human like hands wouldnt be as effective at digging as paws are so hands wouldnt help them better traverse the envoiroment
I like that thunderfoot did not try to give off that he was right as the base of his argument and tried to address each fact, while Ray was just saying the same defense, over and over and over and over and over.
@gregrutz I need some clarification here if you don't mind. Why Father was happy that Jesus took our sins away, he could do that himself. He's omnipotent right?
Did Jesus have some special powers to took away sins that God doesn't have?
@gregrutz he needs people to share his cookery tips with. no point being a great cook if you can't create a race of people in a vast empty universe and write a book to tell them about your cookin' skillz
@Treefrogs2 The stuttering was simply his conscious mind trying to override his unconscious minds urge to rip this idiot to pieces. It is a well documented phenomenon. Your body rebels in ways that are interpreted as stuttering, flailing and emotional outbursts when it is simply the conscious mind overriding the unconscious minds extreme urge to beat the shit out of an idiot that desperately deserves it.
Maybe the Universe was always here, remember folks, both energy and matter cannot me destroyed. Things change, Our earth could have been formed by remains of many different planets, asteroids, comets and stars.
I have no idea why anyone would complain about Thunderfoot's "performance" in the Ray Comfort interview. There is no need for Thunderfoot to be "apologizing". Thunderfoot presented extremely well thought out arguments. From a debate standpoint, Thunderfoot destroyed Ray Comfort. By the end of the debate, Ray was left mindlessly referring to irrelevant scripture and admitting that he really doesn't understand much of the Bible's content anyway (which represent's Ray's "world view").
@blaisingm he (thunderfott) was unclear, waffled, vague and showed a demonstrated lack of preparation. He was not concise, couldnt thread his ideas and left many wondering"what he *&^%%$ck is he talking about."
he actually said there was a tolerable level of murder in the world. LOL
I dont agree with Comfort's dogma, but he clearly outdid thunderfoot. Thundefoots mumbling about "Todd" was hilarious.
@Treefrogs2 Thunderfoot had a rough start in the first couple parts of the video series. However, once Thunderfoot got going with his sound arguments, Ray was unable to answer and retreated into your classic... God just made it so AND I really don't understand much of the Bible's content. Ray couldn't possibly have made a WEAKER argument by admitting he really doesn't understand what he's arguing about. Sorry, Thunderfoot destroyed Ray.
@blaisingm in video 2 Thunder foot takes 20 seconds to say nothing. Now, I dont and wont take aim at someone stuttering or being nervous. Being filmed in this fashion must be difficult, and perhaps I could not have done as well.
I never heard Thunderfoot say anything remotely clear, relevant. If you do, please let me know where
@Treefrogs2 All Thunderfoot is saying in part 2 is that: because painters make paintings (or people write in the sand), does NOT mean that gods make universes.... OR that stonehedge is evidence of giants playing dominos with rocks. We can witness a painter making a painting... we can witness the process of evolution... but we CANNOT witness gods creating universes, people, planets, etc. Thunderfoot is not easy to follow if you don't have a strong scientific background.
@blaisingm Sure. But it is not an unreasonable hypothesis that god made the universe, in light of the overwhelming history of humankind's struggle to achieve a sense of spiritual awareness. I would go as far to say that the case could be made that we are "hard wired" to seek "god". In a sense, our psychology is and had evolved to seek or find our maker(s)
@Treefrogs2 Personally, I think it is unreasonable to suggest a god/s made the universe as all mythology suggests... however, a person can make an semi-intelligent argument for the existence of a super being/god/s. A person CANNOT make an intelligent argument for christianity. Just look at Ray Comfort in this debate as he is reduced to admitting that he doesn't understand his bronze age world view.
@Treefrogs2 Unless you're no different from Ray, please provide examples of how Thunderfoot was "not concise", "waffled", or "vague". If your looking to argue/debate on Ray's behalf, please don't argue/debate like Ray Comfort by admitting that you really just didn't understand anything Thunderfoot was talking about. The "Todd" example was a sound hypothetical argument. Would you like me to explain it to you?
@blaisingm you may need to explain the "Todd argument" because thunderfoot couldnt in my respectful opinion. If you choose to do that, could you please Identify what Comfort said PRIOR to the "Todd" response" to put it in context.
@Treefrogs2 Todd represents a model/hypothetical being that is created in Thunderfoot's mind. The Todd example is about perception and the human ability to mentally create and believe whatever they choose. And... that people have the tendency to create super powered "father" figures in their head that offers them comfort. Thunderfoot is asking what's the difference between Todd's mental manifestation and Comfort's god?
@blaisingm Isee. Thank you for your response. The most glaring difference or weakeness in the "Todd" example is that as you said, Todd is just a manifestation. There is no histocity, witnesses and the like. Now I know your going to say god is just a manifestation also. My point is that there are historical reason to justify a belief in god if one chooses to do so.
@Treefrogs2 Thunderfoot's Todd example is no different from the biblical god in the fact that BOTH are manifestations unsubstantiated by anything other than imagination. There is no more evidence for the "character" of Jesus as their is for the "character" of Harry Potter. In fact, Harry Potter is loosely based on a real, living person. Does that make Harry Potter more real?
@blaisingm t"here is no more evidence for the "character" of Jesus as their is for the "character" of Harry Potter"
have you actually researched any works from antiquity? your bias against religion renders you blind.
The histrocity of jesus is no longer seriously questioned in academic circles. Hast been for a LONG time. Of course that doesnt prove prima facia that jesus was god,or a messenger of god.
@Treefrogs2 "The histrocity of jesus is no longer seriously questioned in academic circles"
Fair enough. Perhaps my analogy wasn't the best. But, perhaps you would consider offering evidence for the existence of Jesus. Based on what you suggest, in the past there was very little evidence for Jesus, but today there is ample enough to no longer be "questioned in academic circles".
@Treefrogs2 Comfort was simply asking what's the difference between man and animal, and then quickly following that up with morality and laws. Whether Ray knows this or not, animals themselves have a sense of "morality" similar to the "ten commandments" too. Thunderfoot's Todd example is attempting to extrapolate Ray's example of the difference between man and animal by showing off the man's wild imagination. Most animals do not show off as much creativeness as people.
@blaisingm I think animals get a bad rap. But as far as we know, they do not experience the capacity of right and wrong. Please explain how animals behave in a code like the ten commandements.
@Treefrogs2 Pack animals like wolves, elephants and great apes exist in small societies very similar to human tribal communities. They make tools, care for the sick, have leaders, work together for survival, and morn the dead. Does any of this behavior sound familiar? Animals like these mentioned very very rarely kill one another (ten commandments), or steal from each other (ten commandments).
@blaisingm I found the fault in Thunderfoots presentation to be an issue. Personally, I find myself able to grasp most concepts or follow most discussions if they are clearly advanced.
@Treefrogs2 Overall, Thunderfoot uses reasoning and logic to base his conclusions and his ideas. Thunderfoot fully admits that he doesn't have all the answers, but is clearly fascinated by the mysteries that will (hopefully) be unraveled with scientific advances. Ray claims to have all the answers nicely wrapped up in a bronze age book... then proceeds to admit that he really doesn't understand his bronze age book. Thunderfoot is the debate winner here.
@Treefrogs2 Overall, it is important to understand that their is a BIG, BIG difference between BELIEVING and USING. Science is NOT a belief system were you believe in things. Science is a tool used to solve problems. You don't believe in your hammer, you use your hammer to solve problems. You don't believe in evolution, you use evolution to solve problems. In a belief system, you simply believe in things... mostly because they might make you FEEL better.
@EyesLikeHoles Thanks! Did you have a chance to view this "debate"? Thunderfoot really puts on a show as you near the final 20 minutes. You can't win a debate/argument more thoroughly than to have your opponent admit that they really don't understand their argument (Ray admits that he doesn't understand a good portion of the bible). Really interesting stuff here.
@blaisingm what problem does Evolution solve? it is not a tool. it cant help you build a house. Evolution has not been fully proven. We have not found direct evidence that monkeys evolved into human beings. therefore people believe that facts are there, we just haven't found them yet. Evolution may not be a belief system, but it involves faith.
@SVSfootballman09 Evolution is a tool used to solve problems. We can discuss this in great detail if you would like. However, you must first understand the process and mechanisms that drive evolution BEFORE you can use it as a tool to solve problems (you can't drive a car if you don't know how to turn it on.), or discuss it's uses. The process of evolution does NOT suggest that monkey's evolved into humans. To briefly answer your question: Pesticides and medical treatments to name a few.
@SVSfootballman09 Yes, microbial resistance to pesticides is adaptation (evolve)! You're very right about that. However, understanding how insects and microbes mutate, or evolve resistance to an otherwise lethal substance, helps solve problems. How does this solve problems? By understanding the mechanisms of evolution, we can CREATE (hybridizing), SELECT (selective breeding), and CONTROL (genetic engineering) organisms. Genetics "evolved" from evolution.
@SVSfootballman09 "Microevolution" is essentially observable evolution using species with short generational times. The shorter an animals life span, the easier it is to observe and witness the process of evolution. Since evolution is an observable process (like gravity), the term microevolution is used to explain all the obvious, observable examples of evolution to those who are not comfortable with human evolution, or any examples of "macroevolution".
@SVSfootballman09 You've changed your story! Quick refresher... You said: "what problem does Evolution solve? it is not a tool." + "Evolution has not been fully proven." Now, you've just accepted that evolution has been proven AND "helps mankind improve". "Macro" and "micro" were terms fabricated by people who are not comfortable with the idea that "humans" are organisms that are subjected to the same laws of nature as all organisms. Macro and micro describe the EXACT same thing.
