Let's all jump pass the scientific aspect and move into philosophical shall we? God cannot be proven to exist nor can his existence be disproven, we won't find out who's right or wrong until we die, but for an interesting read go look up "Pascal's wager" and see how not believing can seem as ridiculous as so many claim believing is
@Crentist45 - the data left out by evolutionists is just about all SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS that are done by legitimate scientists that are Christian as well. Tons of data, that is the 1/2 the puzzle evolutionist discard. That is fact not just a percieved bias on my side. Verify any dating technique as 100% fool proof, please and not one that relies on another that relies on another.
This interviewer tries really hard to make Dr Dawkins look stupid in this interview. And it's quite obvious he falls flat on his face, for those with the ability to view this interview with any rationality
Mr Stein is obviously not an 'idiot'. I'm starting to think that religious nuts, however intelligent, simply do not have the brain capacity to see through the fantasy of religion... or maybe it's a genetic make up..
Whatever it is, it's just an episode of humanity, and wont last forever
@sgrb11 - From a person's perspective who has a FAITH in God/Christ, I just think those that don't believe in God's existence as NOT UNDERSTANDING, not as some NUT or as lacking mental capacity or as a genetic defect. You are just not understanding. PERIOD. But when YOU make rash DEMEANING generalizations about large groups of people those people aren't going to want to try to have a healthy discussion with you because you already show a distain for others that don't believe as you do. Good day
@PacificNW326 Now different dating techniques: You can determine the age of any sun based on the proportion of H to He that it is composed of. Stars are like massive fusion reactors and convert H to He at a constant rate. The ratio of H/He is proportional to the age of the star. When you do this with our sun its age is determined to be 4.6 billion!
Now back to radioactive dating. You are right, RD is not 100% accurate. but the point is that you cant expect 100% accuracy from any method. The error rate of RD is 1%. Even an error rate of 5% is considered statistically insignificant. So with 1%, we’re doing pretty well. So if radioactive dating claims that the earth is 4.6Gyo it means 4.6 G plus or minus 4.6 M so it’s still at least 4.59954Gyo. Say the error rate of RD was 20% (which is really bad), the earth would still be at least 3.68Gyo.
So for example, a period of 2 wet years followed by 3 dry years will produce a pattern of 2 thick rings followed by 3 thin rings in all trees in this area regardless of their age. So in dendrochronology, you take the reference finger print from modern trees of a known age and then you match that with the same finger print from the younger rings of older trees, then you match those patterns to even older trees and so on. No radioactive dating needed.
@Crentist45 - Look I understand ALL of that. But what I'm saying is the earth's climate is dynamic & ever changing & just becuase trees grow like that now does NOT mean that 7000-10000 years ago we had the exact same climate with the exact same kind of tree growth. See you assume TOO much. And you can't go about saying what the climate was like 7000-10000 years ago. For science to be a comprehensive worldview it has to assume too much that is not observable, which then NEGATES it as science.
@PacificNW362 Trees DO grow one ring per year. Again, this is not an assumption. If you cut down a tree that you know was planted 5 years ago, there will be 5 rings. 10 years ago, 10 rings. No exceptions. It is the fact that the earths climate is not static that allows you to detect different ring patterns. Years where the tree experienced good growth conditions (wet, sunny, warm) will produce thicker rings then ones with bad growth conditions (dry, cold etc.)
@PacificNW362 Now if you don't accept the fact that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that's a different discussion. But if the only problem you have with the theory is that you distrust radioactive dating techniques you must realize that this is not enough to discredit a theory that has been developed, quantified and proved by over 150 years of research and one that every reputable scientist in the world accepts as fact
@Crentist45 - My problem with it is that it excludes too much data to be comprehensive. It's like you only keep 1/2 the pieces of jigsaw puzzle, discard the other 1/2 of the puzzle while stating as FACT that you have them all. And that these pieces you have when put together show you the whole entire picture. Well, sorry, I'm going to use all the pieces of the puzzle not just the pieces you or I want.
@Crentist45 - Since you can not validate radioactive dating, what other techniques are there that are used for dating THAT YOU BELIEVE. I would love to discuss any of those.
@PacificNW326 But we HAVE validated it. Carbon dating is but one of many means. Other elements have different half-lives. You guys keep repeating the same stuff that has long been debunked, and you are confused when informed people laugh you off.
@PacificNW326 Firstly, a genus includes multiple species but you can't have one species in two different genera. The point is the dominant traits that exist within a population change over time and that life has existed long enough for this to produce dramatic changes. Over 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct and ancient species look very different from modern ones. The only way to account for this is by evolution via natural selection.
@Crentist45 - Whoa! you sure are being generous, we haven't established earth's age. Sorry, but you have yet to prove any kind of dating technique to be 100% accurate. I totally understand how you think macro-evolution happened, but I'm not willing to concede millions of years having already passed. You are assuming way to much in your previous comment.
If these two populations were kept apart for longer the difference between them would become such that they could no longer be considered the same species. There are plenty of other examples, like John Endlers guppy experiment.
The original population on PK ate a diet that consisted mainly of insects. The lizards of PM ate mainly plant matter and as a result developed significantly larger heads and a stronger bite force, typical of herbivorous species. Beyond that, the PM lizards developed what is known as a caecal valve in their digestive tract, allowing for better digestion of cellulose. Caecal valves are not present in the original population. This happened after only 40yrs.
@PacificNW326 As for species evolving into another, the lizards of Pod Mrcaru is a classic example. There are two islands off the coast of Croatia; Pod Kopiste and Pod Mrcaru. In 1971, five pairs of this species of lizards were transported from PK to PM where there was no lizard population. In 2008, the lizards from each island were compared to one another. Because of the difference is available food sources on PM, the new lizard population had to adapt to their new environment.
@PacificNW326 They cease to be the same species when they can no longer mate due to incompatible genetics. This is stuff you should already know if you are going to engage in this discussion.
@PacificNW362 To obtain the percent error you would date a sample of a known age and the discrepancy between the measured value and the actual value is the percent error. You don't have to make any assumptions. Millions of years were probably necessary to generate the amount of species diversity that we have on the planet, yes but radioactive dating is not the only method of dating the earth that we have. You can even use dendrochronology to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 yrs old.
@Crentist45 - Sorry, if my replies come late, but YT sometimes delays others comments. Anyways, the flaw in dendrochronology is that assumes that EVERY tree in EVERY time period grow 1 new ring per year. That assumes too much right there. Ancient living trees grow at differing rates than younger trees. Also you assume that earths climate & atmosphere is static enough through out ALL time to allow consistant chronologies, when it's obvious that earths atmosphere is too DYNAMIC to allow this.
@Crentist45 - Furthermore dendrochronology, relies on radioactive dating to validate assumed ages of trees. See the issue, one form of dating relies on the other which relies on the other, when each techniques margin of error is too high or immeasurable. A case for circular reasoning if I've ever heard one.
@PacificNW362 There are no methods that allow for 100% accuracy, you should not expect it from any scientific method. The error rate for radioactive dating is about 1%. But with that said, evolution is in no way dependent on the accuracy of radioactive dating. Even if it was discovered to be 100% inaccurate, the theory of evolution would be unscathed. Evolution is a biological process that we can measure and observe within our own lifetime. The age of fossil specimens is totally irrelevant.
@Crentist45 - You assume it's only 1%. I concede micro-"evolution" as happening as children do not receive all genetic material that their parents possess. But as for macro, as in one species becoming to another, no way you have measured & observed this, if so please reference where.
@Crentist45 - Dating is what it's all about, because evolution claims millions of years are necessary as opposed to creationist who claim the earth is no older then say around 10,000 years old.
If there was evidence that disproved evolution, it wouldn't be called a theory in the first place. "Theory" when used in science has very particular definition. When people claim that evolution isn't factual because its "just a theory" they are confusing theory and hypothesis. Theories are proven verifiable facts. If there's data that does, it's false or inaccurate. If someone wants to list some data that disproves evolution I'll be glad to explain why you are mistaken. Very civilly of course.
@Crentist45 - There is no way to measure the amout of leaching of key elements that occurs in decomposed biological material, thus no way to 100% accurately date any said material. Differing fossils found in contradictory stratas of earth.
@KCKproductionsTV Reassess your understanding of nothing. Imagine a box sitting on a floor where nothing is happening to it, it is not moving. Now imagine the same box on a the floor where two people are pushing on it with equal strength from opposite directions. You have the same result, the box doesn't move and nothing is happening to it.This doesn't mean that the two individuals can't exist, it means that they both do. When you say "matter" you are only considering one of these individuals.
Tell me if any athiest find this, what is the origin of all matter? Seeing as a popular theory was that matter cannot be created or destroyed as the lays of physics say. What created all of the matter we are? The big bang? what made the big bang?
@KCKproductionsTV 'Caused' is a better term IMO. Your question could be reversed: what made god? If you were to say that god was always there, one could reply that the non-intelligent and unknown cause of matter and energy was just as uncreated--not a divinity with a purpose in mind. The problem with theism is that it asserts, without evidence, that this imagined source must be an intelligent designer with a plan. And it is more humble to say "we don't know" than "we know, it was a designer".
as any 5 year old would ask who created the "highly intelligent evolved " beings. "obviously another even more highly intelligent alien" just admit it there is an infinitely intelligent being named Yahweh
@wowamonn - Not one none ZERO absolutely Z-E-R-O Atheists here on youtube in the years I've been doing this have ever given ANY PROOF for their religion or faith in evolution or anything else. So yeah I remove absolutely inane comments left predominantly by people just like you. Move on God hater, unwilling to back your fairytales.
@wowamonn - Argue these so-called "facts" used to establish evolution as FACTUAL, being beyond theory as many claim, instead of CONSTANT name calling because I'm a believer.
@PacificNW326 " being beyond theory as many claim, instead of CONSTANT name calling because I'm a believer. "
A little sensative are we? Are you implying you dont insult Agnostics and Atheists or anyone else who are not ' christians? ' By the way Evolution is an established fact sorry to burst your bubble.
