PZ Myers: The war between science and religion - Part 1/12

[disBeeLeaf]

"Science vs. Religion" Talk about straw man arguments. Were Newton, Kepler, Galileo (all theists), then delusional crackpots that were anti -science? LOL

The Bible among many things is a acct of history so accurate and supported by the scientific evidence that I know it's painful for you secular humanists.

Good luck with continuing to write your own bible of "just so" pseudo sci-fi fairy tales to attempt to explain your word view, just don't try to sell it as reality.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf your comment is a radiography of your own mind. bible supported by evidence? ok, what evidence? Where's the evidence that moses split the sea in halves? where's the evidence for jesus walking on water? If you knew only a little about what historical evidence is, how the bible was assembled, the beginnings of christianity, the archeology of old testament narratives, you wouldnt be that arrogant. Oral traditions, hersey, forgery and interpolations: that's your reliable book.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio your comment is a radiography of your mind revealing it is devoid of simple logic. Is it necessary EVERY event in the Bible be proven? More straw man arguments. What evidence after thousands of years would you expect to find of the red sea parting? What evidence of Jesus walking on water do you expect other than the eye witness testimony? How about the hundreds of prophecies alone that have been fullfilled?

What evidence do you have that the big bang happened or abiogenesis?

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf Is it necessary EVERY event in the Bible be proven? well, just because one part is ok, it doesnt follow that everypart is ok. Now, the historical evidence for assembly of the bible has nothing to do with believing in it or not. Knowing what happened at the council of nicea is pure fact, independent of theology. A bunch of men gathered to choose what books where the word of god and those that were not. Of course the bible mentions historical places. So do spiderman cartoons.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio "the council of nicea is pure fact" - yes, of the Catholic Church, which represents only one sector of Christianity. Your point is?

"A bunch of men gathered to choose what books where the word of god" - Nonsense. The Bible has been studied and agreed to be the inspired word of God by countless theologians over time.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf man, the council of nicea put together the bible. it was a bunch of men, that through majority vote decided which books among a pletora of gospel writings, were inspired and which were not. You see, you dont know how the bible came to be. If you do, please tell me how the many books became together.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio - "the council of nicea put together the bible..........You see, you dont know how the bible came to be. If you do, please tell me how the many books became together."

Which Biblical Cannon? Which Council of Nicaea, the first or second? per wiki about the first council:

"In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all. The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries,....."

ROFL, fail much?

[nilbud]

@disBeeLeaf You've confused a bunch of lies and an astounding level of ignorance to come by your laughably ridiculous views. You're a fool and a liar and frankly you're a living joke.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf what eye witness?? only the twelve saw jesus walk on water. the gospels where not writen by the disciples. One might think the disciples spread the word and it arrived to gospel authors. But curiously none of the epistles mentions ANY miracle by jesus. That was my whole point: you dont know who wrote the books, where, under what circumstances, in what language, at which year. Let me recommend you a book: The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio "The Bible Unearthed... New Vision of ...Isreal" - ROFL, I think you should've read some book reviews on this garbage first. This "new" minimalist vision is hardly new and has apparently been refuted by the greater consensus of Israeli archaeologists.

Finkelstein and Silberman's stated purpose of the books is: "to separate history from [biblical] legend,"

Hypocritical how you ascribe to a nonconsensus view of Biblical archaeology then criticize non consensus views of science.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf about 'The Bible Unearthed...' i've read the reviews, and they're favorable. You called it garbage but the authors are not seudoscience charlatans. Also, i've come to be cautious with creationists claims of 'refutations', usually they're just bold assertions with no support, and usually no reference is presented (give references). What's wrong about the purpose of the book being "to separate history from legend," that sounds like intellectual honesty to me.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf Also, what harmony? your book is filled with contradictions all over the place. You have to be an ultra worshiper to think the bible is perfect. And if someone points a contradiction, saying he's an skeptic doesnt refute it, and it doesnt take an expert to fix it. At what day did jesus die? depends on what gospel you read. who did the women see in the empty tomb? depends what gospel you read. What's jesus genealogy? depends what gospel you read.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio "your book is filled with contradictions", More skeptic nonsense. The Gospels reconcile on all 3 events you mention, they only apparently contradict if you have no understanding. This is hardly a rare concept in the Bible. In the OT God often told people things that apparently sounded contradictory but later proved to be true.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf what? reconcile? Answer the question: in which day did jesus die? how many men where at the tomb? what is jesus genealogy? answer the question!