@SVSfootballman09 To illustrate the silliness of micro vs. macro evolution, let's look at gravity. Most people are comfortable with the idea that gravity "happens". Like evolution, we can witness, test and study gravity. Does it make sense to classify small objects having "microgravity" while large objects have "macrogravity" when the natural laws are the same for both? Or, to accept "micro" over "macro" gravity?
@blaisingm its actually different. Microevolution is not the same concept as macroevolution. Mircoevolution we can experiment with and observe, adaptation happens all the time. where as macroevolution has yet to be observed. your analogy with gravity doesnt really work.
@SVSfootballman09 "Micro" and "macro" evolution are the same processes governed by the SAME mechanisms. Since you don't agree with this point, then perhaps we should discuss examples of macroevolution? Or, can you name a reputable scientist (published science articles, researcher, etc.) who writes that macroevolution has never been observed and is a different concept than microevolution? This is your moment to shine... but I don't think you'll take it this far.
@SVSfootballman09 My example of gravity and evolution is sound. I used gravity as an example because almost everyone accepts gravity, but very little is known about gravity. We have overwhelming evidence for both gravity and evolution... BUT we know more about the mechanisms of evolution than we do about the mechanisms that govern gravity. So, why is gravity acceptable for you (assuming you can accept gravity), but evolution is not?
@blaisingm well we still haven't exactly found the missing link.... so until we do, Im not going to believe in maroevolution, science is believing in the things around us that we can see, observe, and test. we haven't observed a species evolve into a new one, and we can't test that, so evolution doesn't exactly stand with the scientific method.
@SVSfootballman09 Again, we have to go back and understand evolution before we can use evolution (can't drive a car if you don't know how to use a car). Concepts like: "Missing link" or "transitional species" are really early 20th century terms no longer used today, or fit the current evolutionary model. In modern evolution, all populations of organisms are in transition. Regardless, there are plenty of extinct animals that share "transitional morphology. Archaeopteryx is the "most famous"
@SVSfootballman09 Despite your usage of early 20th century evolutionary terminology ("missing link"), there are plenty of organisms that could easily fit into your definition of "missing links" and transitional species. I could list plenty. And yes, "macroevolution" (one critter that can no longer breed with a "new" critter, or "speciation") does occur and has been observed. We could review and study these, but does it matter? The real question is: does evidence matter to you?
@blaisingm Bacteria forming resistence to medication is adaptation to its environment around it. but I ask you, is that basteria, still bacteria? or is it a new species? smae goes for the humans and the wolves, they are still humans and wolves, they have just adapted differently.
@SVSfootballman09 I didn't understand the human and wolf part. Bacteria resistance to antibiotics is a mutation that might constitute a new "strain" of bacteria, but not a new species. Although species is a poorly defined concept in biology.
@SVSfootballman09 defining species when it comes to a-sexual organisms is very dificult, if over some time a form of the "wolf" that came from wolves was differnet enough to no longer be able to genetically reproduce with the original wolves, if they were still around with this branching cousin, then THAT would be a new species
@SVSfootballman09 No more comments? Unable to answer any of my questions? In closing it's apparently important for me to repeat this again.... PLEASE DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. Nobody should believe in evolution. There is nothing to believe in. Evolution is a tool used to solve problems just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer or car, you use them to solve problems.
@SVSfootballman09 Actually, yes we have. We have seen viruses and bacterium change to become more resistent to treatments. There is a small sect of humans which has lived at over a mile (2.2 kilometers) elevation for many generations and have a drastically higher lung capacity than normal humans because of it. We have seen a species of wolf being transplanted to a new environment (by our own doing) physiologically change over a few generations to adapt. Just to name a few.
@Blogrich55 What do you think evolution is? Suddenly having the capacity to shit gold? No, evolution is a slow process of many changes and adaptations within a species to new environments.
@SVSfootballman09 Or, since macroevolution is "unproven"... "never observed"... and requires faith... then, can you offer a more suitable model to explain: biodiversity, organism adaptation, genetics, the fossil record.
I would say that we will continue to understand evolution over time (as there is a lot we don't know). What would you say to explain any of this since evolution is not a good model to describe what we see in the natural world?
@itsmetyler obvioulsy YOU don't know what you're talking about...scientists do NOT say monkeys evolved into humans, willfully ignorant theistic religious people say "evolution is wrong because it says monkeys evolved into humans" which is not the case, evolution doesn't "say" monkeys evolved into humans but rather that we have a common ancestor
@blaisingm completely agree, but only with one circumstance, when you using something you also believe in it. All there religion idealistic s..t, that often uses the word believe while ONLY believing and that all. Matt Dilahunty said once "All that you know is a subset of what you believe" and I completely agree with him.
@InnerFood Perhaps its in how you define "belief". Many times when we use something it is during the process of "trail and error". Do we believe that our cars will start when we turn the ignition? I don't believe. I know there is a high probability that my car will start, but it may not. This is my personal quote : be open to all possibilities ranked in order of highest probability.
@InnerFood I'm not a fan of the concept of belief. The reason: What you believe in has no barring on reality. Most of my resentment of belief stems from belief systems. I prefer to look at the world from a statistical/probability perspective. Example: Do I fly on airplanes because I believe the pilots are well trained, or that the airplane has received proper maintanence? No... I fly because I know it is statistically highly unlikely the airplane will crash for any reason. Don't believe
@InnerFood Belief is typically used when referring to something unsubstantiated. believe is what you do in the presence OR absence of evidence or knowledge.
@blaisingm wikipedia has two definition of believe, first is just "a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true". Another connected with religion, so as I don't want to apply some sort of religion to my type of thought, I simply choose first definition.
@InnerFood@InnerFood Belief is one of those hard to define words... It's core usage surrounds uncertainty about whatever it is you believe in, but you stand firm on your position. That's just not something I do. I choose to be open to all possibilities ranked in order of highest probability. We could get really, really philosophical about this, but that's not the road I'd like to travel down.
@blaisingm i think you have your analogy wrong. science and beliefs are different yes. but you turned the word belief into an unbeneficial emotion. Science can tell u the properties of the glass of water in my hand, it can tell you the warters density and volume. but science dosent tell u why im holding the water. science is Good. but when u put science on a pedastool and neglect things like, personal experience and conscienceness, or our 5 senses, then that is foolish.
@Gods0n1 "belief into an unbeneficial emotion." I don't think belief is classified as an emotion. I don't think I'm neglecting personal experience, conscienceness, or especially 5 senses. The 5 senses are the only means with which we can study anything and the 5 senses CANNOT detect anything supernatural. I'm not sure what your argument is, but I would suspect you would be holding a glass of what because you are thirsty.
@blaisingm "5 senses CANNOT detect anything supernatural." i disagree. the universe is supernatural. we know this because, regardless of how small u reduce the physical universe down to. even until its smallest mollecule. the explanation for its ORIGIN cannot be found within itself. it MUST have an external, unnatural or supernatural first cause. " would suspect you would be holding a glass of what because you are thirsty. " no i want to water my plant. see my point?
@Gods0n1 "it MUST have an external" How do you know that the universe's origin cannon be found within itself? Human perspective/knowledge is limited by our position on a small planet is an incalculably large universe and the tools available for discovery. Just because we don't currently have an answer for origins doesn't mean it won't eventually be discovered. 170 years ago, sickness was the by-product of witchcraft and demons. Today we understand microbial infection.
@blaisingm because what ever created the universe has to be eternal and incredibly powerfull. scientists use to think that the sun was the source of power for all life, until they discovered that the sun was slowly dying. yes i agree, but 100 years from now people will look at the knowledge we have today and laugh at us.. because every generation thinks they are right. so u just might be an ape on a rock spinning in a universe ultimately without purpose. im just openminded to other views.
@mikeyboy86 I don't know... you tell me. Does hell make you feel better? Perhaps god makes you feel better because he "protects" you from the possibility of hell. Hell or no hell, the biblical god himself is mostly described and behaves as a tyranically jealous and racist creature that dispenses terrible advise while demanding the impossible (commandments) with bribes and threats. Does this make you feel better? Do wizards make you feel better?
@mikeyboy86 esentially yes, if someone believes in hell, they feel bnetter about themselves not going there, unless ofcourse they dont have confidense god likes them very much. in case it backfires and they become terrfied.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Using Evolution to solve things? It's not a tool, it's a theory"
Evolutionary app: Studying mutation RATES allows science the ability to predict how an organism will evolve/adapt. Molecular Biology and Evolution 2009 26(5):1143-1153; doi:10.1093/molbev/msp029
Evolutionary app: A laboratory process called directed evolution that rapidly evolves proteins can improve vaccines and other useful proteins.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Using Evolution to solve things? It's not a tool, it's a theory."
Here are some examples of how the evolutionary model is used to solve problems. I'm thinking of creating an iPhone app for the evolution. Evolutionary app. :)
Achievement tech: computer programs called evolutionary or genetic algorithms. reference: [see "Evolving Inventions," by John R. Koza, Martin A. Keane and Matthew J. Streeter; Scientific American, February 2003]
Creationism and Christianity: benifits in personal well being, family relationships, and society. Newton, Keplar, Galileo, Einstein, and MANY more scientists were very religious and men of God. Things are only as you percieve them. Evolution has more proof and it is more researched as appose to Creationism. Because the scientific community will not except Creationism as a scientific theory because of their biased opinions.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Evolution has more proof and it is more researched as appose to Creationism."