@wowamonn - I'm not sensative at all otherwise I wouldn't be doing this, but this is exactly what I'm talking about, you would rather call me "sensative" and a name caller too, THEN TO ADD ANYTHING TO A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION. Ok you were there to witness this FACT of evolution? How is it a fact?
@PacificNW326 Humans and Chimpazes have several ERVs in the same chromosomes. All living things on this planet share DNA forming a perfect hericarchy of transitions from Fish to Amphibians to Reptiles to Mammals. The seqencing of Genes shows tons of netural genes accumulating over millions of years but have no function anymore of have been co-opted into modern phenomes.
@PacificNW326 Then you've got your head up your ass. First of all, atheism isn't a religion. It's a rejection of a specific supernatural claim (i.e. there's a God and he cares about human beings) I know in your lowbrow circles it seems smart to say otherwise, but your wrong. And as far as evidence for evolution.......you've got to be fucking kidding me. There's more evidence to support evolution than the existence of gravity or atoms.
@lormendi - Yes it is a religion, you have FAITH that there is no God, you have FAITH that evolution factual. To accept evidence for evolution one must BELIEVE many ASSUMPTIONS & ignore TONS of DATA that says otherwise. "Lowbrow circles"...nothing lowbrow here FROM ME, I'm just here to be an example that science & the bible go hand in hand not in competition with each other.
@PacificNW326 If being an atheist is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. There is NO data that stands against the existence of evolution unless you are a retard.
@lormendi - Name calling is the primary way people like you dehumanize their opponents so that they can then invalidate anything they say, like calling someone a "retard", just because you are incapable of adding substance to a HEALTHY discussion.
@PacificNW326 The fact that you can't distinguish between being called a retard and the suggestion that you MIGHT be one says everything that needs to be said.
@lormendi - as if I really have to do this. any ways, your statement, "There is NO data that stands against the existence of evolution unless you are a retard." My statement; there is most definitely absolutely DATA that goes against evolution. Forgive me for making the obvious jump to what you are REALLY saying. Typical though to want to argue inane points other than YOUR FAITH IN EVOLUTION.
@PacificNW326 Provide ONE piece of evidence. ONE. That hasn't been laughed at at for being stupid. JUST ONE BIT OF DATA THAT CONFLICTS WITH EVOLUTION.
@PacificNW326 There is no controversy among scientists about whether or not evolution occurred. The controversy is between the educated, intelligent people and morons like you.
@PacificNW326 Still waiting for a SINGLE piece of data that refutes evolution as currently understood by science and rational people. Just one. You know that the consensus among biologists is well over 99%, don't you? The debate is between unlearned people like yourselves and science. Scientists aren't arguing about whether or not evolution explains biodiversity.
@lormendi - Unreal!! Yeah I'm waiting to debate said evidences, NOT OPINIONS. Like how many biologist believe what or how IGNORANT YOU REALLY ARE TO ASSUME MY EDUVATION LEVEL. Bring up data to debate or move your hate for those that don't agree with some place else.
@PacificNW326 I've asked you THREE times now to present a single piece of evidence against evolution that hasn't been refuted already hundreds of times by people more knowledgeable than either of us. Instead, you invite ME to provide the evidence? Look, you go to all this effort to disprove evolution, and when asked for evidence you balk. Put up or STFU.
@PacificNW326 And the fact that you are so confused about evolution tells me ALL I NEED TO KNOW about your education level. Prove me wrong. What is your degree in and where did you obtain it?
@lormendi - Serious?? Quit trying to make this about anything BUT a healthy discussion. The fact that you are asking me NOW, means your previous statement WAS OUT OF IGNORANCE. Admit that earlier you spoke out of ignorance & I will tell you my education level. If your next statement is NOT an admission of ignorance OR about a specific detail of evolution to debate then you will be blocked for sidetracking a healthy debate. Good day.
@PacificNW326 I see what game you are playing here. You are not allowing my posts through that don't fit your little monologue here. I have now asked you four times to present JUST ONE BIT of the evidence you have against evolution. You know damn well there isn't any. This isn't about science. It's not even about religion. It's about your tiny ego in your tiny mind. By the way, there's no "healthy debate" here. It's you controlling what gets posted. Youre a liar and a fraud.
If I was Ben Stein, I would have started with asking why he thinks the earth is round, when it is in fact flat. Isaiah 11:12 Revelation 7:1 Job 38:13 Jeremiah 16:19 Daniel 4:11. It's called people are being desensitized due to theories like gravity as opposed to intelligent falling. It's also the concept of pi being so called irrational, as opposed to the biblical value of 3. I thought science was supposed to be smart!
@TwistedHawk1 - Ah, how nice, another person from the faith of evolution, with another thorough lack of understanding the Bible's texts. The Bible NEVER says the earth is flat.
@TwistedHawk1 - Haha, if that is what you think the Bible says you sadly mistaken. I wonder what TRANSLATION you own, because no Bible I have says any of that.
just like a theist to not approve my reply to your ridiculous claim. the paradox disproves omnipotency, your god could be a fucking potato and he still couldnt be omnipotent. i thought you were trying to have healthy debate, yet i get my comment censored, shame on you.
@ledzeppelinrools - Like I said, your paradox is only in your head. You have NO grasp of fundamental physics, so even discussing Einstein's 'relativity' w/ you would be waste. Get back to me when you either make a video about your silly little "paradox", like I BEGGED or when you drop your silly little "paradox". Good day.
@PacificNW326 why dont you fucking google it. like I said, there are many videos on the subject, you are just too fucking lazy to watch them. typical though, from someone who thinks that kneeling and talking to himself can bring change in the world.
@ledzeppelinrools - Why don't you make a video about it? LIKE I BEGGED! OR Are you really the lazy one? Ooh, I have an idea, why don't you study Einstein's relativity, then you would see where your silly little "paradox" falls a part at.
i wonder if you'll let my second comment be posted or if you won't because it shows you in a negative light. if you choose not to have it posted, then you show your own regret for having responded the way you did and i will take your silence as an apology.
@HuyerPercussive - I not afraid of being put in a "negative' light by non-understanding atheists. Case in point this video is directed AT ATHEIST. I encourage atheist's comments that aid in a meaningful discussion, but all too often they do NOT want to discuss points of atheism (evidences for elolution) or believer's faith & instead choose to demean Stein & other believers.
When you ask the best atheist proponets (i.e.Dawkins ) you see that where they think life sprang from their explanations are even more fanciful than the bible. They are really wanting to get at the true origins of the universe. They just want to free themselves of the rules set out in the bible. They are really just intellectually dishonest. .
@HuyerPercussive -Are you serious? This isn't about our God being true. It's about your claim you do NOT know our origins but YOU (many atheists) are 100% sure that it's not the God of the Christians. That is the point Stein is making. What's stupid is to say you don't know but then act like you do. What's really condescending though, is your general contempt for believers, especially Stein because all he was doing was fact checking Dawkins & caught him in lies & false assumptions. Good day!
i don't know who your god is nor did i address any specific one, yet you think that i'm specifically targeting yours. i also never said i was an atheist. i'm agnostic. this means that i don't claim to know anything of the existence of gods, but my critical thinking skills allow me to realize that "lack of proof" can't be used as a defense for either side, which was my point.
@HuyerPercussive well your " critical thinking skills ", should also "allow" you to realize lagetimate questions when you hear them instead of bashing the person asking them, and labeling them religious nutts.. Ben wasn't being at all arrogant or argumentative, he was simply asking him how.? and Dawkins had to tell him he doesn't know.
@HuyerPercussive well your " critical thinking skills ", should also "allow" you to realize legitimate questions when you hear them instead of bashing the person asking them, and labeling them religious nutts.. Ben wasn't being at all arrogant or argumentative, he was simply asking him how.? and Dawkins had to tell him he doesn't know.
There's a difference between atheists and religious people. When atheists don't know the answer to something, they do research and they find a solution. When religious people don't know the answer to something, they automatically assume that it's proof of God.
Atleast scientists try to find the cause and effect. Religious people just see the world as an effect, and therefore the cause must have been God. Which is a fallacy, fyi.
@AirsoftPractice - Haha, that's laughable. In this video Dawkins admits he does NOT know, yet he still acts & talks like he does. Believers know God created the cause & effect, not just the effect. There is a creation ergo there is a Creator. Many atheists do NOT know how life or earth originated, but that does not stop them from spreading their ASSUMPTIONS (FAITH) as if they're facts. Get real!
You're generalizations of atheists are laughable. Atleast we don't yell "JESUS LOVES YOU" to people. Atleast there we don't print the motto "In God We Trust" on the money. Atleast we don't make you take a pledge everyday saying "Under God".
The real people spreading their faith are your dumbass religions (Christianity being the worse).
"There is a creation ergo there is a creator." Again, typical religious person. There is a creation, therefore it must've been god. Fallacy BS
@PacificNW326 The problem, as Dawkins has put it many times, is that if the universe is so complex as to require a designer, that designer would be even more complex. And thus, what would create the creator? You have to continue the regression, if you start.
At any rate, if there was an ultimate creator, it is certainly beyond our ability to comprehend; all current religions would still be incorrect. So why even argue the point.
@PacificNW326 Good answer ahahahaha...... it is not an opinion. An opinion is "vanilla icecream is the best flavour". What I presented was an argument. Unless you consider your belief in god as an opinion - which would be saying "It is my preference to think that my reality contains a god, even if there is not one".
@dmmchn - I know there is a God, you...you can't believe that. In now way am I saying there is not a God, please do not speak for me. Here's a FACT for you though; it takes more FAITH to be a believer in the faith of evolutionism than it does for God/Christ Jesus.
@PacificNW326 You just said that my belief that there was no god was just my opinion, implying that your belief in a god was also an opinion.