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio "historical evidence of the assembly of the Bible"

According to who? Atheist skeptics? LOL Bible theologians all over the globe agree on the harmony of the Biblical texts. Perhaps if you read opinions from experts on the Bible and not partisan skeptics you may come to a more objective conclusion.

Furthermore from the archaeology conducted in Israel alone that verfies numerous places mentioned in the Bible, your ridiculous for asserting archaeology is in disagreement.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf to be fair, there's not conclusive evidence for abiogenesis. But what evidence do we have for the bigbang?? you're kidding, right? if you think there's no evidence, you simply have not looked. I could explain it (the expansion rate, the microwave background, the observable horizon, etc) but YT comments dont allow it. Look it up yourself. If you are a YEC it speaks of your level of education. Promoters of YEC are either always seudoscience, charlatans, morons, or convicted frauds.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio

"bigbang.... if you think there's no evidence, you simply have not looked..."

Oh please. Big Bang theory is riddled with problems. Is there even a scientific consensus on it anymore? Seems like multiverse and cyclical theories are gaining momentum because of BB problems. LOL The even cosmic background radiation along with the presence of many super clusters is considered a huge problem for the theory.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf It is true that 'THE THEORY' has problems. But the bang happened, that's a fact. The theory is the mathematical framework to explain the observations, and THIS is what has problems because it doesnt explain all the phenomena. The consensus has not changed. And new theories are not trying to 'refute' or 'discard' the traditional model, only to account for what it doenst describe. I'm surprised you dont accept the bigbang, many christians like William Lane Craig accept it.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio - "the bang happened, that's a fact"

Garbage. The universe is expanding is a fact. Background radiation is a fact. Big Bang is an interpretation of facts but not a fact itself. Strange how you would say that first that Big Bang is fact then turn around and say it has problems.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf Maybe you didnt understand. I said the bang is fact, the theory has problems. The point is that you are unaware of the other support of the theory: primordial elements, nucleosynthesis, plasma ionization, inflation, power spectra, etc. Ok, so these are facts but the interpretation of facts is the one shaky grounds. You can only say that if you WANT creation to be true.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio - "many christians like William Lane Craig accept it [Big Bang]."

IDK how he reconciles his faith but for me it's a causality issue. God said (and consistent with sci-evidence) in numerous places is the Bible that he "stretched out the heavens" (Job 26:7,Isaiah 40:22,44:24, +about 6 other places). In my view, in the processes God used to accomplish these tasks resemble a Big Bang thus why BB theory fits scientifically to a degree but fails on many levels.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio

Big Bang vs God - You see one of the big lies naturalists want to say is creationists ignore science, poof, magic, God did it. No, we believe that God very much used scientific laws and principles to create. In fact we believe he also wrote those laws and principles so why would he not use them? The fact that science exists in itself implies an intelligence behind our reality IMO.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio

"If you are a YEC it speaks of your level of education. Promoters of YEC are either always seudoscience, charlatans..."

The funny part is scientifically you can't even prove YEC's are wrong. The naturalist mantra is the earth is 4.6 billion years old. What we know of the mechanism driving the tidal interaction of the earth-moon system and the current rate of that interaction suggests that the earth-moon system can be no older than 1.3 billion years. So which is it?

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf Regarding proving YEC wrong: there's radiometric dating of rocks (about 12 different methods, not carbon-based), supernovea explosions (if they were 6000light years away we'd be burnt), the sun itself (particles generated inside the sun take more than 6000y to go out and shine). There are many videos to explain this to you. And of course there are 'refutations' by creationists. There's numerous evidence, if you want to ignore it, that's up to you.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio Radimetric dating and distant light prove YEC's are wrong:

No it doesn't. Radiometric dating again is a "theory" and is based on at least 3 assumptions any one of which wrong (and likely are) and it's garbage. The distant light problem is based on the assumption the speed of light has always remained constant, has it? how do you know?

