I can see that the common problem with Evolutionists as well as Atheists is that, because they got so intelligent about science, they always try to measure God in their own logical, personal and scientific ways. The thing here is, humans cannot measure God for He is immeasurable, he is infinite, no beginning and without end. He is the Almighty and ever Intelligent being who created us out of his own plan. So sad! Its like Nimrod that dares to challenge God after he got so high with his ego. :(
@eduardtube1980 "humans cannot measure God for He is immeasurable, he is infinite, no beginning and without end. He is the Almighty and ever Intelligent being who created us out of his own plan. So sad!"
Yes, it is sad that you people have to resort to Special Pleading to cover up the fact that you don't have any good reason whatsoever to believe what you do.
@shanedk oh yes, we do have a lot of reasons to believe. Its amazing how people only happen to discover things that were written in the Bible thousands of years before science became what it is today. A lot of things are now clear for us that answers the biggest questions like Why we are here? Why does life flourish ONLY in planet Earth? Why are we the most intelligent than animals, Why are things getting worse today? and Whats gonna happen next? Does science have answers to all that questions?
@eduardtube1980 "Its amazing how people only happen to discover things that were written in the Bible thousands of years before science became what it is today." [citation needed]
Many of your questions are invalid. We DON'T know that life ONLY flourishes here on Earth; in fact, there's almost certainly many other planets with life elsewhere in the Universe. And who says things are getting worse? People are living longer with higher-quality lives--thanks to SCIENCE, not your superstitious bull!
@shanedk "Its amazing how people only happen to discover things that were written in the Bible thousands of years before science became what it is today." [citation needed]. One of the biggest discoveries of modern science (as Edwin Hubble has seen on his Space Telescope) is that the Universe is expanding. That lead him as an astronomer, as well as other astronomers and scientists to the conclusion that our Universe had a beginning. Which is the very first statement in Genesis 1:1.
@eduardtube1980 Except when you get into the actual DETAILS of what it says, it gets everything LAUGHABLY wrong! (The Earth created before the sun and stars, plants created before the sun, etc.)
@shanedk How can you say that "it gets everything LAUGHABLY wrong!", you weren't there when God worked with Jesus during the creation. God made everything out of nothing. He established the laws of nature that governs everything in their right place and behavior. It is only logical to think that he only knows how everything really came to be, on whatever order he desires them to be. You and me are just a subatomic speck of dust compared to his knowledge that is beyond the universe itself.
@Acrimonator That is a good question. One answer that I can think of is that he lives in the spiritual dimension beyond our physical universe. That is where He is when he start with the creation of everything. But non-the-less, when you come face-to-face with God, you may ask Him that question. :)
@eduardtube1980 shut up you idiot. So what now you get to choose the dimensions of god? Classic religious lying and slithering. I will never ask god as he is non existant,
@itchygonads My friend, I hope you don't hold on that belief until you die because it is written. That the day will come when all the dead ones will be resurrected and will face God and be judged according to his deeds (while still living). Revelations 20:13. That will be the MAJOR shock of your life. God Bless you and your whole family, my dear friend.
@eduardtube1980 well no as you cannot quote from the bible to prove it...circular logic moron. But whatever i will let you satisfy your tiny brain.....Well done! aw your logic is soooo good! you must have a big boy brain (:
@shanedk "Many of your questions are invalid." Says who? You? That is not what rational scientists have in mind. A lot have actually asked the same questions and some of them already found the answers through science. Now to say that "We DON'T know that life ONLY flourishes here on Earth; in fact, there's almost certainly many other planets with life elsewhere in the Universe." Is no where near a conclusive evidence. Give us your proof to back-up your claim.
@eduardtube1980 I don't NEED conclusive evidence to show that the invalid assumption is, in fact, an invalid assumption! Unless YOU can prove that there is ABSOLUTELY NO LIFE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE, the question is invalid.
@shanedk "I don't NEED conclusive evidence to show that the invalid assumption is, in fact, an invalid assumption!" See? you make conclusions out of your imagination! We, Christians don't just believe in an imaginary God. God is a personal spiritual and intellectual being. We are being backed-up by the best scientists known to man to prove to you guys that the universe, and everything in it was created. That there was a Creator. That God created everything including you. God Bless.
@shanedk "And who says things are getting worse? People are living longer with higher-quality lives--thanks to SCIENCE" Yes, science have made a lot of improvements in human life, but what you didn't mention is the negative implications of these breakthroughs that is harming a lot of us today. The modernization and industrialization has punched holes in our ozone layer. Modern food processing gave people cancer. The military keeps on producing weapons of mass destruction....
@eduardtube1980 There are more humans than ever before, they are living longer than ever before, and they are richer than ever before all thanks to scientific advancement and industrialization.
And we can claim that "there is almost certainly life elsewhere" on account of just how many stars there are in the Universe. If only one in a billion has life then there are 500 examples of alien life in the Milky Way alone and 500 billion examples across the Universe.
@bluecode320 Actually, by my quick figuring, if one in a billion stars has a planet with life, then given the current estimation for stars in the universe there are 700 TRILLION examples.
Amazing how easy it is to UNDERestimate this kind of thing!