It doesn't take more faith to believe in evolution; there is plenty of evidence for it. Have you read "origin of species?". Have you ever seen a domestic dog? In less than 5 thousand years we have animals that bear little resemblance to their origin. Imagine over a timeframe of 4 billion.
@dmmchn - Also what I'm saying is...you are convinced in your own mind that you are in the right, just as I too am convinced of my own perspective. Ergo, we can't help but to label the other's viewpoint as OPINION with out exiting a graceful discussion. I know alot about Darwin, did you know he that was not an ATHEIST? Can a chihuahua ever become a wolf again with out man's interference?
@PacificNW326 Interestingly the one thing you immediately say you know about Darwin is that "he was not an atheist".
He certainly didn't start that way, but as he did more and more research, and lived, and looked at the world, he saw that there was no god. He himself said that he gave up christianity at the age of forty.
He may have died agnostic, but I seriously doubt it. If you read his work perhaps you would be able to come to the same conclusion.
@PacificNW326 You are arguing that because a ruler which measures in millimetres cannot measure a nanometer, a metre may as well be a centimetre. I like how you can take on faith and superstition your entire world view, but refuse to acknowledge something repeatable.
If it wasn't in some way accurate, then measuring a sample size of material from similar areas would give dramatically different results. It doesn't.
@PacificNW326 I'm saying that your argument is silly. Show me any studies that question the validity of dating techniques. Heres a tip : if you mention carbon-14 dating I will know immediately that you have never actually looked into dating techniques.
@dmmchn - Any dating technique, whether it's uranium thorium lead dating, rubidium-strontium dating, or potassium argon dating, is effected by leaching out or in of key elements that occur while the biological material sits there.
@PacificNW326 Yes, and of course that is why there is more than one dating method used. It seems any argument against dating jumps to the immediate conclusion... this can't be right, THUS THERE MUST BE A GOD. The moon isn't made of cheese.. THEREFORE IT"S CAKE.
If you have a mind to question validity of science experimental method, what questions have you asked about the bible? There are plenty of logical inconsistencies and many arguments as to why little to none of it is valid.
@dmmchn - You make the jump for me not myself, slow down. All I'm saying is that with the MANY MANY variables, flaws, & immeasurable leaching to all dating techniques, one can't necessarily accept ANY dates as fact, especially since there is absolutely no way to prove any of the dates. So by that I can't ruled out creation by God as a valid beginning either. Without a DOUBT there is a CREATION.
@PacificNW326 And also, because there are multiple dating techniques, the only way it could be completely invalidated is if ALL decay rates from ALL elements changed in sync with each other. That's not very likely. Light from distant and long-dead stars shows a great match between what we have observed on earth and the decay rates in the greater universe. The leaching of materials... eh. Of course geologists are aware of this and consider it when dating.
@dmmchn - okay. light from distant stars okay, enough proof for you!! Besides leaching, one can come up with just about any age for anything they want to depending on what radioactive element one uses to date. Eh, maybe you just don't know what leaching is?
@GFunkMachine - For real though, I have been real generous with the time given me by using it to help you see things more clear, but it's obvious by your snivelling about every LITTLE detail on every little thing that you can think of & your general complete lack of understanding any context that any of my comments have. You are now going to be blocked. Have a good day though.
@GFunkMachine - As the Bible (Jesus) teaches (again you would have known this if you really were a christian), once a Christian always a Christian, if one leaves the faith then they never were really part of the faith. So you left, then you were really never a real Christian. It's about more then saying you know about Jesus or saying that you believe in Him. It is about actually knowing Him & taking up the Father's will.
@GFunkMachine - Learn about Jesus' teachings. One thing He taught was for us to love our enemies. I wouldn't even call you my enemy, so imagine how much more I am to love you. That is why I am still here clearing up misunderstandings & explaining my worldview.
@GFunkMachine - Just about every form of ORGANIZED religion (<which Jesus taught strictly against) has been forced on others. So that you understand this, no one is playing the victim. Go ahead with that motto of yours, but when you go on an unprovoked offensive calling people bigots, don't be embarrassed when your HYPOCRISY is pointed out. Many people of many faiths & no faiths are in my life & I not only tolerate, but LOVE them; you show ZERO love or kindness...Hmmm...
@GFunkMachine - Wow you have so much animosity towards believers that you take what's said in the absolute worst context you can think of, huh? When I'm referring to "Christians" I am referring to them as individuals as in they were nonbelievers first, before making their own choice to follow God. Truth, said though to your error again; many have donned the name "christian" & have not been. When a group that calls themselves "christian" act opposite then they are false "christians".
LOVE this movie! I agree with Ben Stein. I think we should have the ability to learn more about different views than just an atheistic view. I think its hateful the way people treat each other for there views. I am a believer in Christ. I have a PHD in theology both worldly and intelligent design. Intelligent design has a lot of holes in it as well as atheism. The key to Christianity is that it gives you purpose in life meaning and Love like no other. I like purpose for my life.
@GFunkMachine - If you were really with Jesus you would have never left Him. That is EXACTLY how it works. You just knew ABOUT Jesus, you did not KNOW Him.
@GFunkMachine - Are you serious? With how rude you've been, you now are making demands? It doesn't work like that, sorry. If you understood Christianity would know that Christians tolerate other's views because they too at one point were not understanding of God Word, just like atheists. Because they don't understand is why they don't believe, but maybe one day they will so one is not to pass judgment. Also Christians want there beliefs to be tolerated so in return they tolerate others.
here is where you went wrong ,God made man in His image and placed man a little lower than the angels,God made apes a little similiar to man ,kinda copying man a little and atheist evolutionist see this and jumped to a bad conclusion.
while we are at it,if you would watch a few shows on the National Geographic ,Animal Planet about animal ,plant or sea life you would begin to notice that these creatures are highly designed to survive ,designed means that there is a designer,just sort it out!
It kind of freaks me out that Stein is, according to Wiki: "an actor, writer, lawyer, and commentator on political and economic issues". Put the issue of theology aside, but his sense of logic non-existant. The questions about "put a number on the probability that God doesn't exist" and at the end, after Dawkin's carefully has explained that he's an atheist and why - he goes on to ask if he believe in Vishnu or "a Muslim god" (which would be the same as the Christian god).
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
@GFunkMachine - I'll leave our comments up here for people to decide on their own, but I will block any of your comments that are repeated. But for sure I won't find out how to enable ratings since YOU have been the only one crying about it.
@PacificNW326 Turning ratings off is a classic method employed by a great number of creationists to hide the fact that their video supports a no evidence arguement, you can't blame someone for assuming the uploader of such a video has done the same.
I don't believe that an idea is true or not based entirely on the number of people who agree, but enabling ratings gives you a good idea of whether or not the video holds any substance to people who are intrested in the subject.
@JustOneQuestion - The mere fact that a TON more atheists comment here AND would most likely continously rate the video down, is the reason why I don't care to learn how to enable ratings. So what? I have no problem in admitting that. Many atheist come across as spiteful & vindictive to others that don't believe as they do.
@PacificNW326 Do you not find it strange that on a creationist aimed video, more athiests than creationists show an interest in it? this is the trend on creationist and athiests videos alike, and while I can't speak for everyone, the simple fact is that athiests watch more religiously aimed videos than creationists and thus generally gain more knowledge on the subject.
Athiests don't 'believe' anything, that's the point. They simply realise that there isn't any evidence to support the claim.
@JustOneQuestion - I think you're wrong in generalizing the whole who watches what videos. There are a ton of faith video dealing with just topics of faith that barely any atheists view let alone comment on. Please cite where you get your data from that supports your claim if you honestly think its true. The FACT is many have witnessed & experienced miracles that the scientific method can not explain & because you have not had said experiences does not negate it for ANYONE that has.
@PacificNW326 I can't post links on here so if you could google "u.s religious knowledge survey" the top result will give you a good idea of the statistics which support my claim. Also to address the point that there are faith videos with no athiest comments, it is almost always the case that the uploader has disabled ratings and has comment approvals active, I appreciate that you don't abuse this system and you allow athiestic comments, but most don't.
@JustOneQuestion - Maybe you should pray for God to reveal Himself to you to reveal truth & discernment. If He's not real no harm, right? If He is real, then wow what other mysteries could He also reveal to you?
@PacificNW326 If god could reveal himself to me he would have done already, he would know I'm interested in finding out if he exists or not, and he would also understand the level of evidence required to convince me, and so he either doesn't care, or he doesn't exist.
Revealing himself is something god has never really been good at, there have been no documented verifiable cases, the ones claimed by the bible can't be taken as fact because the bible doesn't cite any sources which are verifiable.
@JustOneQuestion - Well if you are convinced that God SHOULD have revealed Himself to already. Then maybe He has & you haven't recognized Him. Maybe He knows no evidence is enough for you with out destroying your free will. Maybe you should think about what you should do to approach a Holy God instead of what God HAS/SHOULD do to approach you. He's the Creator, you are His creation. Not the other way around.
@Diabolous3x - what do you serve? Your happiness, your urges, your heart?. See regardless of what you think, you will still end up following SOMETHING, why not serve God, since He is pure self-LESS Love?
@PacificNW326 In any other context of discussion, that would be a silly thing to say. Can you imagine in the land of car worshippers, when you say you don't believe in the invisible car: "Just follow that invisible car there, and you'll see it"? It's ridiculous. You'd be justifiably institutionalised for your own protection if you took that sort of advice literally, were it not a socially accepted religious point of view.
@PacificNW326 The god character does not practice selfless love, merely disbelief in him is enough justification in his eyes to torture you for eternity. No reasonable moral person would ever think that eternal torture is a suitable punishment for any finite crime, so why is it ok that the god character does? why worship and perpetuate an unsupported belief in a character which would happily let you be tortured for even questioning it's existence? Is it fear that maybe he is real?
@JustOneQuestion - You sir have a thorough lack of understanding when it comes to the bible. God loved you enough to make you AND give you a choice for eternal life or death of the spirit. He loves you enough to NOT force you. He loves you enough to show you the 2 paths AND to where they lead. And you're upset because 1 of the paths lead to death, then how could one appreciate LIFE?