'refutations' - IMO if you are honest the truth is it's a case of there are good 'rebuttals' on both sides, but few actual refutations'.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf Now i know i'm talking to a hardcore creationist. The curious fact is that when you date through different elements, for example: argon, potassium, etc, these have different half-lives. But they give the same results. They overlap. So radiometric dating is not just based on an assumption, it works. The speed of light CANT be different of what it is now, that is not an assumption but a result of the coherence of Relativity. If it was faster the universe would be even older.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf the bible was put together at the council of nicea, and christianity was only one for centuries until Luther created protestantism. The bible as a hole didnt exist before Nicea. Only the pentateuc and the books of the prophets where considered by the Jews. And at Nicea they gathered a bunch of books the liked, and also chose among the many gospels available, and casted out the ones that didnt portray jesus as divine, even if they included the same historical facts.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio - Your really confused about this Council of Nicea thing. It's a historical fact there were copy cats after Christ and copy cat gospels (the gnostic gospels). Like I said before these texts have all been heavily scrutinized by not just Nicea but thousands of Biblical scholars and some have been rejected as frauds. There area also different versions of the Bible and Catholic Bible has more books which indicates a slight level of disagreement today, so what?

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf My point about the councils is that many of the claims of the bible being: the word of god, writen by eye witness, infalible, harmonical, etc. dont stand scrutiny. The bible is not coherent with an omniscient creator being its author, its coherent with bronze-age savages being its authors. But if you are going to assume that your god guided the whole process there's no way to falsify that. So do Islam people think of the Quran. Who's wrong?

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio "Luther created protestantism" - Luther was responsible for the protestant reformation. Relevance?

Protestant just means non-Catholic. Contrary to popular belief Catholicism wasn't the first or true church. Christ created the church, it was a group know as the "apostles", and flourished on all sorts of independent paths. The Waldensians being a classic example.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf you speak of biblical reconciliation and harmony and consensus of the experts, but you have not answered the question: what is jesus genealogy? did jesus die at noon, or at 9am? did he carry his cross alone? did simon cirene help him? did the curtain in the temple reap before jesus died or after? did magdalene go alone or with other women to the tomb? did the stone got rolled away before or when they arrived? how many men did they see in the tomb? men or angels? Please, reconcile.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf I'm really concerned about the archeology stuff. Because as far as i know, even jewish archeology has denied the existence of any evidence for the OT narratives. You must give me references, i gave you one, you do the same. And also give me examples of the dozens of prophecies, and other evidence that prove the bible is the infalible word of god. Because muslims are saying the same thing about the Quran, with examples. You must justify your claims.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf I'll cite Aronra: if a god ever wrote a book there would be just one, no parallels, no antecesors, in any language, it would be compelling, anyone could tell it is divine, you wouldnt need expert guidance, it should fit the wise and the illiterate, it should reveal profound morality and wisdom beyond human capacity. But what do we have: thousands of christian denominations, not able to agree on what the book means, that's how 'perfect' it is, that's how 'clear' god's word is.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf I have to be fair and honest. The council of nicea didnt assemble the bible. It was done in a series of councils and by the authority of certain early bishops. Google 'Development of the New Testament canon'. Why does god need experts to sort out what is his word and what is not? why not just another miracle and the book falls down from the sky, already perfect? The point is that the assembly of the bible has a long history of human deliberation and political influence.

[disBeeLeaf]

@sirdelrio - Darn it, read this post last, woulda saved me lots of typing. Your right, God doesn't need anyone and especially the Catholic organization has had a terrible history of political intervention. But that is all a failure of man's devise not God's. God inspired the Biblical texts to written to be a handbook for man to understand and live a proper life. It's obvious to me from the overwhelming majority of people who study it and the positive influence has on them, that it is true.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf God inspired the Biblical texts... when a book is writen by one single author it has no stylistic divergences, or doctrinal ambiguities, or plain contradictions, or insertions, or forgeries like many of the epistles in the NT. How can you believe that a historical reconstruction like that made by gospel authors is 'inspired word of god'? why doesnt every book start with: 'this is yaweh, the almighty, and this is my word'. No, it's a bunch of fallible books, writen by fallible men.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf Here's a review: 'By and large, however, the conclusions reached and the picture painted is mainstream, representing the general consensus of objective scholars in the field. Nevertheless, this consensus flies in the face of standard Evangelical apologetic, and this book is an excellent launching point for any debate between believer and unbeliever, who can both pursue the authors' references and thus slowly work their way into objective Biblical studies'.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf Another review: "It was well received by biblical scholars and archaeologists. Baruch Halpern, professor of Jewish Studies at Pennsylvania State University and leader of the archaeological digs at Megiddo for many years, praised it as "the boldest and most exhilarating synthesis of Bible and archaeology in fifty years", and biblical scholar Jonathan Kirsch, writing in the Los Angeles Times, called it "a brutally honest assessment".