The evolutionary model is a working tool used to solve problems (See cited examples) and is based on the corroborating evidence of: phylogenetics, fossil record, organismal geographic distribution, homology, etc. Biblical creationism is based on book conceived by bronze age desert tribesmen. Biblical creationism is NOT based on evidence or science at all, rather it's a belief system.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Because the scientific community will not except Creationism as a scientific theory because of their biased opinions. "
Creationism is not based on science, evidence or anything in between. The scientific community will not except creationism because creationism is not science. Science also does not except stork theory for the conception of human babies because stork theory is NOT based on evidence either. Biases and opinions have nothing to do with it... only evidence.
Creationism is not "based" on science, simply because we aren't looking for the science of Creationism. Why? We aren't funded and we don't have the man power because we aren't called a scienific theory. Plus, it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to find physical evidence of something that isn't in this universe. Because Newton's First Law of Motion states: An object at rest will stya at rest, unless accompanied by an OUTSIDE force.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "We aren't funded and we don't have the man power"
Aren't funded? Mormonism is a billion dollar industry. Catholicism is multi billion. The U.S. has multi million dollar creation museums. No manpower? Gallup polls show that 86% of the US population subscribes to some form of intelligent design or creationism. It is the scientific community that is the minority, but solves the world's problems without the support of the majority. What's your argument?
When you ask the 86% percent of people, how you get to heaven, 80 out of the 86 percent wouldn't know. They would probably say uh... be a good person, go to church on Sundays, and pray a lot. NO, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. All you have to do is have a personal and loving relation with God.
So 90% of Christians are't truly Christians. So in reality, the amount of Atheists and Christians are really the same.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "So 90% of Christians are't truly Christians. So... amount of Atheists and Christians are really the same."
The 86% represents some form of ID or religion, not just your religion. You should also consider learning what atheism is... It is defined by the non-belief in gods, not just the christian god. Everyone, including yourself, is an atheist unless you subscribe to the belief in all gods. My percentages come from gallup poll data. Where does your 90% data come from?
And for solving the world's problems and every religion having radicals. Science has developed: biological weapons, atomic/nuclear weapons, guns, explosives for war, etc. And again for "solving the world's problems", religion and science are doing two totally different things. Science is helping man with his physical problems such as diseases, biological disorders, etc. Religion is helping man with his mental and spiritual problems such as self-esteem, meaning of life, etc.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "religion and science are doing two totally different things."
Thank you. You are supporting my argument from the beginning. There is a big, big difference between religion and science. One is a tool, the other is a belief system. Sound familiar? Since we're, apparently, in agreement here... What is your argument anyway? I don't think you've defined it. If we're in agreement, then we don't have a debate.
So religion since its time being thousands of years longer as oppose to science has solved more problems than science. And again with the subject of radicalism, you must weigh the pros and cons of religion. And if you do, especially with Christianity, you'll realize that the positives such as Missionaries going to Africa, out way the radicals and cons.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "especially with Christianity, you'll realize that the positives such as Missionaries going to Africa"
Missionaries going to Africa does good? You mean like the Catholic leaders in Africa who teach Africans the "evils" of safe sex that has furthered the spread of AIDS? Or, perhaps you're referring to the general spread of christianity in Africa that destroys the indigenous culture. Perhaps you could offer a positive example of your own?
We don't teach the evil's of "safe sex". We teach the evils of "premaritial sex". What is safer, having sex with multiple people with a condom? Or having sex with one person who has only had sex with you. Maybe you dhould get your facts straight buddy.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "We don't teach the evil's of "safe sex". We teach the evils of "premaritial sex""
In 1990, the Pope himself visited Tanzania africa to teach the sinful nature of condoms and contraception itself. He wasn't talking about marriage. This kind of Catholic "teaching" has led to countless deaths and millions of AIDS orphans. You haven't offered anything "positive" offered forth by any religion. You mentioned something about mental stability... could you elaborate ?
You're indicating he went to teach the Africans that it isn't okay to use a condom so have sex and not use a condom. NOT TRUE. He preached about not using a condom because you shouldn't have premaritial sex AT ALL. You people are preaching about having sex with anyone you want with a condom. That's not right. And the Pope is right. You are more likely to contract and STD with a condom while having sex as oppose to NOT HAVING sex except with the person you are married to.
And you are wrong when you said that you aren't offered anything positive by religion. That's actually quite nonsense to say the least. How many people had sexually transmitted diseases before free love came about? AIDS Virus didn't even EXIST until the 1980s came with "Free Love" and when people turned away from God. So you're once again, wrong. The Pope and the Christians didn't cause millions of deaths due to STDs, YOU did. Literally not you, but what you stand for.
I'll give you an example of a positive outcome of religion. For instance, if you commit suicide, you'll go to hell. I personally disagree with this statement very greatly. BUT, do you know how many lives that saved? Do you know how many people were about to do it but thought they'll go to hell and then didn't do it? Premaritial sex preventing STDs is another example. And I saved the best for last (that expression also came from Jesus), knowing that God loves you.
@XxFightinDirtyxX "For instance, if you commit suicide, you'll go to hell."
Some religions motivate and celebrate suicides. Are you referring to the bible when you refer to punishment for suicide? Perhaps you could reference the Bible on where it refers to suicide.
Interesting, you got sand bagged on the STD point so you refused to comment. And you also got sand bagged on the going to hell saving lives point. So to answer your quite weak and unstable arguement, I said I personally believe you don't go to hell for commiting suicide if you reread my comment.
You see dude, there are a lot of stupid Christians who preach lyes. They say stupid stuff. My friend was in Haiti and the guy said God caused the earthquake to punish you all.
Ran outta characters. But the reason people commit suicide is because they hate life because they think no one loves them. Which is not the case. If you think about this way, you're wrong. Jesus loves you whether you accept it or not. And the whole body of the REAL Church loves you, even if you disagree with us. Because we love our friends, and we also love our enemies too. The REAL Christians love questions, we love opposing opinions because we can strengthen ours by hearing others
Hell is simply a term that Christians use to describe a place without God. When I die, I don't believe that there are going to be "streets of gold" for the believers and "torture-ree" fire for the non believers. I think heaven is just going to have God. And I think a lot of people will be disappointed but I don't care. I love Jesus, I love my Father and I don't care if I don't get a masion or whatever non sense people preach.
And people in hell are going to be suprised to when they aren't tortured. Like I think you're in hell right now because you don't have God in your life. And for you, that's perfectly fine. And when you die, it will continue to be perfectly fine. Because in Christian terms, hell is simply not having God in your life.
Agreed. That is the REAL Christianity. Not more should look at it that way. ALL should look at it that way. But like I said earlier, there are a lot of stupid Christians out there. And you just can't argue with them. Just ignore all the morons that say God hates you because you're Athiest. Because He doesn't. He still loves you, even if you don't love Him back. And He wants everyone to love everyone. So I don't care if you hate me. I love everyone here.
@blaisingm The only part of evolution that is believable Is Micro evolution. The rest is a belief. There is no evidence supporting macro evolution. DNA similarity's are forfeit because to build something that is similar to another animal requires similar DNA code. If I am to make a hand similar to a human hand I am going to need similar DNA code. DNA is like the letters in the alphabet I can use all the letters to make words. Some words will be similar like the names Jack and Jake.
@machinedean100 "The only part of evolution that is believable Is Micro evolution. The rest is a belief."
Science is very useful in it's ability to solve real world problems. You have to pick the right tool for the job. In the case of the evolutionary model, you have a working model capable of solving real world problems (such as studying pathogen evolution to fabricate more effective vaccines). I strongly encourage you NOT to believe in evolution, but to use it in solving problems.
@blaisingm So, pretty much your picking up a tool that you believe exists. your hammer has so many flaws in it that I don't know how you would ever pick it up to bang in a nail. Does your hammer make you feel better? Do you delight in it? Do you like playing with your hammer so much? That you would denie sound logic and shut your brain off to the existence of god.
@machinedean100 "So, pretty much your picking up a tool that you believe exists. your hammer has so many flaws"
Every tool has flaws. If a tool can be used to solve problems, and it is the current best fool for the job, then you use it to solve problems. The evolutionary model is used to solve real world problems, much like your hammer. And, like your hammer, the evolutionary model will continue to be refined (nail gun usurping hammer) making it more effective.
@blaisingm micro evolution is the tool your talking of. You cant use a tool that doesn't exist unless your building a pretend house. As i stated the rest of evolution is religious and is a belief based on faith. Making fun of ray because he doesn't understand everything. When the rest of understand just as much as he does. Is just plain ignorant and is honestly just plain rude.
@machinedean100 "Making fun of ray because he doesn't understand everything. When the rest of understand just as much as he does. Is just plain ignorant and is honestly just plain rude."
I'm not making fun of Ray. He openly admits that "there is a lot he doesn't understand in the bible", and I think his sentiments are shared by almost everyone.
@blaisingm lets all just sit back and laugh at other peoples beliefs. Because we think we Know it all. Which if you took the amount of what you know and divided by the infinite amount of information in the universe you would get Zero.So, honestly we as human beings Know nothing. Not a fraction or single iota of information do we have compared to what is out there.
@machinedean100 "So, honestly we as human beings Know nothing. Not a fraction or single iota of information do we have compared to what is out there."
I can agree with you that we know very little in comparison to all that there is to "know". However, I think we should try to make the best of what we have and try to learn what we can using the tools we have available. Agreed?
@blaisingm but if I believed my hammer was the thing to use to carve wood with, I might be able to be tricked into thinking that science has no orthodoxy.
@Treefrogs2 "I might be able to be tricked into thinking that science has no orthodoxy."