@PacificNW326 I realise you believe that, but my point is that a loving being wouldn't offer 2 choices, a selfless loving being wouldn't care whether you believed in him or not because doing so would be selfish, a loving selfless god wouldn't even have eternal torture on the table as an option.
I'm not upset, I'm just pointing out what I think is wrong with your premise.
I personally think that a life devoted to getting into an unproven after-existence makes you appreciate life less.
@JustOneQuestion - God is selfless in way that He does not forcing Himself on you. He's selfless in the way He has put others before Him. Jesus was selfless as He served not His will but His Father in Heaven's will. Jesus gave up Himself so that others could live. He willingly sacrificed Himself so that man could enter Heaven. Man actions cause man to go to hell, absolutely no doing of God, so don't blame Him. The choice is your's.
@JustOneQuestion - You obviously don't know what hell s anyways. It's sepatation from God. Just like heaven is being in the presence of God, so is hell being away from the presence of God. Since God is pure love then hell is the exact opposite. So yes being surround by the absence of any good or decency or LOVE is like torture. I know God & Heaven are real so it does NOT have to be proven to me. Besides I have devoted myself to serving LOVE, (Christ Jesus) & no one should argue that.
@PacificNW326 If jesus sacrificed himself, he no longer exists right? if he does still exist, what exactly has he sacrificed.. his mortal body? well that's not much of a sacrifice considering how much better it's supposed to be in heaven. if you consider a one way trip to a utopia a sacrifice then sign me up for a sacrifice!
You say god plays no part in whether humans go to hell, but if you believe god is the creator of everything, he created hell, and he created the rules which determine who go
@JustOneQuestion - Sign up then! Because Christ Jesus tells us to take up our cross or to do the Father's will ,just like Him. God has a presence and then there is away from the presence of God. Man's OWN choices even those of our forefathers have condemned us away from God, because we contain SIN & since God is Holy sin can not exist in His presence. In the process God gains creatures that CHOOSE to love Him back, creatures that have faced SIN & defeated it.
@PacificNW326 selfless love??? are u retarded? i could get u about probably 100 quotes from the bible that evince his exact selfishness... i mean some of the notions you brought up show that completely. Just think of th ideals behind the following words: Worship, god-fearing, vane god... all things that are implicit with all 3 major religions... so there, i have u
@Diabolous3x - Sorry if you can't understand how God is selfless. God claims to be selfless so you have to put the right context in where ever you are pulling those "notions" from. Sorry you "have me". Funny how you think that a seeming contradictiopn is proof that God does not exist, but if you did HONEST bible study & research you would realize that contradiction is not real.
@GFunkMachine - You go ahead & keep calling people that don't agree with you "bigots" AND I will keep calling people who don't agree with me "mis-understanding". You are ignorant because I did NOT turn off the ratings, but you seem to think you know more about that than myself (by saying I turned them off). So yes you made a comment out of not knowing what you are talking about ...AND... that, my friend, is ignorance. Still hoping you have a Good day.
@GFunkMachine - You go ahead & keep calling people that don't agree with you "bigots" AND I will keep calling people who don't agree with me "mis-understanding". You are ignorant because I did NOT turn off the ratings, but you seem to think you know more about that than myself (by saying I turned them off). So yes you made a comment out of not knowing what you are talking about AND..........that my friend is ignorance. Still hoping you have a Good day.
@GFunkMachine - 1.I call what you do hate, because NO ONE has called you names, yet you feel as though you have to. 2.You do not understand my beliefs & that is why you call names, which in turn only denigrate any meaningful discussion. 3.I used to be an atheist, so I fully understand your view, but you have NEVER been a Christian, so you have no way of understanding mine. And don't say you have, because there is a huge difference in knowing ABOUT Jesus & actually KNOWING HIM. Still, Good day.
@GFunkMachine - This just shows how ignorant people like you really are. I plainly give the reason for 'comment approval' & as far as the rating being disabled, that has absolutely nothing to do with me. But if you feel the need to continuously drop by to repeat your hate, go right ahead.
@allidock11 - Sure, I posted this video with out any links & youtube seems to think that posting this link is helpful, but it has nothing to do with me or this video. It seems as a bit of a distraction from this vid.
His admitting to the possibility of intelligent design was directed that its possible aliens planted us here, not as a god. The questions by Stein were ridiculous, there are much better questions he could have asked.
The Jehovah's Witness link is actually an EX-Jehovah's Witness link going to an EX-Jehovah's Witness forum. JW's call them apostates... Also, why does Ben Stein always seem so sleepy?
the idea of 'god' as an it as examined via science, has nothing to do with man made moralistic bibles. The god put forth by a bible, is a reflection of the human primal instinct of control. God, the substance, itself is the infinity and zero of mathemeatics and has NO place in any direction of men. That is if u want to look at it from a scientific point of view, which it ultimately is. Anyone flogging a bibble is wasting their time; that mathematical infinity is just constant nothing more
@Diabolous3x - So we should just look at our world through the prism of mathematics? Get real. God is more than equation or simple infinity sign. If you put God in that little box of your's, you will never recognize Him when He doesn't fit in it.
@PacificNW326 do you not understand the scope of .....Infinity.....
you offer us the scope of a book, i offer the scope of eternity... which is more box like? I think ur more primal and and quick to flights of anger and misappropriated desire than you're willing to admit. Or perhaps u can't read.
@Diabolous3x - Let's see here, God as ONLY a mathematical sign of infinity or God as a mathematical sign of infinity, plus everything else the BIBLE says. Bible = COLLECTION OF BOOKS, ie MANY many book(S) (PLURAL), ie a LIBRARY. Or your opinion of God being JUST an 'infinity' sign. Yeah your your God box is pretty small even after a second & third look at it. Good day! Love PacificNW326 ;oP
@PacificNW326 you still don't get the concept of infinity do u... ur arguments are automatically flawed cause you're religious and barrack for the god team, ur not a very humble perosn, perhaps u aught to read the damned bible... cheers, have a crap day!
@PacificNW326 go for it, how can they represent character? Any audience we have should see it for what it is: a discourse of unheeded arguments of a realistic debate. You can take this personally if u like, but then flights to anger and a miserabilist lifestyle are in ur capricious god loving and fearing nature. It seems that you've made this about you rather than the concepts. In reaction to you not being humble and condecending i would say to you, still have a crap day. Free your mind!
@ThatBritishGenius - When one studies the old testament writings, which are in Hebrew, they realize there are different meanings for the words "murder" & "kill", which through out the years & INTERPRETATIONS the meanings have been wrongly interchanged to mean the same, but to the Hebrews they did not mean the same. Kill = Righteous, Murder = non-righteous. If you cite specific verses I will put them into context for you. Also, if you had done proper 'hermeneutics' you would know all of this.
@rpmazzella - I felt a huge release when I gave my worries to God. Sounds like you were trying to hard to be good, when that is NOT what God judges you on. He judges you on whether or not you have accepted Christ Jesus as you Lord & Savior.
@PacificNW326 No, I didn't mean that the Bible is saying earth is flat. It was just an example of that we haven't been able to understand ”the bigger picture” since quite recently. But you must agree the bible is very vague when it comes mentioning anything close to all the scientific discovers that has been made the last bunch of hundred years? Just because it isn't incorrect it doesn't make it right.
@TheHammerforge - How easy it must be for you to COMPLETELY LEAVE OUT ANY CONTEXT. CONTEXT, context, context, do you know what this word means? Bring up the verses that you talk about & I will PUT THEM IN CONTEXT FOR YOU, so that you understand and don't say things out of ignorance anymore.
Let's all jump pass the scientific aspect and move into philosophical shall we? God cannot be proven to exist nor can his existence be disproven, we won't find out who's right or wrong until we die, but for an interesting read go look up "Pascal's wager" and see how not believing can seem as ridiculous as so many claim believing is
ThatPerson101 2 weeks ago
@Crentist45 the sky isn't actually blue though
TheCalMC 2 weeks ago
That was painful...America please! Wake the fuck up!
Babs44sun 3 weeks ago
i thought the interview seemed fair hes just trying to get the discussion going thats all
DeJay17Revolution 2 months ago
@Crentist45 - the data left out by evolutionists is just about all SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS that are done by legitimate scientists that are Christian as well. Tons of data, that is the 1/2 the puzzle evolutionist discard. That is fact not just a percieved bias on my side. Verify any dating technique as 100% fool proof, please and not one that relies on another that relies on another.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
This interviewer tries really hard to make Dr Dawkins look stupid in this interview. And it's quite obvious he falls flat on his face, for those with the ability to view this interview with any rationality
Mr Stein is obviously not an 'idiot'. I'm starting to think that religious nuts, however intelligent, simply do not have the brain capacity to see through the fantasy of religion... or maybe it's a genetic make up..
Whatever it is, it's just an episode of humanity, and wont last forever
sgrb11 3 months ago 80
@sgrb11 - From a person's perspective who has a FAITH in God/Christ, I just think those that don't believe in God's existence as NOT UNDERSTANDING, not as some NUT or as lacking mental capacity or as a genetic defect. You are just not understanding. PERIOD. But when YOU make rash DEMEANING generalizations about large groups of people those people aren't going to want to try to have a healthy discussion with you because you already show a distain for others that don't believe as you do. Good day
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Now different dating techniques: You can determine the age of any sun based on the proportion of H to He that it is composed of. Stars are like massive fusion reactors and convert H to He at a constant rate. The ratio of H/He is proportional to the age of the star. When you do this with our sun its age is determined to be 4.6 billion!
Crentist45 3 months ago
Now back to radioactive dating. You are right, RD is not 100% accurate. but the point is that you cant expect 100% accuracy from any method. The error rate of RD is 1%. Even an error rate of 5% is considered statistically insignificant. So with 1%, we’re doing pretty well. So if radioactive dating claims that the earth is 4.6Gyo it means 4.6 G plus or minus 4.6 M so it’s still at least 4.59954Gyo. Say the error rate of RD was 20% (which is really bad), the earth would still be at least 3.68Gyo.