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf No, no. i didnt realize that when i said BB 'theory' you were reading 'hypothesis' or 'interpretation'. So when i said the 'theory' has problems i didnt mean the interpretation, but rather the matematical framework. The theory has problems because it doesnt describe many observational facts, but the bang itself is beyond doubt. Also, new theories aim to account for those observations, and are making progress.

[sirdelrio]

@disBeeLeaf PLEASE READ: Is the Speed of Light Slowing Down? BY Frank Steiger. Scientists are not dumb lazy ass phonies that go around on unverified assumptions. EVERY observation in astronomy and astrophysics is consistent with a constant speed of light.

[Treefiddyfo]

@disBeeLeaf oh and fucking wow at all u fucktards that think that MAGIC has anything at all to do with REALITY OR REASON....your all fucking retarded and should read a book thats less then a few thousand years old. like maybe a dictionary...to learn what RATIONAL and REALITY means.

[disBeeLeaf]

@Treefiddyfo

Big Bang - Magic

Chemical Evolution - Magic

Abiogenesis - Magic

Macroevolution - Magic

Again how are all these assumed magical events anymore credible than "God did it"?

You still haven't answered why it's acceptable that the world's top scientists can get together at ASU and theorize aliens seeded the earth (directed panspermia) yet a God couldn't have.

I'm sorry but all your sci-fi fairytales of "just so events" to explain our reality just take to much faith to believe.

[Treefiddyfo]

@disBeeLeaf calling science "magic" just shows how STUPID you are...Please for your sake...STFU

[disBeeLeaf]

@Treefiddyfo

I didn't say science was magic. All the so claimed events I mentioned are in practicality "sci-fi fairy tales" at this point. But again since your science is so weak that is all you atheists really have is to frame false arguments and shout insults to sell your religion. My personal favorite, "there is a battle between science and religion", no it's a battle between good science and bad.

"Insults, the last resort of the exhausted mind" - PR

"Insults

[Treefiddyfo]

@disBeeLeaf Too bad you don't know how ignorant you sound...Go read your bible if you want some fairy tales...typical...straw man argument...evolution gets the same scrutiny as any other field of science....maybe you should go read a textbook...instead of making assumptions based on what your child molesting preacher is telling you...im not responding to your stupidity anymore....arguing with you is like arguing with an 18 year old know it all....that knows NOTHING...

[disBeeLeaf]

@Treefiddyfo

^^^ This is the typical atheist "voice of reason". When confronted with the reality of their delusional sci-fi fairytales, scream and shout insults and obsceneties, avoid the scientific facts.

Evolution does not get the same scrutiny as any other field of science, that's just a flat lie. In mainstream science naturalism and materialism are the falacious underlying assumptions made therefore evolution is assumed as well.

So typical so boring.

[Treefiddyfo]

@disBeeLeaf "reason" and "reality"? You are calling TANGIBLE EVIDENCE a "sci-fi fairy tale" while on the other hand supporting the claim that a magic man in the sky created everything and knows everything??? Do you even know what REALITY is? It's definitely not that book you hold so dear...and those weren't insults they were assumptions based on FACTS you sir argue like a CHILD...Straw man every response to me. you religious people are a laughable bunch for sure..have a great life of servitude

[disBeeLeaf]

@Treefiddyfo

What straw man arguements. Do you even know what that means?

You mean straw man arguements like:

"another ass-hat thinking evolution "explains" where life came from. "

"Shame on all of you that use god to fill in for your "unkonwns" "

"calling science "magic" just shows how STUPID you are"

"wow at all u fucktards that think that MAGIC has anything at all to do with REALITY OR REASON"

*yawn*, nother atheist who preaches rationality and reason and shows none there of.

[Treefiddyfo]

@disBeeLeaf Also...Science doesn't take "faith" to believe in ....it takes intelligence to UNDERSTAND.......u fucking retard...

[disBeeLeaf]

@Treefiddyfo

Yeah empirical science doesn't take faith to believe, however sci-fi fairy tales like the glorious claims of evolution do. You probably believe Star Trek is real as well.