I strongly suggest that you DON'T believe in science, but to use it to solve problems. Could you use a traditional hammer to carve wood? Use the right tool for the job. Being tricked isn't so bad if you have the opportunity to learn from whatever tomfoolery you've been duped into... which typically requires some analysis, investigation and maybe some experimentation.
@blaisingm "which typically requires some analysis, investigation and maybe some experimentation."
I dont take issue with the scientific method. Except that it dismisses the human condition. it as an institution (the scientific community) resists change, or unconventional or leading edge ideas. (generally speaking)
the scientific elite have shaped scientific inquiry into being an excercise in anal retention
@Treefrogs2 "it as an institution (the scientific community) resists change, or unconventional or leading edge ideas."
Science's strength is the opposite in that is doesn't resist change at all (for the most part). Mistakes are encouraged... mistakes strengthen science by "fine tuning" it. Perhaps, at this point, you would like to offer evidence for Jesus or an example of how science resists change to strengthen your argument.
I strongly suggest that you DON'T believe in science, but to use it to solve problems. Could you use a traditional hammer to carve wood? Use the right tool for the job. Being tricked isn't so bad if you have the opportunity to learn from whatever tomfoolery you've been duped into... which typically requires some analysis, investigation and maybe some experimentation.
@blaisingm "I strongly suggest that you DON'T believe in science, but to use it to solve problems."
but many people believe that (hard)science is that correct tool. When I say hard science, I mean math, physics etc. It is well known that those disciplines "look down upon" the social sciences etc
And since science has an orthodoxy, it is rone to some of the same weaknesses that orthodox religion has.
@Treefrogs2 "but many people believe that (hard)science is that correct tool."
It is the current best tool. Unless you can offer humanity a more reliable tool used to solve problems, then science/math will continue to be used to solve problems. Science is not perfect and makes mistakes, which works to strengthen science.
Two important historical events are deliberately left out of textbook educations:
1. Wise King Solomon had two distinct periods. The first, he was aligned with God and contributed to the Holy Bible. Later, a victim of deception he performs a ritual that aligned him with Satan. At that point, he wrote the Khaballa (Jewish Magik).
2. The Jesuits were kicked out of every European Country before finding refuge in America. They regrouped to resume and execute their evil diabolical agenda.
Having watching this entire interview today, one thing really stuck out to me. Comfort makes it repeatedly clear that the unsaved can never understand the Bible. Yet, Comfort himself admits there are lots of things in the Bible that he doesn't understand.
The logical deduction here is that Comfort is either wrong about being saved, or wrong that you must be saved in order to understand the Bible.
The answer to the question is confirmed by reading Plato's brilliant dialogue discussing Wisdom. He defines Wisdom as a "condition of the soul" and the soul's affinity to that which it is familiar, becomes drunk in it's presence. Ironically, the same key to the gates of Heaven obtained by faith is used to understand Plato's definition of Wisdom. Plato, did not preface his dialogue with the condition precedent to understand his definition.
Few answer the question properly, although it can be with absolute conviction. Plato, defined Wisdom as a "condition of the Soul" that has an affinity to that which it is familiar and becomes drunk when in it's presence. Plato, did not preface his dialogue with the condition precedent to understand his definition. Without it Plato's definition might appear as babble, but truly "wise" men wholeheartedly agree with the brilliant, Plato.
3 months prior to 911 VP Cheney directed Rumsfeld to execute his order which transferred authority & responsibility from qualified Pentagon Officials for domestic hi-jackings to the VP office sole authority & responsibility. For the first time in history, 2 months prior to 911 that order was executed which gave the Office of VP sole authority and responsibility for domestic hi-jackings. VP swore oath to faithfully execute the duties of the office of VP and then committed Treason.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
wow, its like talking to a television. can you stick to the topic at hand?? maybe uve been reading to many conspiracy books, i dont know. but theres just no argument with you.
A government textbook education provides the fearless willingness for half educated to publicly state their own ignorance. Madam Blavatsky, a self-admitted Satanist referred to the Jesuits as, "more evil then Satan". Her disciple Anne Bailey, started Lucifer Publishing. Later changed it's name to Lucis Trust and together were pioneers in establishing the United Nations. Until recently, Lucis Trust HQ was on UN Property. Hitler adopted the Jesuit 5th Oath (Evil) verbatim for his SS.
your name is quite ironic given the fact that you let a 2000 year old book dictate whats is true. with everything we know today and the lack of archaelogical & historical evidence to back most of what the bible says, it would be completely ignorant and careless to disregard something such as evolution because some ancient monk didnt have modern technologyto percieve/understand it.
that would be limiting the potential of human development.
Attention Evolutionist Shoppers, Clean Up Little Johnny Aisle One:
".. aftermath of Satanic ritual where the emaciated body of a 5 year old boy still hung lifeless. They say it isn't painful for the little guy, since they do tend to freeze up from fear, which releases endorphins to block the pain. Still, it's hard to prepare a stolen child to watch Satanic Adults, savor their endorphin laden blood. Eventually they die, with last images being of adults relishing in their sick Satanic tribute."
A government textbook education provides the fearless willingness for half educated to publicly state their own ignorance. Madam Blavatsky, a self-admitted Satanist referred to the Jesuits as, "more evil then Satan". Her disciple Anne Bailey, started Lucifer Publishing. Later changed it's name to Lucis Trust and together were pioneers in establishing the United Nations. Until recently, Lucis Trust HQ was on UN Property. Hitler adopted the Jesuit 5th Oath (Evil) verbatim for his SS.
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
I think people shouldn't even debate Comfort. They only give him more respect and power. And these debates don't go anywhere, he brings you to his level, and you can't have a honest and serious debate with such an idiot. Let's just ignore him and try to save the rest of the people from believing this nonsense.
dutchbb1979 7 months ago
lol props to thunderfoot for even speaking to a fuck like ray , i probably would have slapped him and left in under 5 seconds
jeflagoon 1 year ago 3
This is beyond lengendary.
21quandary 1 year ago
"god describes cookery here". Thunderf00t showing Ray that he's not stupid.
s0n0fsav 1 year ago
@TheKenny4292 "If you died right now, would you go to Heaven or Hell?"
i dont know what will happen after i die and neither do you, but the christian hell you are reffering to is not the first idea of hell, the notion of hell is almost as old as people themselves infact the name "hell" was named after the norse god of the underworld "hel" so i find it a bit silly when christians matter of factly claim to know which hell if any is real, for all you know the norse "hell" may be real
bigmanoooo1 1 year ago
@TheKenny4292 thats false the dew claw is not used to hold on to food it would make no difference if what there or not which would make it vsetigal, btw which species of dogs have a dew claw that touches the ground?
bigmanoooo1 1 year ago
@bigmanoooo1 and regarding the did the wolf gain wings question, no quadrapedal animal would develop wings and still be a quadraped because wings are always modified fore limbs
bigmanoooo1 1 year ago
@TheKenny4292 "Did the wolf gain hands to grab and dig in the snow with, or wings so he can better traverse the environment?"
look very closely at a dogs front paws, you may notice that is an unneeded toe and the position of which suggest that dogs at one point dod have a thumb like appendage at some point, btw human like hands wouldnt be as effective at digging as paws are so hands wouldnt help them better traverse the envoiroment
bigmanoooo1 1 year ago
hahaha
blahdob 1 year ago
I like that thunderfoot did not try to give off that he was right as the base of his argument and tried to address each fact, while Ray was just saying the same defense, over and over and over and over and over.
35TCK 1 year ago 20
left out all the stuttering
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Jesus lived, we killed him, and that made his Father so happy that he took away our sins !! TRUTH !!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I need some clarification here if you don't mind. Why Father was happy that Jesus took our sins away, he could do that himself. He's omnipotent right?
Did Jesus have some special powers to took away sins that God doesn't have?
panzerfausto 1 year ago
@panzerfausto Why DOES God need us if He is omnipotent? None of it makes any sense to me.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz he needs people to share his cookery tips with. no point being a great cook if you can't create a race of people in a vast empty universe and write a book to tell them about your cookin' skillz
ScotchMonkey08 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 The stuttering was simply his conscious mind trying to override his unconscious minds urge to rip this idiot to pieces. It is a well documented phenomenon. Your body rebels in ways that are interpreted as stuttering, flailing and emotional outbursts when it is simply the conscious mind overriding the unconscious minds extreme urge to beat the shit out of an idiot that desperately deserves it.
alianchild 1 year ago
cheapshot
m4dm3th0d 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMajortom1969 1 year ago
Maybe the Universe was always here, remember folks, both energy and matter cannot me destroyed. Things change, Our earth could have been formed by remains of many different planets, asteroids, comets and stars.
noeyedeer2jk89sx 1 year ago
thank God you dont have to understand everything in the bible to be born again, not everyone studies the bible or has the time..
salvation is simple Romans 10:9-10
OllyJollyOrange 1 year ago
AND THERES ALSO TOO MUCH:
"i i i i i i"
carlofos 1 year ago
A sure sign of defeat is criticism.
amac301224 1 year ago
I have no idea why anyone would complain about Thunderfoot's "performance" in the Ray Comfort interview. There is no need for Thunderfoot to be "apologizing". Thunderfoot presented extremely well thought out arguments. From a debate standpoint, Thunderfoot destroyed Ray Comfort. By the end of the debate, Ray was left mindlessly referring to irrelevant scripture and admitting that he really doesn't understand much of the Bible's content anyway (which represent's Ray's "world view").