Crentist45 3 months ago 4
So for example, a period of 2 wet years followed by 3 dry years will produce a pattern of 2 thick rings followed by 3 thin rings in all trees in this area regardless of their age. So in dendrochronology, you take the reference finger print from modern trees of a known age and then you match that with the same finger print from the younger rings of older trees, then you match those patterns to even older trees and so on. No radioactive dating needed.
Crentist45 3 months ago 7
@Crentist45 - Look I understand ALL of that. But what I'm saying is the earth's climate is dynamic & ever changing & just becuase trees grow like that now does NOT mean that 7000-10000 years ago we had the exact same climate with the exact same kind of tree growth. See you assume TOO much. And you can't go about saying what the climate was like 7000-10000 years ago. For science to be a comprehensive worldview it has to assume too much that is not observable, which then NEGATES it as science.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW362 Trees DO grow one ring per year. Again, this is not an assumption. If you cut down a tree that you know was planted 5 years ago, there will be 5 rings. 10 years ago, 10 rings. No exceptions. It is the fact that the earths climate is not static that allows you to detect different ring patterns. Years where the tree experienced good growth conditions (wet, sunny, warm) will produce thicker rings then ones with bad growth conditions (dry, cold etc.)
Crentist45 3 months ago
@PacificNW362 Now if you don't accept the fact that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that's a different discussion. But if the only problem you have with the theory is that you distrust radioactive dating techniques you must realize that this is not enough to discredit a theory that has been developed, quantified and proved by over 150 years of research and one that every reputable scientist in the world accepts as fact
Crentist45 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - My problem with it is that it excludes too much data to be comprehensive. It's like you only keep 1/2 the pieces of jigsaw puzzle, discard the other 1/2 of the puzzle while stating as FACT that you have them all. And that these pieces you have when put together show you the whole entire picture. Well, sorry, I'm going to use all the pieces of the puzzle not just the pieces you or I want.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - Since you can not validate radioactive dating, what other techniques are there that are used for dating THAT YOU BELIEVE. I would love to discuss any of those.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 But we HAVE validated it. Carbon dating is but one of many means. Other elements have different half-lives. You guys keep repeating the same stuff that has long been debunked, and you are confused when informed people laugh you off.
lormendi 3 months ago
@lormendi - Same problem with those techniques, LEACHING OF KEY ELEMENTS. Move on God hater.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Firstly, a genus includes multiple species but you can't have one species in two different genera. The point is the dominant traits that exist within a population change over time and that life has existed long enough for this to produce dramatic changes. Over 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct and ancient species look very different from modern ones. The only way to account for this is by evolution via natural selection.
Crentist45 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - Whoa! you sure are being generous, we haven't established earth's age. Sorry, but you have yet to prove any kind of dating technique to be 100% accurate. I totally understand how you think macro-evolution happened, but I'm not willing to concede millions of years having already passed. You are assuming way to much in your previous comment.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
If these two populations were kept apart for longer the difference between them would become such that they could no longer be considered the same species. There are plenty of other examples, like John Endlers guppy experiment.
Crentist45 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - They would STILL be the same species just possibly a different genus. That still doesn't excuse evolution.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
The original population on PK ate a diet that consisted mainly of insects. The lizards of PM ate mainly plant matter and as a result developed significantly larger heads and a stronger bite force, typical of herbivorous species. Beyond that, the PM lizards developed what is known as a caecal valve in their digestive tract, allowing for better digestion of cellulose. Caecal valves are not present in the original population. This happened after only 40yrs.
Crentist45 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 As for species evolving into another, the lizards of Pod Mrcaru is a classic example. There are two islands off the coast of Croatia; Pod Kopiste and Pod Mrcaru. In 1971, five pairs of this species of lizards were transported from PK to PM where there was no lizard population. In 2008, the lizards from each island were compared to one another. Because of the difference is available food sources on PM, the new lizard population had to adapt to their new environment.
Crentist45 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - Okay but what does this have to do with a new species, they are still the same species.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 They cease to be the same species when they can no longer mate due to incompatible genetics. This is stuff you should already know if you are going to engage in this discussion.
lormendi 3 months ago
@PacificNW362 To obtain the percent error you would date a sample of a known age and the discrepancy between the measured value and the actual value is the percent error. You don't have to make any assumptions. Millions of years were probably necessary to generate the amount of species diversity that we have on the planet, yes but radioactive dating is not the only method of dating the earth that we have. You can even use dendrochronology to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 yrs old.
Crentist45 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - Sorry, if my replies come late, but YT sometimes delays others comments. Anyways, the flaw in dendrochronology is that assumes that EVERY tree in EVERY time period grow 1 new ring per year. That assumes too much right there. Ancient living trees grow at differing rates than younger trees. Also you assume that earths climate & atmosphere is static enough through out ALL time to allow consistant chronologies, when it's obvious that earths atmosphere is too DYNAMIC to allow this.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - Furthermore dendrochronology, relies on radioactive dating to validate assumed ages of trees. See the issue, one form of dating relies on the other which relies on the other, when each techniques margin of error is too high or immeasurable. A case for circular reasoning if I've ever heard one.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW362 There are no methods that allow for 100% accuracy, you should not expect it from any scientific method. The error rate for radioactive dating is about 1%. But with that said, evolution is in no way dependent on the accuracy of radioactive dating. Even if it was discovered to be 100% inaccurate, the theory of evolution would be unscathed. Evolution is a biological process that we can measure and observe within our own lifetime. The age of fossil specimens is totally irrelevant.
Crentist45 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - You assume it's only 1%. I concede micro-"evolution" as happening as children do not receive all genetic material that their parents possess. But as for macro, as in one species becoming to another, no way you have measured & observed this, if so please reference where.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - Dating is what it's all about, because evolution claims millions of years are necessary as opposed to creationist who claim the earth is no older then say around 10,000 years old.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
If there was evidence that disproved evolution, it wouldn't be called a theory in the first place. "Theory" when used in science has very particular definition. When people claim that evolution isn't factual because its "just a theory" they are confusing theory and hypothesis. Theories are proven verifiable facts. If there's data that does, it's false or inaccurate. If someone wants to list some data that disproves evolution I'll be glad to explain why you are mistaken. Very civilly of course.
Crentist45 3 months ago
@Crentist45 - There is no way to measure the amout of leaching of key elements that occurs in decomposed biological material, thus no way to 100% accurately date any said material. Differing fossils found in contradictory stratas of earth.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@KCKproductionsTV Reassess your understanding of nothing. Imagine a box sitting on a floor where nothing is happening to it, it is not moving. Now imagine the same box on a the floor where two people are pushing on it with equal strength from opposite directions. You have the same result, the box doesn't move and nothing is happening to it.This doesn't mean that the two individuals can't exist, it means that they both do. When you say "matter" you are only considering one of these individuals.
Crentist45 3 months ago
Tell me if any athiest find this, what is the origin of all matter? Seeing as a popular theory was that matter cannot be created or destroyed as the lays of physics say. What created all of the matter we are? The big bang? what made the big bang?
KCKproductionsTV 3 months ago
@KCKproductionsTV 'Caused' is a better term IMO. Your question could be reversed: what made god? If you were to say that god was always there, one could reply that the non-intelligent and unknown cause of matter and energy was just as uncreated--not a divinity with a purpose in mind. The problem with theism is that it asserts, without evidence, that this imagined source must be an intelligent designer with a plan. And it is more humble to say "we don't know" than "we know, it was a designer".
ArminVonLiberty 3 months ago
as any 5 year old would ask who created the "highly intelligent evolved " beings. "obviously another even more highly intelligent alien" just admit it there is an infinitely intelligent being named Yahweh
Alexper12 3 months ago
This is one of the few intelligent discussions I've seen between a Thiest and an Athiest. Thumbs up!
benjamin268268Mckinl 3 months ago
adwkins admits that their could be evidence that there is design...but will not admit that God can exist?....He just hates all religion.
musicprodave 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 No, you censore what you do not like to hear, just like the Taliban.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn - Not one none ZERO absolutely Z-E-R-O Atheists here on youtube in the years I've been doing this have ever given ANY PROOF for their religion or faith in evolution or anything else. So yeah I remove absolutely inane comments left predominantly by people just like you. Move on God hater, unwilling to back your fairytales.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 How can Atheists present thier arguments on your channel if you censore what can be shown on your page?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn - Argue these so-called "facts" used to establish evolution as FACTUAL, being beyond theory as many claim, instead of CONSTANT name calling because I'm a believer.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 " being beyond theory as many claim, instead of CONSTANT name calling because I'm a believer. "
A little sensative are we? Are you implying you dont insult Agnostics and Atheists or anyone else who are not ' christians? ' By the way Evolution is an established fact sorry to burst your bubble.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn - I'm not sensative at all otherwise I wouldn't be doing this, but this is exactly what I'm talking about, you would rather call me "sensative" and a name caller too, THEN TO ADD ANYTHING TO A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION. Ok you were there to witness this FACT of evolution? How is it a fact?