[Treefiddyfo]

Ignorance is bliss

[disBeeLeaf]

LOL, the raging atheist Myers. "The classroom must remain secular, no atheism no religion just science." Sure Myers, as long as scientific discussion is constrained to naturalism and materialism right? Regardless that scientific evidence suggest otherwise.

LOL, atheists are so fail. Naturalist/Materialist/Evoluti­onary theories cannot hold enough water on their own, so the only way to keep the sci-fi fairy tale alive is to exclude other theories of origin from the classroom.

*Yawn*

[Krazed2Kraze]

@disBeeLeaf It's not about excluding theories, it's about teaching kids how to think, not what to think. If you jam every bit of crap that humans have theorised, kids won't even recognise reality.

Until religion is supported by scientificly valid evidence, it shouldn't ever be taught. Morally, it shouldn't even be taught in Sunday schools since religion is something that a child should choose, not be brainwashed ("indoctrinated") into.

If it gets proven, by all means, teach it everywhere.

[disBeeLeaf]

@Krazed2Kraze

Nonsense. How is it scientific to exclude any possibility?

"It's about teaching kids how to think" - Scary. You want to filter out information to bias a persons view of reality.

"Until religion is supported scientifically...." - If you don't realize that many of events recorded in religous texts have been verified to be historically accurate you must live under a rock?

[Krazed2Kraze]

@disBeeLeaf Did I ever say filter out information? You honestly think teaching a religion as fact is the unbiased thing to do? You certainly have issues with reality if that's what you believe.

Also, if you think any of the rubbish in the bible has been proven, you, my friend, are the one under the rock. If you want a hint, RELIGIOUS WEB SITES DO NOT OFFER PROPER SCIENTIFIC PROOFS/EVIDENCE. That said, don't get your info from Atheist sites either, get it from secular sources.

[disBeeLeaf]

@Krazed2Kraze

Yes you did suggest filtering out information, who are you to decide what truth is and what is not?

Discussing different theories of origin and development of life is not teaching religion. It's about what theory fits the scientific evidence the best. Naturalism is clearly a fail.

LOL, If you don't realize many things recorded in the Bible have been verified your ignorant. Do you really think the focus of Religious websites are to provide rigorous scientific proofs? LOL

[disBeeLeaf]

@Krazed2Kraze

"bible has been proven" - Many of the historical events and prophecies of the Bible are verifiable as evidence to it's accurate historical record. If you think otherwise your ignorant to fact.

Here is a hint 4 you: I DON'T THINK RELIGIOUS WEBSITES ARE FOCUSED ON OFFERING SCIENTIFIC PROOFS

[Treefiddyfo]

@disBeeLeaf You should probably "re-educate" yourself bud....you're definitely on the other side of the "brain washing" fence.

[disBeeLeaf]

@Treefiddyfo

Clearly I'm on the otherside of the fence yes, but brainwashed, hardly. My theistic worldview is rational choice that best explains the reality I live in given consideration of both views. Evolution requires too much faith to be a plausible reality. I'm amused at the recent ASU Origins conference where the great atheist evangelist Richard Dawkins is offering directed panspermia as an answer (why not a God?) to life's origin. Why if evolution is so robust a theory? LOL

[Treefiddyfo]

@disBeeLeaf another ass-hat thinking evolution "explains" where life came from. EVOLUTION EXPLAINS HOW LIFE EVOLVES. NOT HOW IT BEGAN.

Oh shit my car won't start...i dont know what it is....MUST BE GOD.

OMG i cant take a shit IDK what it is....... MUST BE GOD

Shame on all of you that use god to fill in for your "unkonwns" thats such a cheap ass copout

[disBeeLeaf]

@Treefiddyfo

ROFL, Dear genius, Abiogenesis is considered an evolutionary act. The term evolution is not constrained to "how life evolves". Ever hear of chemical or molecular evolution? If your going to take natuarlist/materialist worldview please at least understand your own dogma.

You seem to argue that theists don't seek scientific explanations to any observable phenomena? How do you say this when the majority of early scientist were all theists? ROFL.

[disBeeLeaf]

@Treefiddyfo

"Cheap copouts". Are pseudo scientific fairy-tales about how life created and evolved itself on several parrallel paths somehow supposed to anymore rational and reasonable than "God did it"? Really? Do you actually believe an atheistic naturalist materialist explanation provides any less of a faith based answer to explain our reality? LOL

[disBeeLeaf]

@Krazed2Kraze '

"Until religion is supported by scientificly valid evidence, it shouldn't ever be taught." - Applying your same criteria, why is abiogenesis taught everywhere then? Doesn't it have to be proven first? LOL

I guess any sci-fi fairytale as long as it conforms to the philosophy of scientific naturalism gets a pass? Did someone say brainwashing? Indoctrination?