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm he (thunderfott) was unclear, waffled, vague and showed a demonstrated lack of preparation. He was not concise, couldnt thread his ideas and left many wondering"what he *&^%%$ck is he talking about."
he actually said there was a tolerable level of murder in the world. LOL
I dont agree with Comfort's dogma, but he clearly outdid thunderfoot. Thundefoots mumbling about "Todd" was hilarious.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Thunderfoot had a rough start in the first couple parts of the video series. However, once Thunderfoot got going with his sound arguments, Ray was unable to answer and retreated into your classic... God just made it so AND I really don't understand much of the Bible's content. Ray couldn't possibly have made a WEAKER argument by admitting he really doesn't understand what he's arguing about. Sorry, Thunderfoot destroyed Ray.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm in video 2 Thunder foot takes 20 seconds to say nothing. Now, I dont and wont take aim at someone stuttering or being nervous. Being filmed in this fashion must be difficult, and perhaps I could not have done as well.
I never heard Thunderfoot say anything remotely clear, relevant. If you do, please let me know where
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 All Thunderfoot is saying in part 2 is that: because painters make paintings (or people write in the sand), does NOT mean that gods make universes.... OR that stonehedge is evidence of giants playing dominos with rocks. We can witness a painter making a painting... we can witness the process of evolution... but we CANNOT witness gods creating universes, people, planets, etc. Thunderfoot is not easy to follow if you don't have a strong scientific background.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm Sure. But it is not an unreasonable hypothesis that god made the universe, in light of the overwhelming history of humankind's struggle to achieve a sense of spiritual awareness. I would go as far to say that the case could be made that we are "hard wired" to seek "god". In a sense, our psychology is and had evolved to seek or find our maker(s)
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Personally, I think it is unreasonable to suggest a god/s made the universe as all mythology suggests... however, a person can make an semi-intelligent argument for the existence of a super being/god/s. A person CANNOT make an intelligent argument for christianity. Just look at Ray Comfort in this debate as he is reduced to admitting that he doesn't understand his bronze age world view.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Unless you're no different from Ray, please provide examples of how Thunderfoot was "not concise", "waffled", or "vague". If your looking to argue/debate on Ray's behalf, please don't argue/debate like Ray Comfort by admitting that you really just didn't understand anything Thunderfoot was talking about. The "Todd" example was a sound hypothetical argument. Would you like me to explain it to you?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm you may need to explain the "Todd argument" because thunderfoot couldnt in my respectful opinion. If you choose to do that, could you please Identify what Comfort said PRIOR to the "Todd" response" to put it in context.
thanks
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Todd represents a model/hypothetical being that is created in Thunderfoot's mind. The Todd example is about perception and the human ability to mentally create and believe whatever they choose. And... that people have the tendency to create super powered "father" figures in their head that offers them comfort. Thunderfoot is asking what's the difference between Todd's mental manifestation and Comfort's god?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm Isee. Thank you for your response. The most glaring difference or weakeness in the "Todd" example is that as you said, Todd is just a manifestation. There is no histocity, witnesses and the like. Now I know your going to say god is just a manifestation also. My point is that there are historical reason to justify a belief in god if one chooses to do so.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Thunderfoot's Todd example is no different from the biblical god in the fact that BOTH are manifestations unsubstantiated by anything other than imagination. There is no more evidence for the "character" of Jesus as their is for the "character" of Harry Potter. In fact, Harry Potter is loosely based on a real, living person. Does that make Harry Potter more real?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm t"here is no more evidence for the "character" of Jesus as their is for the "character" of Harry Potter"
have you actually researched any works from antiquity? your bias against religion renders you blind.
The histrocity of jesus is no longer seriously questioned in academic circles. Hast been for a LONG time. Of course that doesnt prove prima facia that jesus was god,or a messenger of god.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 "The histrocity of jesus is no longer seriously questioned in academic circles"
Fair enough. Perhaps my analogy wasn't the best. But, perhaps you would consider offering evidence for the existence of Jesus. Based on what you suggest, in the past there was very little evidence for Jesus, but today there is ample enough to no longer be "questioned in academic circles".
blaisingm 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Comfort was simply asking what's the difference between man and animal, and then quickly following that up with morality and laws. Whether Ray knows this or not, animals themselves have a sense of "morality" similar to the "ten commandments" too. Thunderfoot's Todd example is attempting to extrapolate Ray's example of the difference between man and animal by showing off the man's wild imagination. Most animals do not show off as much creativeness as people.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm I think animals get a bad rap. But as far as we know, they do not experience the capacity of right and wrong. Please explain how animals behave in a code like the ten commandements.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Pack animals like wolves, elephants and great apes exist in small societies very similar to human tribal communities. They make tools, care for the sick, have leaders, work together for survival, and morn the dead. Does any of this behavior sound familiar? Animals like these mentioned very very rarely kill one another (ten commandments), or steal from each other (ten commandments).
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm I found the fault in Thunderfoots presentation to be an issue. Personally, I find myself able to grasp most concepts or follow most discussions if they are clearly advanced.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Overall, Thunderfoot uses reasoning and logic to base his conclusions and his ideas. Thunderfoot fully admits that he doesn't have all the answers, but is clearly fascinated by the mysteries that will (hopefully) be unraveled with scientific advances. Ray claims to have all the answers nicely wrapped up in a bronze age book... then proceeds to admit that he really doesn't understand his bronze age book. Thunderfoot is the debate winner here.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Overall, it is important to understand that their is a BIG, BIG difference between BELIEVING and USING. Science is NOT a belief system were you believe in things. Science is a tool used to solve problems. You don't believe in your hammer, you use your hammer to solve problems. You don't believe in evolution, you use evolution to solve problems. In a belief system, you simply believe in things... mostly because they might make you FEEL better.
blaisingm 1 year ago 46
@blaisingm Well said.
EyesLikeHoles 1 year ago 2
@EyesLikeHoles Thanks! Did you have a chance to view this "debate"? Thunderfoot really puts on a show as you near the final 20 minutes. You can't win a debate/argument more thoroughly than to have your opponent admit that they really don't understand their argument (Ray admits that he doesn't understand a good portion of the bible). Really interesting stuff here.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm what problem does Evolution solve? it is not a tool. it cant help you build a house. Evolution has not been fully proven. We have not found direct evidence that monkeys evolved into human beings. therefore people believe that facts are there, we just haven't found them yet. Evolution may not be a belief system, but it involves faith.
SVSfootballman09 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 Evolution is a tool used to solve problems. We can discuss this in great detail if you would like. However, you must first understand the process and mechanisms that drive evolution BEFORE you can use it as a tool to solve problems (you can't drive a car if you don't know how to turn it on.), or discuss it's uses. The process of evolution does NOT suggest that monkey's evolved into humans. To briefly answer your question: Pesticides and medical treatments to name a few.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm well that's adaptation. the adaptation of bacteria and pesticides is micro evolution.
SVSfootballman09 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 Yes, microbial resistance to pesticides is adaptation (evolve)! You're very right about that. However, understanding how insects and microbes mutate, or evolve resistance to an otherwise lethal substance, helps solve problems. How does this solve problems? By understanding the mechanisms of evolution, we can CREATE (hybridizing), SELECT (selective breeding), and CONTROL (genetic engineering) organisms. Genetics "evolved" from evolution.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 "Microevolution" is essentially observable evolution using species with short generational times. The shorter an animals life span, the easier it is to observe and witness the process of evolution. Since evolution is an observable process (like gravity), the term microevolution is used to explain all the obvious, observable examples of evolution to those who are not comfortable with human evolution, or any examples of "macroevolution".
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm exactly...thanks for thoroughly explaining what I just said. Macroevolution wont really help mankind improve. But microevolution has.
SVSfootballman09 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 You've changed your story! Quick refresher... You said: "what problem does Evolution solve? it is not a tool." + "Evolution has not been fully proven." Now, you've just accepted that evolution has been proven AND "helps mankind improve". "Macro" and "micro" were terms fabricated by people who are not comfortable with the idea that "humans" are organisms that are subjected to the same laws of nature as all organisms. Macro and micro describe the EXACT same thing.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 To illustrate the silliness of micro vs. macro evolution, let's look at gravity. Most people are comfortable with the idea that gravity "happens". Like evolution, we can witness, test and study gravity. Does it make sense to classify small objects having "microgravity" while large objects have "macrogravity" when the natural laws are the same for both? Or, to accept "micro" over "macro" gravity?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm its actually different. Microevolution is not the same concept as macroevolution. Mircoevolution we can experiment with and observe, adaptation happens all the time. where as macroevolution has yet to be observed. your analogy with gravity doesnt really work.
SVSfootballman09 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 "Micro" and "macro" evolution are the same processes governed by the SAME mechanisms. Since you don't agree with this point, then perhaps we should discuss examples of macroevolution? Or, can you name a reputable scientist (published science articles, researcher, etc.) who writes that macroevolution has never been observed and is a different concept than microevolution? This is your moment to shine... but I don't think you'll take it this far.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 My example of gravity and evolution is sound. I used gravity as an example because almost everyone accepts gravity, but very little is known about gravity. We have overwhelming evidence for both gravity and evolution... BUT we know more about the mechanisms of evolution than we do about the mechanisms that govern gravity. So, why is gravity acceptable for you (assuming you can accept gravity), but evolution is not?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm well we still haven't exactly found the missing link.... so until we do, Im not going to believe in maroevolution, science is believing in the things around us that we can see, observe, and test. we haven't observed a species evolve into a new one, and we can't test that, so evolution doesn't exactly stand with the scientific method.