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Humans and Chimpazes have several ERVs in the same chromosomes. All living things on this planet share DNA forming a perfect hericarchy of transitions from Fish to Amphibians to Reptiles to Mammals. The seqencing of Genes shows tons of netural genes accumulating over millions of years but have no function anymore of have been co-opted into modern phenomes.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Then you've got your head up your ass. First of all, atheism isn't a religion. It's a rejection of a specific supernatural claim (i.e. there's a God and he cares about human beings) I know in your lowbrow circles it seems smart to say otherwise, but your wrong. And as far as evidence for evolution.......you've got to be fucking kidding me. There's more evidence to support evolution than the existence of gravity or atoms.
lormendi 3 months ago
@lormendi - Yes it is a religion, you have FAITH that there is no God, you have FAITH that evolution factual. To accept evidence for evolution one must BELIEVE many ASSUMPTIONS & ignore TONS of DATA that says otherwise. "Lowbrow circles"...nothing lowbrow here FROM ME, I'm just here to be an example that science & the bible go hand in hand not in competition with each other.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 If being an atheist is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. There is NO data that stands against the existence of evolution unless you are a retard.
lormendi 3 months ago
@lormendi - Name calling is the primary way people like you dehumanize their opponents so that they can then invalidate anything they say, like calling someone a "retard", just because you are incapable of adding substance to a HEALTHY discussion.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 The fact that you can't distinguish between being called a retard and the suggestion that you MIGHT be one says everything that needs to be said.
lormendi 3 months ago
@lormendi - as if I really have to do this. any ways, your statement, "There is NO data that stands against the existence of evolution unless you are a retard." My statement; there is most definitely absolutely DATA that goes against evolution. Forgive me for making the obvious jump to what you are REALLY saying. Typical though to want to argue inane points other than YOUR FAITH IN EVOLUTION.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Provide ONE piece of evidence. ONE. That hasn't been laughed at at for being stupid. JUST ONE BIT OF DATA THAT CONFLICTS WITH EVOLUTION.
lormendi 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 There is no controversy among scientists about whether or not evolution occurred. The controversy is between the educated, intelligent people and morons like you.
lormendi 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Still waiting for a SINGLE piece of data that refutes evolution as currently understood by science and rational people. Just one. You know that the consensus among biologists is well over 99%, don't you? The debate is between unlearned people like yourselves and science. Scientists aren't arguing about whether or not evolution explains biodiversity.
lormendi 3 months ago
@lormendi - Unreal!! Yeah I'm waiting to debate said evidences, NOT OPINIONS. Like how many biologist believe what or how IGNORANT YOU REALLY ARE TO ASSUME MY EDUVATION LEVEL. Bring up data to debate or move your hate for those that don't agree with some place else.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 I've asked you THREE times now to present a single piece of evidence against evolution that hasn't been refuted already hundreds of times by people more knowledgeable than either of us. Instead, you invite ME to provide the evidence? Look, you go to all this effort to disprove evolution, and when asked for evidence you balk. Put up or STFU.
lormendi 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 And the fact that you are so confused about evolution tells me ALL I NEED TO KNOW about your education level. Prove me wrong. What is your degree in and where did you obtain it?
lormendi 3 months ago
@lormendi - Serious?? Quit trying to make this about anything BUT a healthy discussion. The fact that you are asking me NOW, means your previous statement WAS OUT OF IGNORANCE. Admit that earlier you spoke out of ignorance & I will tell you my education level. If your next statement is NOT an admission of ignorance OR about a specific detail of evolution to debate then you will be blocked for sidetracking a healthy debate. Good day.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 I see what game you are playing here. You are not allowing my posts through that don't fit your little monologue here. I have now asked you four times to present JUST ONE BIT of the evidence you have against evolution. You know damn well there isn't any. This isn't about science. It's not even about religion. It's about your tiny ego in your tiny mind. By the way, there's no "healthy debate" here. It's you controlling what gets posted. Youre a liar and a fraud.
lormendi 3 months ago
If I was Ben Stein, I would have started with asking why he thinks the earth is round, when it is in fact flat. Isaiah 11:12 Revelation 7:1 Job 38:13 Jeremiah 16:19 Daniel 4:11. It's called people are being desensitized due to theories like gravity as opposed to intelligent falling. It's also the concept of pi being so called irrational, as opposed to the biblical value of 3. I thought science was supposed to be smart!
TwistedHawk1 3 months ago
@TwistedHawk1 - Ah, how nice, another person from the faith of evolution, with another thorough lack of understanding the Bible's texts. The Bible NEVER says the earth is flat.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Those Bible passages say that I posted says otherwise.
TwistedHawk1 3 months ago
@TwistedHawk1 - Haha, if that is what you think the Bible says you sadly mistaken. I wonder what TRANSLATION you own, because no Bible I have says any of that.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Those passages that I posted say otherwise. I thought you were a true christian.
TwistedHawk1 3 months ago
"I just wanted to be sure." LOL
bwc3821 3 months ago
Because Dawkins suggested offhandedly that something might be true, he believes in Intelligent Design! Of course! >.>;
FoxyUkeFox 3 months ago
@FoxyUkeFox - From a believer's perspective I do not think Dawkins comes off as believing in ID, he's an atheist.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
just like a theist to not approve my reply to your ridiculous claim. the paradox disproves omnipotency, your god could be a fucking potato and he still couldnt be omnipotent. i thought you were trying to have healthy debate, yet i get my comment censored, shame on you.
ledzeppelinrools 3 months ago
@ledzeppelinrools - Like I said, your paradox is only in your head. You have NO grasp of fundamental physics, so even discussing Einstein's 'relativity' w/ you would be waste. Get back to me when you either make a video about your silly little "paradox", like I BEGGED or when you drop your silly little "paradox". Good day.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 why dont you fucking google it. like I said, there are many videos on the subject, you are just too fucking lazy to watch them. typical though, from someone who thinks that kneeling and talking to himself can bring change in the world.
ledzeppelinrools 3 months ago
@ledzeppelinrools - Why don't you make a video about it? LIKE I BEGGED! OR Are you really the lazy one? Ooh, I have an idea, why don't you study Einstein's relativity, then you would see where your silly little "paradox" falls a part at.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
i wonder if you'll let my second comment be posted or if you won't because it shows you in a negative light. if you choose not to have it posted, then you show your own regret for having responded the way you did and i will take your silence as an apology.
HuyerPercussive 3 months ago
@HuyerPercussive - I not afraid of being put in a "negative' light by non-understanding atheists. Case in point this video is directed AT ATHEIST. I encourage atheist's comments that aid in a meaningful discussion, but all too often they do NOT want to discuss points of atheism (evidences for elolution) or believer's faith & instead choose to demean Stein & other believers.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
When you ask the best atheist proponets (i.e.Dawkins ) you see that where they think life sprang from their explanations are even more fanciful than the bible. They are really wanting to get at the true origins of the universe. They just want to free themselves of the rules set out in the bible. They are really just intellectually dishonest. .
kgf2012 3 months ago
ben stein = condescending dickhead
why do (seemingly) all religious folk think that because we don't know our origins, THEIR god must be true. what a dumb fucking argument.
HuyerPercussive 3 months ago
@HuyerPercussive -Are you serious? This isn't about our God being true. It's about your claim you do NOT know our origins but YOU (many atheists) are 100% sure that it's not the God of the Christians. That is the point Stein is making. What's stupid is to say you don't know but then act like you do. What's really condescending though, is your general contempt for believers, especially Stein because all he was doing was fact checking Dawkins & caught him in lies & false assumptions. Good day!
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 case in point.
i don't know who your god is nor did i address any specific one, yet you think that i'm specifically targeting yours. i also never said i was an atheist. i'm agnostic. this means that i don't claim to know anything of the existence of gods, but my critical thinking skills allow me to realize that "lack of proof" can't be used as a defense for either side, which was my point.
thanks for falsely assuming! good day!
HuyerPercussive 3 months ago
@HuyerPercussive well your " critical thinking skills ", should also "allow" you to realize lagetimate questions when you hear them instead of bashing the person asking them, and labeling them religious nutts.. Ben wasn't being at all arrogant or argumentative, he was simply asking him how.? and Dawkins had to tell him he doesn't know.
HoustonTexas457000 3 months ago 2
@HuyerPercussive well your " critical thinking skills ", should also "allow" you to realize legitimate questions when you hear them instead of bashing the person asking them, and labeling them religious nutts.. Ben wasn't being at all arrogant or argumentative, he was simply asking him how.? and Dawkins had to tell him he doesn't know.
HoustonTexas457000 3 months ago
@PacificNW326
There's a difference between atheists and religious people. When atheists don't know the answer to something, they do research and they find a solution. When religious people don't know the answer to something, they automatically assume that it's proof of God.
Atleast scientists try to find the cause and effect. Religious people just see the world as an effect, and therefore the cause must have been God. Which is a fallacy, fyi.
AirsoftPractice 3 months ago
@AirsoftPractice - Haha, that's laughable. In this video Dawkins admits he does NOT know, yet he still acts & talks like he does. Believers know God created the cause & effect, not just the effect. There is a creation ergo there is a Creator. Many atheists do NOT know how life or earth originated, but that does not stop them from spreading their ASSUMPTIONS (FAITH) as if they're facts. Get real!
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326
You're generalizations of atheists are laughable. Atleast we don't yell "JESUS LOVES YOU" to people. Atleast there we don't print the motto "In God We Trust" on the money. Atleast we don't make you take a pledge everyday saying "Under God".
The real people spreading their faith are your dumbass religions (Christianity being the worse).
"There is a creation ergo there is a creator." Again, typical religious person. There is a creation, therefore it must've been god. Fallacy BS
AirsoftPractice 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 The problem, as Dawkins has put it many times, is that if the universe is so complex as to require a designer, that designer would be even more complex. And thus, what would create the creator? You have to continue the regression, if you start.
At any rate, if there was an ultimate creator, it is certainly beyond our ability to comprehend; all current religions would still be incorrect. So why even argue the point.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn - You are allowed your OPINION.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Good answer ahahahaha...... it is not an opinion. An opinion is "vanilla icecream is the best flavour". What I presented was an argument. Unless you consider your belief in god as an opinion - which would be saying "It is my preference to think that my reality contains a god, even if there is not one".
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn - I know there is a God, you...you can't believe that. In now way am I saying there is not a God, please do not speak for me. Here's a FACT for you though; it takes more FAITH to be a believer in the faith of evolutionism than it does for God/Christ Jesus.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 You just said that my belief that there was no god was just my opinion, implying that your belief in a god was also an opinion.