[Krazed2Kraze]

@disBeeLeaf Rubbish, where is abiogenesis taught? There is nothing solid to teach yet, thus children are made aware of it, at best. Not before religion brain washes them though. It should be taught that WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. That does NOT mean we teach some scientific theory as 100% fact and sure as hell not a religion as a 100% fact.

As to your fairytale statement, sorry, but that is total nonsense. I don't know how you got to that point, perhaps re-read my comment?

[disBeeLeaf]

@Krazed2Kraze

Where is abiogenesis taught? LOL, Your insinuating that every school textbooks does not teach that all life evolved from nothing?

"Religion Brain", Your right, from as far as being able to prove anything, "WE DO NOT KNOW". So if that is the case why is the origin and development of life by special creation excluded from the conversation?

"fairytales" So given you realize and admit these theories are not 100% factual, they are nothing more than sci-fi fairytales. 

[disBeeLeaf]

@Krazed2Kraze

Since "WE DON'T KNOW" Educating the masses that the answer to the origin and development of life question happened by completely natural processes is no less of a "brainwashing" than you allege any religious explanation to be. If you don't realize this perhaps you need to deprogram your washed brain.

PZ Myers is a shameless atheist activist who loves to sell his religion of secular humanism under the guise of being good science. Nuff said.

[Lilycha100]

imange what time we would been in, if it werent for religon

[m234ism]

In my experience, being an atheist in Canadia isn't an issue, as it seems to be more in US from what I've been seeing and hearing. Here, people seem to look silly, mentioning church or God in a secular setting. No one bats an eye when I mention that I'm an atheist. I think it shows more maturity and integrity to say you're an atheist, because you probably came to this position out of reason, and not indoctrination.

[AlanCanon2222]

Talk starts at 5:44 if you want to skip the intro.

[henkvanderlaak]

I keep hearing: "See if I care!" i.s.o. "CFI Canada" :-)

[FUCKyourGODmyth]

The best thing about being an atheist is the intrinsic advantage it gives us. Our ability to embrace reality gives us an incredible advantage over all the delusional people who can't fully grasp the world as it is. Our beliefs influence the decisions that affect our lives. If our beliefs are flawed, so will our decisions be also. The disadvantages of delusional beliefs vary just like the spectrum of false beliefs. The more false beliefs one has, the more skewed one's thinking becomes.

[saristaa1]

There is a movie called, "Fairytale: A True Story" which proves fairies exist. :) After being born again as fairy enthusiast, I have made it my goal to tell everyone about it. I walk from door to door with wings on my back and hand out pretty cards with invitations to my tea party. They are covered in glitter and pretty ribbons. I hand them out to everyone. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE, THE FAIRIES WILL CURSE YOU!

[Airlightf]

Simple.

[Airlightf]

What book ?

[Airlightf]

I ALONE Who

Does ALL THESE THINGS

I bring forward Life

And put an end to it

And to everything.

[Airlightf]

Listen Give ear to this GOD the Creator Of Everything Who created you; the Universe and The World--Saith So I the LORD WHO Formed DARKNESS CREATED LIGHT And-the-LUMINARIAS Made Day And NIGHT

[Airlightf]

"21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. "

[AtheistBrit]

Bible quotes aren't evidence. If they were, we could write anything we wanted and by claiming it was "divine" it'd have to be accepted. You don't see scientists doing that, only the religious.

[Airlightf]

Homosexuality is a direct result of natural selection and mutation.

[ashraghil]

Airlightf, could you elaborate about your statement about homosexuality being a direct result of natural selection and mutation?

Does that mean youre confirming that natural selection in combination with mutations actually occur?

What exactly about it results in homosexuality? I am sure you got articles about genetics that are backing that argument up, do you?

[Airlightf]

That's all I can tell you. I am sorry I am not allow to give more information on that.

[ashraghil]

After reading the excerpts you posted I can see the truth now. Finally everything makes sense. Really a deductive thread of thought that explains and proofs that a supernatural being created us all.