SVSfootballman09 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 Again, we have to go back and understand evolution before we can use evolution (can't drive a car if you don't know how to use a car). Concepts like: "Missing link" or "transitional species" are really early 20th century terms no longer used today, or fit the current evolutionary model. In modern evolution, all populations of organisms are in transition. Regardless, there are plenty of extinct animals that share "transitional morphology. Archaeopteryx is the "most famous"
blaisingm 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 Despite your usage of early 20th century evolutionary terminology ("missing link"), there are plenty of organisms that could easily fit into your definition of "missing links" and transitional species. I could list plenty. And yes, "macroevolution" (one critter that can no longer breed with a "new" critter, or "speciation") does occur and has been observed. We could review and study these, but does it matter? The real question is: does evidence matter to you?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm Bacteria forming resistence to medication is adaptation to its environment around it. but I ask you, is that basteria, still bacteria? or is it a new species? smae goes for the humans and the wolves, they are still humans and wolves, they have just adapted differently.
SVSfootballman09 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 I didn't understand the human and wolf part. Bacteria resistance to antibiotics is a mutation that might constitute a new "strain" of bacteria, but not a new species. Although species is a poorly defined concept in biology.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 defining species when it comes to a-sexual organisms is very dificult, if over some time a form of the "wolf" that came from wolves was differnet enough to no longer be able to genetically reproduce with the original wolves, if they were still around with this branching cousin, then THAT would be a new species
cabot2jville2010 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 No more comments? Unable to answer any of my questions? In closing it's apparently important for me to repeat this again.... PLEASE DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. Nobody should believe in evolution. There is nothing to believe in. Evolution is a tool used to solve problems just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer or car, you use them to solve problems.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 Actually, yes we have. We have seen viruses and bacterium change to become more resistent to treatments. There is a small sect of humans which has lived at over a mile (2.2 kilometers) elevation for many generations and have a drastically higher lung capacity than normal humans because of it. We have seen a species of wolf being transplanted to a new environment (by our own doing) physiologically change over a few generations to adapt. Just to name a few.
MisterSecurity702 1 year ago 16
@MisterSecurity702 Not really evolution just change and adaptation within the species.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 What do you think evolution is? Suddenly having the capacity to shit gold? No, evolution is a slow process of many changes and adaptations within a species to new environments.
MisterSecurity702 1 year ago
@MisterSecurity702 asks, "What do you think evolution is? Suddenly having the capacity to shit gold?" Uhhh.... No, that would alchemy ROFLOL
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 LOL
DexxterMorgan 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 Or, since macroevolution is "unproven"... "never observed"... and requires faith... then, can you offer a more suitable model to explain: biodiversity, organism adaptation, genetics, the fossil record.
I would say that we will continue to understand evolution over time (as there is a lot we don't know). What would you say to explain any of this since evolution is not a good model to describe what we see in the natural world?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@SVSfootballman09 No scientists say that monkeys evolved into human beings. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
itsmetyler 1 year ago
@itsmetyler obvioulsy YOU don't know what you're talking about...scientists do NOT say monkeys evolved into humans, willfully ignorant theistic religious people say "evolution is wrong because it says monkeys evolved into humans" which is not the case, evolution doesn't "say" monkeys evolved into humans but rather that we have a common ancestor
cabot2jville2010 1 year ago
@cabot2jville2010 You did not read my comment correctly. There is no comma after "no"
itsmetyler 1 year ago
@itsmetyler hahaha wow my bad on a huge scale, a simple missing comma caused an entirely different meaning to your comment >.< mi mal
cabot2jville2010 1 year ago
@blaisingm completely agree, but only with one circumstance, when you using something you also believe in it. All there religion idealistic s..t, that often uses the word believe while ONLY believing and that all. Matt Dilahunty said once "All that you know is a subset of what you believe" and I completely agree with him.
InnerFood 1 year ago
@InnerFood Perhaps its in how you define "belief". Many times when we use something it is during the process of "trail and error". Do we believe that our cars will start when we turn the ignition? I don't believe. I know there is a high probability that my car will start, but it may not. This is my personal quote : be open to all possibilities ranked in order of highest probability.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm you believe and you know it.
So, do you believe that the car will ride? Yes, surely. And do you know, that the car will ride? Yes, indeed.
InnerFood 1 year ago
@InnerFood I'm not a fan of the concept of belief. The reason: What you believe in has no barring on reality. Most of my resentment of belief stems from belief systems. I prefer to look at the world from a statistical/probability perspective. Example: Do I fly on airplanes because I believe the pilots are well trained, or that the airplane has received proper maintanence? No... I fly because I know it is statistically highly unlikely the airplane will crash for any reason. Don't believe
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm you see, "believe" and "know" is not mutually exclusive
InnerFood 1 year ago
@InnerFood Belief is typically used when referring to something unsubstantiated. believe is what you do in the presence OR absence of evidence or knowledge.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm wikipedia has two definition of believe, first is just "a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true". Another connected with religion, so as I don't want to apply some sort of religion to my type of thought, I simply choose first definition.
InnerFood 1 year ago
@InnerFood @InnerFood Belief is one of those hard to define words... It's core usage surrounds uncertainty about whatever it is you believe in, but you stand firm on your position. That's just not something I do. I choose to be open to all possibilities ranked in order of highest probability. We could get really, really philosophical about this, but that's not the road I'd like to travel down.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm i think you have your analogy wrong. science and beliefs are different yes. but you turned the word belief into an unbeneficial emotion. Science can tell u the properties of the glass of water in my hand, it can tell you the warters density and volume. but science dosent tell u why im holding the water. science is Good. but when u put science on a pedastool and neglect things like, personal experience and conscienceness, or our 5 senses, then that is foolish.
Gods0n1 1 year ago
@Gods0n1 "belief into an unbeneficial emotion." I don't think belief is classified as an emotion. I don't think I'm neglecting personal experience, conscienceness, or especially 5 senses. The 5 senses are the only means with which we can study anything and the 5 senses CANNOT detect anything supernatural. I'm not sure what your argument is, but I would suspect you would be holding a glass of what because you are thirsty.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm "5 senses CANNOT detect anything supernatural." i disagree. the universe is supernatural. we know this because, regardless of how small u reduce the physical universe down to. even until its smallest mollecule. the explanation for its ORIGIN cannot be found within itself. it MUST have an external, unnatural or supernatural first cause. " would suspect you would be holding a glass of what because you are thirsty. " no i want to water my plant. see my point?
Gods0n1 1 year ago
@Gods0n1 "it MUST have an external" How do you know that the universe's origin cannon be found within itself? Human perspective/knowledge is limited by our position on a small planet is an incalculably large universe and the tools available for discovery. Just because we don't currently have an answer for origins doesn't mean it won't eventually be discovered. 170 years ago, sickness was the by-product of witchcraft and demons. Today we understand microbial infection.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm because what ever created the universe has to be eternal and incredibly powerfull. scientists use to think that the sun was the source of power for all life, until they discovered that the sun was slowly dying. yes i agree, but 100 years from now people will look at the knowledge we have today and laugh at us.. because every generation thinks they are right. so u just might be an ape on a rock spinning in a universe ultimately without purpose. im just openminded to other views.
Gods0n1 1 year ago
@Gods0n1 "because what ever created the universe has to be eternal" O.K. That's good that you're open to other views.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm So... when we say we believe in hell it's supposed to make us feel better?
mikeyboy86 1 year ago
@mikeyboy86 I don't know... you tell me. Does hell make you feel better? Perhaps god makes you feel better because he "protects" you from the possibility of hell. Hell or no hell, the biblical god himself is mostly described and behaves as a tyranically jealous and racist creature that dispenses terrible advise while demanding the impossible (commandments) with bribes and threats. Does this make you feel better? Do wizards make you feel better?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@mikeyboy86 esentially yes, if someone believes in hell, they feel bnetter about themselves not going there, unless ofcourse they dont have confidense god likes them very much. in case it backfires and they become terrfied.
petrino 1 year ago
@blaisingm
Using Evolution to solve things? It's not a tool, it's a theory. JUST like the Creationist Theory.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Using Evolution to solve things? It's not a tool, it's a theory."
evolutionary app: DNA analysis of how pathogens evolve produces useful information for combating the outbreak and spread of disease.
Evolutionary app: Among directed evolution's successes are a
vaccine against human papillomavirus and better hepatitis C vaccines.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Using Evolution to solve things? It's not a tool, it's a theory"
Evolutionary app: Studying mutation RATES allows science the ability to predict how an organism will evolve/adapt. Molecular Biology and Evolution 2009 26(5):1143-1153; doi:10.1093/molbev/msp029
Evolutionary app: A laboratory process called directed evolution that rapidly evolves proteins can improve vaccines and other useful proteins.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Using Evolution to solve things? It's not a tool, it's a theory."
Here are some examples of how the evolutionary model is used to solve problems. I'm thinking of creating an iPhone app for the evolution. Evolutionary app. :)
Achievement tech: computer programs called evolutionary or genetic algorithms. reference: [see "Evolving Inventions," by John R. Koza, Martin A. Keane and Matthew J. Streeter; Scientific American, February 2003]
blaisingm 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX General evolutionary applications:
Evolution: benefits to humanity in; bioinformatics, zoology, pathology in agriculture and medicine (disease physiology and treatment, drugs, pesticides), artificial selection, biodiversity management, epidemiology & health policy, phylogenetic analysis (systematics, genetics, cladistics), understanding molecular pathways and related products (antibiotics, biopolymers), GENETIC ENGINEERING, paleontology & natural history.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
Creationism and Christianity: benifits in personal well being, family relationships, and society. Newton, Keplar, Galileo, Einstein, and MANY more scientists were very religious and men of God. Things are only as you percieve them. Evolution has more proof and it is more researched as appose to Creationism. Because the scientific community will not except Creationism as a scientific theory because of their biased opinions.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Evolution has more proof and it is more researched as appose to Creationism."