It doesn't take more faith to believe in evolution; there is plenty of evidence for it. Have you read "origin of species?". Have you ever seen a domestic dog? In less than 5 thousand years we have animals that bear little resemblance to their origin. Imagine over a timeframe of 4 billion.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn - Also what I'm saying is...you are convinced in your own mind that you are in the right, just as I too am convinced of my own perspective. Ergo, we can't help but to label the other's viewpoint as OPINION with out exiting a graceful discussion. I know alot about Darwin, did you know he that was not an ATHEIST? Can a chihuahua ever become a wolf again with out man's interference?
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 I'm not convinced that I completely know the truth about everything; that is a ridiculous thing to claim.
You however are willing to throw away any evidence presented regardless of how strong it is in order to maintain your own world view.
Darwin certainly wasn't a christian though. He wished every day though for someone to disprove his research.
Of course the chihuaha could not become a wolf without interference. Selection was unnatural to begin with, evolution isn't magic.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Interestingly the one thing you immediately say you know about Darwin is that "he was not an atheist".
He certainly didn't start that way, but as he did more and more research, and lived, and looked at the world, he saw that there was no god. He himself said that he gave up christianity at the age of forty.
He may have died agnostic, but I seriously doubt it. If you read his work perhaps you would be able to come to the same conclusion.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn - Prove to me that ANY kind of dating technique is 100% FOOLPROOF, since you give a time of 4 billion years.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 You are arguing that because a ruler which measures in millimetres cannot measure a nanometer, a metre may as well be a centimetre. I like how you can take on faith and superstition your entire world view, but refuse to acknowledge something repeatable.
If it wasn't in some way accurate, then measuring a sample size of material from similar areas would give dramatically different results. It doesn't.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn - What are you talking about?
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 I'm saying that your argument is silly. Show me any studies that question the validity of dating techniques. Heres a tip : if you mention carbon-14 dating I will know immediately that you have never actually looked into dating techniques.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn - Any dating technique, whether it's uranium thorium lead dating, rubidium-strontium dating, or potassium argon dating, is effected by leaching out or in of key elements that occur while the biological material sits there.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 Yes, and of course that is why there is more than one dating method used. It seems any argument against dating jumps to the immediate conclusion... this can't be right, THUS THERE MUST BE A GOD. The moon isn't made of cheese.. THEREFORE IT"S CAKE.
If you have a mind to question validity of science experimental method, what questions have you asked about the bible? There are plenty of logical inconsistencies and many arguments as to why little to none of it is valid.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn - You make the jump for me not myself, slow down. All I'm saying is that with the MANY MANY variables, flaws, & immeasurable leaching to all dating techniques, one can't necessarily accept ANY dates as fact, especially since there is absolutely no way to prove any of the dates. So by that I can't ruled out creation by God as a valid beginning either. Without a DOUBT there is a CREATION.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 And also, because there are multiple dating techniques, the only way it could be completely invalidated is if ALL decay rates from ALL elements changed in sync with each other. That's not very likely. Light from distant and long-dead stars shows a great match between what we have observed on earth and the decay rates in the greater universe. The leaching of materials... eh. Of course geologists are aware of this and consider it when dating.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn - okay. light from distant stars okay, enough proof for you!! Besides leaching, one can come up with just about any age for anything they want to depending on what radioactive element one uses to date. Eh, maybe you just don't know what leaching is?
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@dmmchn - How are geologist aware of leaching & how do they "take it into consideration"? Do you know of an accurate way to measure leaching?
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@HuyerPercussive No he isn't, Jackass... he had legitimate and logical questions for Dawkins.. quit being a fucking panzy
HoustonTexas457000 3 months ago
@GFunkMachine - What's all this "empirical" evidence you're talking about?
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@GFunkMachine - For real though, I have been real generous with the time given me by using it to help you see things more clear, but it's obvious by your snivelling about every LITTLE detail on every little thing that you can think of & your general complete lack of understanding any context that any of my comments have. You are now going to be blocked. Have a good day though.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - As the Bible (Jesus) teaches (again you would have known this if you really were a christian), once a Christian always a Christian, if one leaves the faith then they never were really part of the faith. So you left, then you were really never a real Christian. It's about more then saying you know about Jesus or saying that you believe in Him. It is about actually knowing Him & taking up the Father's will.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
all this proves is ben stein's as smart or smarter than dawkins. that doesn't mean he's right.
zackhanscom 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - Learn about Jesus' teachings. One thing He taught was for us to love our enemies. I wouldn't even call you my enemy, so imagine how much more I am to love you. That is why I am still here clearing up misunderstandings & explaining my worldview.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - Just about every form of ORGANIZED religion (<which Jesus taught strictly against) has been forced on others. So that you understand this, no one is playing the victim. Go ahead with that motto of yours, but when you go on an unprovoked offensive calling people bigots, don't be embarrassed when your HYPOCRISY is pointed out. Many people of many faiths & no faiths are in my life & I not only tolerate, but LOVE them; you show ZERO love or kindness...Hmmm...
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - Wow you have so much animosity towards believers that you take what's said in the absolute worst context you can think of, huh? When I'm referring to "Christians" I am referring to them as individuals as in they were nonbelievers first, before making their own choice to follow God. Truth, said though to your error again; many have donned the name "christian" & have not been. When a group that calls themselves "christian" act opposite then they are false "christians".
PacificNW326 4 months ago
LOVE this movie! I agree with Ben Stein. I think we should have the ability to learn more about different views than just an atheistic view. I think its hateful the way people treat each other for there views. I am a believer in Christ. I have a PHD in theology both worldly and intelligent design. Intelligent design has a lot of holes in it as well as atheism. The key to Christianity is that it gives you purpose in life meaning and Love like no other. I like purpose for my life.
BreakingNightPro 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - If you were really with Jesus you would have never left Him. That is EXACTLY how it works. You just knew ABOUT Jesus, you did not KNOW Him.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - Are you serious? With how rude you've been, you now are making demands? It doesn't work like that, sorry. If you understood Christianity would know that Christians tolerate other's views because they too at one point were not understanding of God Word, just like atheists. Because they don't understand is why they don't believe, but maybe one day they will so one is not to pass judgment. Also Christians want there beliefs to be tolerated so in return they tolerate others.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@Gfunkmachine
Wow you must be kidding me...
You say creationists don't tolerate other views, WELL NEITHER DO YOU IF YOU CAN'T TOLERATE CREATIONISM!
Ps. no as a creationist I tolerate all theories but I only EXCEPT the truth. Oh yeah and cool name btw.
SkaterProse 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - Hmm...You don't tolerate creationists?
PacificNW326 4 months ago
here is where you went wrong ,God made man in His image and placed man a little lower than the angels,God made apes a little similiar to man ,kinda copying man a little and atheist evolutionist see this and jumped to a bad conclusion.
while we are at it,if you would watch a few shows on the National Geographic ,Animal Planet about animal ,plant or sea life you would begin to notice that these creatures are highly designed to survive ,designed means that there is a designer,just sort it out!
majorl311 4 months ago
It kind of freaks me out that Stein is, according to Wiki: "an actor, writer, lawyer, and commentator on political and economic issues". Put the issue of theology aside, but his sense of logic non-existant. The questions about "put a number on the probability that God doesn't exist" and at the end, after Dawkin's carefully has explained that he's an atheist and why - he goes on to ask if he believe in Vishnu or "a Muslim god" (which would be the same as the Christian god).
lebear85 4 months ago
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - I'll leave our comments up here for people to decide on their own, but I will block any of your comments that are repeated. But for sure I won't find out how to enable ratings since YOU have been the only one crying about it.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 Turning ratings off is a classic method employed by a great number of creationists to hide the fact that their video supports a no evidence arguement, you can't blame someone for assuming the uploader of such a video has done the same.
I don't believe that an idea is true or not based entirely on the number of people who agree, but enabling ratings gives you a good idea of whether or not the video holds any substance to people who are intrested in the subject.
JustOneQuestion 4 months ago
@JustOneQuestion - The mere fact that a TON more atheists comment here AND would most likely continously rate the video down, is the reason why I don't care to learn how to enable ratings. So what? I have no problem in admitting that. Many atheist come across as spiteful & vindictive to others that don't believe as they do.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 Do you not find it strange that on a creationist aimed video, more athiests than creationists show an interest in it? this is the trend on creationist and athiests videos alike, and while I can't speak for everyone, the simple fact is that athiests watch more religiously aimed videos than creationists and thus generally gain more knowledge on the subject.
Athiests don't 'believe' anything, that's the point. They simply realise that there isn't any evidence to support the claim.
JustOneQuestion 4 months ago
@JustOneQuestion - I think you're wrong in generalizing the whole who watches what videos. There are a ton of faith video dealing with just topics of faith that barely any atheists view let alone comment on. Please cite where you get your data from that supports your claim if you honestly think its true. The FACT is many have witnessed & experienced miracles that the scientific method can not explain & because you have not had said experiences does not negate it for ANYONE that has.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 I can't post links on here so if you could google "u.s religious knowledge survey" the top result will give you a good idea of the statistics which support my claim. Also to address the point that there are faith videos with no athiest comments, it is almost always the case that the uploader has disabled ratings and has comment approvals active, I appreciate that you don't abuse this system and you allow athiestic comments, but most don't.
JustOneQuestion 3 months ago
@JustOneQuestion - Maybe you should pray for God to reveal Himself to you to reveal truth & discernment. If He's not real no harm, right? If He is real, then wow what other mysteries could He also reveal to you?
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 If god could reveal himself to me he would have done already, he would know I'm interested in finding out if he exists or not, and he would also understand the level of evidence required to convince me, and so he either doesn't care, or he doesn't exist.
Revealing himself is something god has never really been good at, there have been no documented verifiable cases, the ones claimed by the bible can't be taken as fact because the bible doesn't cite any sources which are verifiable.