Have you any specific information about the date when he will come to put an end to us? Because right before he does I would like to tell him, that after having read the Old Testament he simple disgusts me.

[Airlightf]

He's already putting an end to everyone, that's why we all die. And he has put an end to your evil impulse. If you disgust Jesus he also will disgust you he said.

[ashraghil]

Thanks for clearing that up - we all need people like you with a direct wire to god and/or Jesus and/or the holy ghost. Otherwise we would have to invent our own interpretation about how he created the world and how he will deal with us in the future and about what he said and what he didn`t say.

So, having read your explanation it suffices to reject Jesus right now and he won`t bother you anymore? Could you PLEASE tell your children about that? Maybe they would want to leave christianity then.

[Airlightf]

That's your choice ...My children know everything about Jesus. They love Jesus but they are not christians since our Teacher is God. And God has no religion or belong to a particular ....

[Slickback83]

jesus used to eat poop. dats nasty.

[ashraghil]

@Airlightf I am SO relieved that your children are not christians. For a moment I worried that they were one of those, who think the bible was actually a science book....wait...they do, am I right?

Well....I am afraid you and your family are lost in religion...and I am sure you see it completely different...you are some dangerous individuum '- if it helped I would even pray in order to open your eyes...

[Airlightf]

@ashraghil No, no, no. Look, my child, my eyes are wide open and my children's too. We don't get lost in religion,son.

[ashraghil]

I am afraid I am not your son. So I am not sure which "children" you are talking about. And I am not sure if "wide open" helps anything if you choose to be blind....

[Airlightf]

I will prove to you, athiests, that you are blind just like my blind friends who won't accept the facts that there are stars in the skies.

[skippydeenice]

@Airlightf ok prove your God exists, i bet you can't

[tuseroni]

geeze put this cfi notice in the side bar....that was a waste of 1:38

[d60dfath3r]

why would they sponsor this if they werent going to get exposure? i agree though, waste of my time

[Airlightf]

yeah, they say also say our ancestors had a very long tail, but since our ancestors weren't using them, they became tailless.Now, athiests will loose their brain(most of them are loosing their brain already) cause they don't use them. For god's sake, how can they believe our ancestors were mokies??!?!

[dreadpiratedan]

i assume you've not read any books on evolution, or taken more than a glance at any videos on evolution here on youtube.

if you'd like to learn more about how evolution works, i'd recommend starting with the AronRa, potholer54 and thunderf00t channels and going from there.

if you're a creationist who has no real interest in understanding evolutionary theory feel free to ignore my comment and please don't respond.

[Airlightf]

Thank you. Checkout my comments on one of AronRa's video: 'Where did EVERYTHING come from?'

[rtarbinar]

@dreadpiratedan don't forget cdk007! ;)

[rogan71]

Airlightf - As with all bronze age theorists, you miss the point...We SHARE a common ancestry with monkeys, doesn't mean we are a direct descendant....Science doesn't stop looking. That's what sets it apart from religious belief, which doesn't look at all. Your rationale is if it's not a dog then it must be a cat!

[Darw1n1st]

Our ancesters weren't monkies perse. We share a common ancestor with monkies. That's saying the 'monkies' ancestors and ours were one in the same.

[Airlightf]

@Darw1n1st -I am sorry but what the heck?! Our ancestors weren't monkies but "monkies' " ancestors and ours were the same? -Anyway, if your(humans') ancestors and monkies' ancestors were monkies, why did they stayied monkies(didn't become human beings) and us became so diferent from them? Why?

[Darw1n1st]

you repeat what i said which i assume you understood then you repeat your mistake also, what gives?

modern monkies' ancestors and our ancestors were the same yes. you got it right in your first statement (question) then you go back and say that they 'the modern monkies' stayed the same. no they didn't. listen. we both had the same ancestor, we evolved to become us and modern monkies evolved to become how they are today. Our ancestors were different than both us humans and modern monkies.

[Airlightf]

@Darw1n1st No, I ask you a retoric question. If we both had the same ancestors, why is it that we look so different from monkies?!? Sorry, I don't get that! Thank you though

[AtheistBrit]

Humans and modern apes (chimps, gorillas etc) are all descended from a common ancestor. Species diverge like this because of natural selection (for example, 2 populations of the same species are separated and don't interbreed, possibly by continental drift or environmental factors), and these 2 different environments mean that different genetic mutations provide an advantage in each. E.g. 2 populations of apes are separated, one lives in forest and another in open plains. Both sets experience...