The evolutionary model is a working tool used to solve problems (See cited examples) and is based on the corroborating evidence of: phylogenetics, fossil record, organismal geographic distribution, homology, etc. Biblical creationism is based on book conceived by bronze age desert tribesmen. Biblical creationism is NOT based on evidence or science at all, rather it's a belief system.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Because the scientific community will not except Creationism as a scientific theory because of their biased opinions. "
Creationism is not based on science, evidence or anything in between. The scientific community will not except creationism because creationism is not science. Science also does not except stork theory for the conception of human babies because stork theory is NOT based on evidence either. Biases and opinions have nothing to do with it... only evidence.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
Creationism is not "based" on science, simply because we aren't looking for the science of Creationism. Why? We aren't funded and we don't have the man power because we aren't called a scienific theory. Plus, it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to find physical evidence of something that isn't in this universe. Because Newton's First Law of Motion states: An object at rest will stya at rest, unless accompanied by an OUTSIDE force.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "We aren't funded and we don't have the man power"
Aren't funded? Mormonism is a billion dollar industry. Catholicism is multi billion. The U.S. has multi million dollar creation museums. No manpower? Gallup polls show that 86% of the US population subscribes to some form of intelligent design or creationism. It is the scientific community that is the minority, but solves the world's problems without the support of the majority. What's your argument?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
When you ask the 86% percent of people, how you get to heaven, 80 out of the 86 percent wouldn't know. They would probably say uh... be a good person, go to church on Sundays, and pray a lot. NO, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. All you have to do is have a personal and loving relation with God.
So 90% of Christians are't truly Christians. So in reality, the amount of Atheists and Christians are really the same.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "So 90% of Christians are't truly Christians. So... amount of Atheists and Christians are really the same."
The 86% represents some form of ID or religion, not just your religion. You should also consider learning what atheism is... It is defined by the non-belief in gods, not just the christian god. Everyone, including yourself, is an atheist unless you subscribe to the belief in all gods. My percentages come from gallup poll data. Where does your 90% data come from?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
And for solving the world's problems and every religion having radicals. Science has developed: biological weapons, atomic/nuclear weapons, guns, explosives for war, etc. And again for "solving the world's problems", religion and science are doing two totally different things. Science is helping man with his physical problems such as diseases, biological disorders, etc. Religion is helping man with his mental and spiritual problems such as self-esteem, meaning of life, etc.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "religion and science are doing two totally different things."
Thank you. You are supporting my argument from the beginning. There is a big, big difference between religion and science. One is a tool, the other is a belief system. Sound familiar? Since we're, apparently, in agreement here... What is your argument anyway? I don't think you've defined it. If we're in agreement, then we don't have a debate.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "Science has developed: biological weapons, atomic/nuclear weapons"
Exactly! Do you know how the WW2 problem was solved? I'll give you a hint: Atomic bombs had a something to do with it.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
So religion since its time being thousands of years longer as oppose to science has solved more problems than science. And again with the subject of radicalism, you must weigh the pros and cons of religion. And if you do, especially with Christianity, you'll realize that the positives such as Missionaries going to Africa, out way the radicals and cons.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "especially with Christianity, you'll realize that the positives such as Missionaries going to Africa"
Missionaries going to Africa does good? You mean like the Catholic leaders in Africa who teach Africans the "evils" of safe sex that has furthered the spread of AIDS? Or, perhaps you're referring to the general spread of christianity in Africa that destroys the indigenous culture. Perhaps you could offer a positive example of your own?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
We don't teach the evil's of "safe sex". We teach the evils of "premaritial sex". What is safer, having sex with multiple people with a condom? Or having sex with one person who has only had sex with you. Maybe you dhould get your facts straight buddy.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
Comment removed
JesusIsMessiah101 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "We don't teach the evil's of "safe sex". We teach the evils of "premaritial sex""
In 1990, the Pope himself visited Tanzania africa to teach the sinful nature of condoms and contraception itself. He wasn't talking about marriage. This kind of Catholic "teaching" has led to countless deaths and millions of AIDS orphans. You haven't offered anything "positive" offered forth by any religion. You mentioned something about mental stability... could you elaborate ?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
You're indicating he went to teach the Africans that it isn't okay to use a condom so have sex and not use a condom. NOT TRUE. He preached about not using a condom because you shouldn't have premaritial sex AT ALL. You people are preaching about having sex with anyone you want with a condom. That's not right. And the Pope is right. You are more likely to contract and STD with a condom while having sex as oppose to NOT HAVING sex except with the person you are married to.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@blaisingm
And you are wrong when you said that you aren't offered anything positive by religion. That's actually quite nonsense to say the least. How many people had sexually transmitted diseases before free love came about? AIDS Virus didn't even EXIST until the 1980s came with "Free Love" and when people turned away from God. So you're once again, wrong. The Pope and the Christians didn't cause millions of deaths due to STDs, YOU did. Literally not you, but what you stand for.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@blaisingm
I'll give you an example of a positive outcome of religion. For instance, if you commit suicide, you'll go to hell. I personally disagree with this statement very greatly. BUT, do you know how many lives that saved? Do you know how many people were about to do it but thought they'll go to hell and then didn't do it? Premaritial sex preventing STDs is another example. And I saved the best for last (that expression also came from Jesus), knowing that God loves you.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX "For instance, if you commit suicide, you'll go to hell."
Some religions motivate and celebrate suicides. Are you referring to the bible when you refer to punishment for suicide? Perhaps you could reference the Bible on where it refers to suicide.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
Interesting, you got sand bagged on the STD point so you refused to comment. And you also got sand bagged on the going to hell saving lives point. So to answer your quite weak and unstable arguement, I said I personally believe you don't go to hell for commiting suicide if you reread my comment.
You see dude, there are a lot of stupid Christians who preach lyes. They say stupid stuff. My friend was in Haiti and the guy said God caused the earthquake to punish you all.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@blaisingm
Ran outta characters. But the reason people commit suicide is because they hate life because they think no one loves them. Which is not the case. If you think about this way, you're wrong. Jesus loves you whether you accept it or not. And the whole body of the REAL Church loves you, even if you disagree with us. Because we love our friends, and we also love our enemies too. The REAL Christians love questions, we love opposing opinions because we can strengthen ours by hearing others
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX God hates you and only you!!!!!!!!!! God will see you burn in HELL
MrAmericanzombie 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX - "Jesus loves you whether you accept it or not."
Why is he going to send me to eternal torture in hell fire then? That would appear to be a rather sadistic thing to do to someone.
Hardysamnin 1 year ago
@Hardysamnin
Hell is simply a term that Christians use to describe a place without God. When I die, I don't believe that there are going to be "streets of gold" for the believers and "torture-ree" fire for the non believers. I think heaven is just going to have God. And I think a lot of people will be disappointed but I don't care. I love Jesus, I love my Father and I don't care if I don't get a masion or whatever non sense people preach.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@Hardysamnin
And people in hell are going to be suprised to when they aren't tortured. Like I think you're in hell right now because you don't have God in your life. And for you, that's perfectly fine. And when you die, it will continue to be perfectly fine. Because in Christian terms, hell is simply not having God in your life.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX - I have heard this before a few times, and i find it far less agressive, if only more of Christianity would look at it this way.
Hardysamnin 1 year ago
@Hardysamnin
Agreed. That is the REAL Christianity. Not more should look at it that way. ALL should look at it that way. But like I said earlier, there are a lot of stupid Christians out there. And you just can't argue with them. Just ignore all the morons that say God hates you because you're Athiest. Because He doesn't. He still loves you, even if you don't love Him back. And He wants everyone to love everyone. So I don't care if you hate me. I love everyone here.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@Hardysamnin
I don't know why everyone suddenly has no response.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX - I didn't respond because i'm done here. Peace.
Hardysamnin 1 year ago
@blaisingm
That's what I keep trying to tell my girlfriend!
Me:"I'm just using you!"
Her: "I believe you really love me."
She never understands.
Anyway, good job,old chap. Your wisdom has many applications. Now just bottle it with SPF 30+ sun protection and you'll be a millionaire.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 ""Me:"I'm just using you!"
Her: "I believe you really love me."
You're social life has little to do with the absurdity of the bible.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
The Bible has little to do with anything, except absurdity.
Boy192 1 year ago
@blaisingm The only part of evolution that is believable Is Micro evolution. The rest is a belief. There is no evidence supporting macro evolution. DNA similarity's are forfeit because to build something that is similar to another animal requires similar DNA code. If I am to make a hand similar to a human hand I am going to need similar DNA code. DNA is like the letters in the alphabet I can use all the letters to make words. Some words will be similar like the names Jack and Jake.
machinedean100 1 year ago
@machinedean100 "The only part of evolution that is believable Is Micro evolution. The rest is a belief."