JustOneQuestion 3 months ago
@JustOneQuestion - Well if you are convinced that God SHOULD have revealed Himself to already. Then maybe He has & you haven't recognized Him. Maybe He knows no evidence is enough for you with out destroying your free will. Maybe you should think about what you should do to approach a Holy God instead of what God HAS/SHOULD do to approach you. He's the Creator, you are His creation. Not the other way around.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@Diabolous3x - what do you serve? Your happiness, your urges, your heart?. See regardless of what you think, you will still end up following SOMETHING, why not serve God, since He is pure self-LESS Love?
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 In any other context of discussion, that would be a silly thing to say. Can you imagine in the land of car worshippers, when you say you don't believe in the invisible car: "Just follow that invisible car there, and you'll see it"? It's ridiculous. You'd be justifiably institutionalised for your own protection if you took that sort of advice literally, were it not a socially accepted religious point of view.
mljungberg10 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 The god character does not practice selfless love, merely disbelief in him is enough justification in his eyes to torture you for eternity. No reasonable moral person would ever think that eternal torture is a suitable punishment for any finite crime, so why is it ok that the god character does? why worship and perpetuate an unsupported belief in a character which would happily let you be tortured for even questioning it's existence? Is it fear that maybe he is real?
JustOneQuestion 4 months ago
@JustOneQuestion - You sir have a thorough lack of understanding when it comes to the bible. God loved you enough to make you AND give you a choice for eternal life or death of the spirit. He loves you enough to NOT force you. He loves you enough to show you the 2 paths AND to where they lead. And you're upset because 1 of the paths lead to death, then how could one appreciate LIFE?
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 I realise you believe that, but my point is that a loving being wouldn't offer 2 choices, a selfless loving being wouldn't care whether you believed in him or not because doing so would be selfish, a loving selfless god wouldn't even have eternal torture on the table as an option.
I'm not upset, I'm just pointing out what I think is wrong with your premise.
I personally think that a life devoted to getting into an unproven after-existence makes you appreciate life less.
JustOneQuestion 4 months ago
@JustOneQuestion - God is selfless in way that He does not forcing Himself on you. He's selfless in the way He has put others before Him. Jesus was selfless as He served not His will but His Father in Heaven's will. Jesus gave up Himself so that others could live. He willingly sacrificed Himself so that man could enter Heaven. Man actions cause man to go to hell, absolutely no doing of God, so don't blame Him. The choice is your's.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@JustOneQuestion - You obviously don't know what hell s anyways. It's sepatation from God. Just like heaven is being in the presence of God, so is hell being away from the presence of God. Since God is pure love then hell is the exact opposite. So yes being surround by the absence of any good or decency or LOVE is like torture. I know God & Heaven are real so it does NOT have to be proven to me. Besides I have devoted myself to serving LOVE, (Christ Jesus) & no one should argue that.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 If jesus sacrificed himself, he no longer exists right? if he does still exist, what exactly has he sacrificed.. his mortal body? well that's not much of a sacrifice considering how much better it's supposed to be in heaven. if you consider a one way trip to a utopia a sacrifice then sign me up for a sacrifice!
You say god plays no part in whether humans go to hell, but if you believe god is the creator of everything, he created hell, and he created the rules which determine who go
JustOneQuestion 4 months ago
@JustOneQuestion - Sign up then! Because Christ Jesus tells us to take up our cross or to do the Father's will ,just like Him. God has a presence and then there is away from the presence of God. Man's OWN choices even those of our forefathers have condemned us away from God, because we contain SIN & since God is Holy sin can not exist in His presence. In the process God gains creatures that CHOOSE to love Him back, creatures that have faced SIN & defeated it.
PacificNW326 3 months ago
@PacificNW326 selfless love??? are u retarded? i could get u about probably 100 quotes from the bible that evince his exact selfishness... i mean some of the notions you brought up show that completely. Just think of th ideals behind the following words: Worship, god-fearing, vane god... all things that are implicit with all 3 major religions... so there, i have u
Diabolous3x 4 months ago
@Diabolous3x - Sorry if you can't understand how God is selfless. God claims to be selfless so you have to put the right context in where ever you are pulling those "notions" from. Sorry you "have me". Funny how you think that a seeming contradictiopn is proof that God does not exist, but if you did HONEST bible study & research you would realize that contradiction is not real.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - You go ahead & keep calling people that don't agree with you "bigots" AND I will keep calling people who don't agree with me "mis-understanding". You are ignorant because I did NOT turn off the ratings, but you seem to think you know more about that than myself (by saying I turned them off). So yes you made a comment out of not knowing what you are talking about ...AND... that, my friend, is ignorance. Still hoping you have a Good day.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - You go ahead & keep calling people that don't agree with you "bigots" AND I will keep calling people who don't agree with me "mis-understanding". You are ignorant because I did NOT turn off the ratings, but you seem to think you know more about that than myself (by saying I turned them off). So yes you made a comment out of not knowing what you are talking about AND..........that my friend is ignorance. Still hoping you have a Good day.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - 1.I call what you do hate, because NO ONE has called you names, yet you feel as though you have to. 2.You do not understand my beliefs & that is why you call names, which in turn only denigrate any meaningful discussion. 3.I used to be an atheist, so I fully understand your view, but you have NEVER been a Christian, so you have no way of understanding mine. And don't say you have, because there is a huge difference in knowing ABOUT Jesus & actually KNOWING HIM. Still, Good day.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@GFunkMachine - This just shows how ignorant people like you really are. I plainly give the reason for 'comment approval' & as far as the rating being disabled, that has absolutely nothing to do with me. But if you feel the need to continuously drop by to repeat your hate, go right ahead.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
Dawkins was intimidated my the superior mind of Ben Stein
wndebu 4 months ago
May I ask you what bothers you about the link with Jehovah's Witnesses?
allidock11 4 months ago
@allidock11 - Sure, I posted this video with out any links & youtube seems to think that posting this link is helpful, but it has nothing to do with me or this video. It seems as a bit of a distraction from this vid.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
His admitting to the possibility of intelligent design was directed that its possible aliens planted us here, not as a god. The questions by Stein were ridiculous, there are much better questions he could have asked.
Brianchse 4 months ago
@Brianchse - Please share then. What better questions could he have asked?
PacificNW326 4 months ago
The Jehovah's Witness link is actually an EX-Jehovah's Witness link going to an EX-Jehovah's Witness forum. JW's call them apostates... Also, why does Ben Stein always seem so sleepy?
outdoorsguy 4 months ago
the idea of 'god' as an it as examined via science, has nothing to do with man made moralistic bibles. The god put forth by a bible, is a reflection of the human primal instinct of control. God, the substance, itself is the infinity and zero of mathemeatics and has NO place in any direction of men. That is if u want to look at it from a scientific point of view, which it ultimately is. Anyone flogging a bibble is wasting their time; that mathematical infinity is just constant nothing more
Diabolous3x 4 months ago
@Diabolous3x - So we should just look at our world through the prism of mathematics? Get real. God is more than equation or simple infinity sign. If you put God in that little box of your's, you will never recognize Him when He doesn't fit in it.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 do you not understand the scope of .....Infinity.....
you offer us the scope of a book, i offer the scope of eternity... which is more box like? I think ur more primal and and quick to flights of anger and misappropriated desire than you're willing to admit. Or perhaps u can't read.
Diabolous3x 4 months ago
@Diabolous3x - Let's see here, God as ONLY a mathematical sign of infinity or God as a mathematical sign of infinity, plus everything else the BIBLE says. Bible = COLLECTION OF BOOKS, ie MANY many book(S) (PLURAL), ie a LIBRARY. Or your opinion of God being JUST an 'infinity' sign. Yeah your your God box is pretty small even after a second & third look at it. Good day! Love PacificNW326 ;oP
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 you still don't get the concept of infinity do u... ur arguments are automatically flawed cause you're religious and barrack for the god team, ur not a very humble perosn, perhaps u aught to read the damned bible... cheers, have a crap day!
Diabolous3x 4 months ago
@Diabolous3x - I'll go ahead and leave your comments up so everyone can judge for themselves about you & your character.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 go for it, how can they represent character? Any audience we have should see it for what it is: a discourse of unheeded arguments of a realistic debate. You can take this personally if u like, but then flights to anger and a miserabilist lifestyle are in ur capricious god loving and fearing nature. It seems that you've made this about you rather than the concepts. In reaction to you not being humble and condecending i would say to you, still have a crap day. Free your mind!
Diabolous3x 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 I can do it for him/her.
The Bible states 'thou shall not kill'. Whereas in the Bible it also states 'kill those who are not religious or try to convert you.
Also the killing of witches, the holocaust and the inquisition were all based on the bible or christianity.
Also, read the old testament and the new. Tell me they do not contradict on dozens of factors.
ThatBritishGenius 4 months ago
@ThatBritishGenius - When one studies the old testament writings, which are in Hebrew, they realize there are different meanings for the words "murder" & "kill", which through out the years & INTERPRETATIONS the meanings have been wrongly interchanged to mean the same, but to the Hebrews they did not mean the same. Kill = Righteous, Murder = non-righteous. If you cite specific verses I will put them into context for you. Also, if you had done proper 'hermeneutics' you would know all of this.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
I feel that when I gave up god I felt a release. It's true.
rpmazzella 4 months ago
@rpmazzella - I felt a huge release when I gave my worries to God. Sounds like you were trying to hard to be good, when that is NOT what God judges you on. He judges you on whether or not you have accepted Christ Jesus as you Lord & Savior.
PacificNW326 4 months ago
@PacificNW326 No, I didn't mean that the Bible is saying earth is flat. It was just an example of that we haven't been able to understand ”the bigger picture” since quite recently. But you must agree the bible is very vague when it comes mentioning anything close to all the scientific discovers that has been made the last bunch of hundred years? Just because it isn't incorrect it doesn't make it right.
staraffinity 4 months ago
@TheHammerforge - How easy it must be for you to COMPLETELY LEAVE OUT ANY CONTEXT. CONTEXT, context, context, do you know what this word means? Bring up the verses that you talk about & I will PUT THEM IN CONTEXT FOR YOU, so that you understand and don't say things out of ignorance anymore.
PacificNW326 4 months ago