[AtheistBrit]

... random mutations (as does every animal), but different mutations survive in each of the 2 groups because different advantages/disadvantages are at work. Suppose a random mutation for slightly longer legs occurred - in the forest population this may not be advantageous, but in the plains population it means they'd run a bit faster, escape predators and catch prey, so they'd survive better and pass these genes on. Eventually the differences are so great that they become separate species.

[Airlightf]

omg -"random mutation and natural selection" are so irrational and unscientific. Has anyone seen a "random mutation" occur?

[AtheistBrit]

Yes, in fact you have about 50-100 of them in your own genes.

[Airlightf]

@AtheistBrit "God didn't create each animal separately, God didn't create any individual animal" Can you prove this with evidence?

[AtheistBrit]

Yes, evolution is evidence. And not replying to me directly in the hopes I wouldn't check back you coward.

[QuadError]

Yes, my particular favourite is in testing materials for carcinogenic qualities. This particular test can even act as a rebuttal to the "but does it increase the information" argument.

[Airlightf]

God created each animal separately ? How can you or anyone believe Darwins' fantasies???How? how can that be possible?!!?that's just insane!

[AtheistBrit]

God didn't create each animal separately, God didn't create any individual animal. If you don't understand how evolution can be possible, that doesn't make the theory of evolution false (that's known as "the argument from personal incredulity"). There are lots of great books that explain it way better than I can, I suggest you read a few because it might help you get your head around it. :)

[Airlightf]

@AtheistBrit Books like this one?: The Evolution Deceit: The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism and Its Ideological Background by Harun Yahya :)

[ashraghil]

No, he meant books written by scientists, not written by conspiracy theorists.

And it doesn't surprise me that you are so afraid of evolution, given the kind of literature you are obviously reading.

[AtheistBrit]

Well I'm a "she", but thanks! lol Yes, I meant books written by qualified scientists who know what they're talking about.

[Airlightf]

@AtheistBrit So you want to read books written by evolutionists and believe everything they say?

[ashraghil]

No, just reading. The "believing everything they say"-stuff is reseverved for religious books. Just read them for a start.

[AtheistBrit]

No, I don't believe things just because they're written in books. I only accept things as true when sufficient evidence is presented in such books.

And for the record, there have been a few things in a few books that I haven't entirely agreed with.

[Airlightf]

@Airlightf 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so"

[Airlightf]

Athiests think just because foxes eat chickens too, we are related to them. Duh

. They cannot see anything that is similiar in shape, ... 'cause they right away make false asumptions

[elsuperjeffe]

time for your meds.

[Airlightf]

time for you to shut up

[SirPwn4lot]

1. Only Creationists think we think that

2. Evolution is NOT synonymous with Atheism. Your Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury are both believers.

3. Don't just create assertions, please give some examples of these assumptions.

4. Creationists just make on false assumption, but it's the only one they use; GOD DID IT. Then they yell it as loud as they can.

[Airlightf]

These are the people who kill babies?

[visualkei72]

Yes, and we eat them afterward too. With placenta sauce. Sickle-celled mofugga.

[Airlightf]

You cowards!!! You shoul be ashame of yourselves. They should kill all those that kill INOCENT BABIES.

[visualkei72]

the baptized ones always taste yummier too >:D

[sustaincain]

Science is not the study of the necessary ultimate cause, for that, by science's own proofs, lies beyond its means or comprehension. Neither does any religion deny the observational comprehension of contingent and natural causes and effects. So what then do atheist or theist "undertones" matter? It is the sufficiency of the interpretation of available evidence that is the concern of science, not the attribution of ultimate cause.

[niginit]

Why does the sound quality always have to be sub-par?

[moewahba35]

useless until @5:37

[icilianfenner]

Thanks a lot mate :)

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@moewahba35 thanks, I think we can all agree that crazy drawn out introductions get old. I wish they'd do it in 30 seconds, it's not difficult, but I think some intro people really relish it.

[VulcanFleet]

@moewahba35 Thank you for that.

[a300pilotster]

thanks for posting.

[TheCuriousSkeptic]

Fix the link in the description by removing the period at the end of "...pharyngula."

It's also coffee "grinds" not "grins."

Sorry to be nit-picky, just FYI.