Science is very useful in it's ability to solve real world problems. You have to pick the right tool for the job. In the case of the evolutionary model, you have a working model capable of solving real world problems (such as studying pathogen evolution to fabricate more effective vaccines). I strongly encourage you NOT to believe in evolution, but to use it in solving problems.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm So, pretty much your picking up a tool that you believe exists. your hammer has so many flaws in it that I don't know how you would ever pick it up to bang in a nail. Does your hammer make you feel better? Do you delight in it? Do you like playing with your hammer so much? That you would denie sound logic and shut your brain off to the existence of god.
machinedean100 1 year ago
@machinedean100 "So, pretty much your picking up a tool that you believe exists. your hammer has so many flaws"
Every tool has flaws. If a tool can be used to solve problems, and it is the current best fool for the job, then you use it to solve problems. The evolutionary model is used to solve real world problems, much like your hammer. And, like your hammer, the evolutionary model will continue to be refined (nail gun usurping hammer) making it more effective.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm micro evolution is the tool your talking of. You cant use a tool that doesn't exist unless your building a pretend house. As i stated the rest of evolution is religious and is a belief based on faith. Making fun of ray because he doesn't understand everything. When the rest of understand just as much as he does. Is just plain ignorant and is honestly just plain rude.
machinedean100 1 year ago
@machinedean100 "Making fun of ray because he doesn't understand everything. When the rest of understand just as much as he does. Is just plain ignorant and is honestly just plain rude."
I'm not making fun of Ray. He openly admits that "there is a lot he doesn't understand in the bible", and I think his sentiments are shared by almost everyone.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm lets all just sit back and laugh at other peoples beliefs. Because we think we Know it all. Which if you took the amount of what you know and divided by the infinite amount of information in the universe you would get Zero.So, honestly we as human beings Know nothing. Not a fraction or single iota of information do we have compared to what is out there.
machinedean100 1 year ago
@machinedean100 "So, honestly we as human beings Know nothing. Not a fraction or single iota of information do we have compared to what is out there."
I can agree with you that we know very little in comparison to all that there is to "know". However, I think we should try to make the best of what we have and try to learn what we can using the tools we have available. Agreed?
blaisingm 1 year ago 22
@blaisingm agreeed
machinedean100 1 year ago
@blaisingm BOLOCKS.. SMASH EVERYTHING.... Join ISLAM!!!!
SuperDelusionist 5 months ago
@blaisingm but if I believed my hammer was the thing to use to carve wood with, I might be able to be tricked into thinking that science has no orthodoxy.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 "I might be able to be tricked into thinking that science has no orthodoxy."
I strongly suggest that you DON'T believe in science, but to use it to solve problems. Could you use a traditional hammer to carve wood? Use the right tool for the job. Being tricked isn't so bad if you have the opportunity to learn from whatever tomfoolery you've been duped into... which typically requires some analysis, investigation and maybe some experimentation.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm "which typically requires some analysis, investigation and maybe some experimentation."
I dont take issue with the scientific method. Except that it dismisses the human condition. it as an institution (the scientific community) resists change, or unconventional or leading edge ideas. (generally speaking)
the scientific elite have shaped scientific inquiry into being an excercise in anal retention
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 "it as an institution (the scientific community) resists change, or unconventional or leading edge ideas."
Science's strength is the opposite in that is doesn't resist change at all (for the most part). Mistakes are encouraged... mistakes strengthen science by "fine tuning" it. Perhaps, at this point, you would like to offer evidence for Jesus or an example of how science resists change to strengthen your argument.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 "I might be able to be tricked."
I strongly suggest that you DON'T believe in science, but to use it to solve problems. Could you use a traditional hammer to carve wood? Use the right tool for the job. Being tricked isn't so bad if you have the opportunity to learn from whatever tomfoolery you've been duped into... which typically requires some analysis, investigation and maybe some experimentation.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm "I strongly suggest that you DON'T believe in science, but to use it to solve problems."
but many people believe that (hard)science is that correct tool. When I say hard science, I mean math, physics etc. It is well known that those disciplines "look down upon" the social sciences etc
And since science has an orthodoxy, it is rone to some of the same weaknesses that orthodox religion has.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 "but many people believe that (hard)science is that correct tool."
It is the current best tool. Unless you can offer humanity a more reliable tool used to solve problems, then science/math will continue to be used to solve problems. Science is not perfect and makes mistakes, which works to strengthen science.
blaisingm 1 year ago
Quote of the debate: 'You mean, can I violate the law of the conservation of energy?' Makes me laugh. :D
MetalSwitch95 1 year ago
BAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA
DIEZAUBERFLOTEMENSCH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what is thunderfoot saying from 00:7 to 00:9? the sound is too fuzzy for me to make it out
NipplesVonTwist 2 years ago
CANKERFAIL!
MethodicalMadness 2 years ago
Two important historical events are deliberately left out of textbook educations:
1. Wise King Solomon had two distinct periods. The first, he was aligned with God and contributed to the Holy Bible. Later, a victim of deception he performs a ritual that aligned him with Satan. At that point, he wrote the Khaballa (Jewish Magik).
2. The Jesuits were kicked out of every European Country before finding refuge in America. They regrouped to resume and execute their evil diabolical agenda.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
@waketheobvious
You my friend, are a nut.
Have a nice day! : )
MrSonicAdvance 2 years ago
Don't forget about the tale of Hercules!!
kickey 2 years ago
WHAAAT???
martinthulin 1 year ago
Having watching this entire interview today, one thing really stuck out to me. Comfort makes it repeatedly clear that the unsaved can never understand the Bible. Yet, Comfort himself admits there are lots of things in the Bible that he doesn't understand.
The logical deduction here is that Comfort is either wrong about being saved, or wrong that you must be saved in order to understand the Bible.
ericragle 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ericrag
Would a wise man question the Wisdom of God?
The answer to the question is confirmed by reading Plato's brilliant dialogue discussing Wisdom. He defines Wisdom as a "condition of the soul" and the soul's affinity to that which it is familiar, becomes drunk in it's presence. Ironically, the same key to the gates of Heaven obtained by faith is used to understand Plato's definition of Wisdom. Plato, did not preface his dialogue with the condition precedent to understand his definition.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ericragle
Would a wise man question the Wisdom of God?
Few answer the question properly, although it can be with absolute conviction. Plato, defined Wisdom as a "condition of the Soul" that has an affinity to that which it is familiar and becomes drunk when in it's presence. Plato, did not preface his dialogue with the condition precedent to understand his definition. Without it Plato's definition might appear as babble, but truly "wise" men wholeheartedly agree with the brilliant, Plato.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ericragle could it be possible.... ray comfort has NO idea whatsoever what the #$%! hes talking about??!?
NipplesVonTwist 2 years ago
3 months prior to 911 VP Cheney directed Rumsfeld to execute his order which transferred authority & responsibility from qualified Pentagon Officials for domestic hi-jackings to the VP office sole authority & responsibility. For the first time in history, 2 months prior to 911 that order was executed which gave the Office of VP sole authority and responsibility for domestic hi-jackings. VP swore oath to faithfully execute the duties of the office of VP and then committed Treason.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow, its like talking to a television. can you stick to the topic at hand?? maybe uve been reading to many conspiracy books, i dont know. but theres just no argument with you.
aguteempasil 2 years ago
hm. someone took a bit out of context
JeppyWick 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Examples of EVOLUTION "Missing Link" Science Fiction SORCERY
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------
- Piltdown Man, 1913-53, planted manufactured HOAX
- Nebraska Man, 1922, discarded Pig's Tooth
- Lucy, 1974, Petsmart Gerbil
- Orce Man, 1982, 4 mo. old Donkey Bone
- ida, 2009, classification unsupportable
- Peppered Moths fraudulent overreaching conclusions
- ect, ect, ect .... planted frauds and unsupportable bullshit
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A government textbook education provides the fearless willingness for half educated to publicly state their own ignorance. Madam Blavatsky, a self-admitted Satanist referred to the Jesuits as, "more evil then Satan". Her disciple Anne Bailey, started Lucifer Publishing. Later changed it's name to Lucis Trust and together were pioneers in establishing the United Nations. Until recently, Lucis Trust HQ was on UN Property. Hitler adopted the Jesuit 5th Oath (Evil) verbatim for his SS.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
@ waketheoblivious
your name is quite ironic given the fact that you let a 2000 year old book dictate whats is true. with everything we know today and the lack of archaelogical & historical evidence to back most of what the bible says, it would be completely ignorant and careless to disregard something such as evolution because some ancient monk didnt have modern technologyto percieve/understand it.
that would be limiting the potential of human development.
aguteempasil 2 years ago
Attention Evolutionist Shoppers, Clean Up Little Johnny Aisle One:
".. aftermath of Satanic ritual where the emaciated body of a 5 year old boy still hung lifeless. They say it isn't painful for the little guy, since they do tend to freeze up from fear, which releases endorphins to block the pain. Still, it's hard to prepare a stolen child to watch Satanic Adults, savor their endorphin laden blood. Eventually they die, with last images being of adults relishing in their sick Satanic tribute."
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Examples of EVOLUTION "Missing Link" Science Fiction SORCERY
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------
- Piltdown Man, 1913-53, planted manufactured HOAX
- Nebraska Man, 1922, discarded Pig's Tooth
- Lucy, 1974, Petsmart Gerbil
- Orce Man, 1982, 4 mo. old Donkey Bone
- ida, 2009, classification unsupportable
- Peppered Moths fraudulent overreaching conclusions
- ect, ect, ect .... planted frauds and unsupportable bullshit
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
A government textbook education provides the fearless willingness for half educated to publicly state their own ignorance. Madam Blavatsky, a self-admitted Satanist referred to the Jesuits as, "more evil then Satan". Her disciple Anne Bailey, started Lucifer Publishing. Later changed it's name to Lucis Trust and together were pioneers in establishing the United Nations. Until recently, Lucis Trust HQ was on UN Property. Hitler adopted the Jesuit 5th Oath (Evil) verbatim for his SS.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
Two important historical events are left out of government textbook educations:
1. Wise King Solomon had two distinct periods. The first he was aligned with God and contributed to the Holy Bibl