@bluecode320 & @shanedk, My friends, the numbers are just logical implications based on mathematical assumptions. But it is not just the numbers that is the single factor to conclude that life also exists in other planets. The perfect conditions of the Earth like the our location in the Milky Way, the Heliosheath, the orbit, tilt, the layers of our Atmosphere, The cycles of nature, the gravity, size, moon etc, all contribute to the reason why the Earth is thriving with living creatures.
@eduardtube1980 No, they don't. This has actually been STUDIED. The reason why life counts on those things here is because life EVOLVED here. But if you look at the work of Victor Stenger and Fred Adams, you'll see that, not only can we expect life in lots of different places and configurations in THIS universe, but lots of OTHER, different universes as well!
I have to admit that ID is a brilliant back door or end around strategy. It appeals to common sense. The ID supporter just points out that the biological machine and says it sure looks like a motor. This is too complex to just happen by accident. It is an appeal to to common man in a common sense way. Of course it is rubbish but the common sense appeal is a great marketing strategy. Kind of like of course the sun goes around the earth, just watch it. Defend real Science!
"Evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life...." Perhaps. But it does not even begin to explain the origin of life. You tout "science" as if science is something that exists in sovereignty apart from the intellectual musings of man. Yeah, right. We have yet to see science empirically demonstrate one single example of the formation of even the simplest cell or amino acids. Evolution requires way more faith than Design. Besides, for all you know maybe evolution is the design?LOLLMAO
@soundchaser59 "But it does not even begin to explain the origin of life."
Because it's not ABOUT the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. Evolution is a theory of biology, whereas abiogenesis is a theory of chemistry. Two entirely different fields of science.
"We have yet to see science empirically demonstrate one single example of the formation of even the simplest cell or amino acids."
We've seen the formation of 22 amino acids, as well as proto-cells.
you're missing something here. from the start of the religion, it has been believed that God is eternal with no beginning or end. that belief has been around long before people started using logic and science to try and disprove the bible. you act as we say that as an excuse, but it's what people have believed for thousands of years.
@Fluffypopcicle Ancient beliefs were founded without an underlying understanding of how the world works. They were making the best guess that they could. That's not to insult them or anything; we stand on their shoulders, but even though you could argue that they needed a belief in astrology to boost research into astronomy, or alchemy to boost chemistry, there came a time when science had to discard these underpinnings to advance our knowledge. Can you name ONE time it worked the other way?
the only scientists that had to completely abandon the theory of religion to advance is darwin. galileo was a christian and stephen hawking called him the most important scientist of all time.
@Fluffypopcicle Besides, if it's only Darwin, then how come so many creationists spend so much time trying to disprove Einstein and much of cosmology, geology, radiology, and other non-Darwinian theories that threaten their religion?
they don't. creationists don't try t o disprove those things, they find ways to fit it into their religion which doesn't always work. you're also pretty looney if you think radiology threatens religion in any way shape or form. it doesn't. galileo's discoveries didn't conflict with religion, they conflicted with the misconceptions of their own religion that isn't even part of their religion. galileo was also crucial in astronomy.
@Fluffypopcicle Well, astronomy and the laws of motion are inextricably intertwined. As for the conflict, see my video, "A Trip Around Orion" for how the people who wrote the Bible viewed the universe.
*sighs* i have made this mistake before so i am just going to stop now. what i mean by that is that i left my religious opinions on things on several different videos and was bombarded with comments about why i am wrong, stupid etc. and for some reason i made that mistake again. religious arguments over the internet go nowhere, i should have taken that into consideration.
@Fluffypopcicle Oh, look: another pathetic creationist LIE. There are LOTS of arguments against your dogma. Don't go blaming others just because you have no response to them!
you try responding to 6 angry atheists every time you log onto your youtube account. it isn't pleasant. you should go on a video called "lee strobel on richard dawkings and the god delusion" where i admitted that i had nothing against the person i was arguing with. i admitted defeat. i would have done so replying to you if you had actually bested me, but you didn't. i just wanted out all this arguing because it's too much for me to take on all these people at once.
@shanedk i looked them up and all those experiments proved was that 11/20 amino acids needed for life could be made through natural events. it said NOTHING about the 100+ proteins a single cell needs to survive, many of which the cell produces. it also said NOTHING about the other 9 amino acids. how were these (the proteins and the other 9 amino acids) formed?
i've caught evolutionists lying to me before bud. and what i read was clearly 11/20. not 22. should i quote what i found?
"Proteins are MADE OF AMINO ACIDS, you idiot!!!"
that doesn't answer anything. as i have already said, there are quite a few proteins that ONLY CAN BE MADE BY THE ORGANISM! without these proteins, the organism would DIE!
The video fails on this one account - the designer must be as complex as we are. That is not something that can be proven. If an ultimate supernatural being exists that is not subject to the processes that he utilizes to create, then there is no justification for subjugating such a being to processes that don't even apply to him. So, the video fails because it does not in any way invalidate the appearance of design by attacking the proposed designer. That amounts to a strawman argument...
@JoelJW That's THEIR claim. The moment they acknowledge that something more complex can be formed by something less complex, their entire argument falls apart.
God exist look at your bodies it evidence,u have nose to breath,eyes to see,holes in your butt to empty waste,someone was ovbiloulsy thinking of us.But we have become a know it all society,God is coming wheter you belive it or like it,Keep letting Satan lie to you,it will lead you to hell.
@ani1616 You have multiple anuses? Let's think about it. Say the human body is like a machine. Well it's a poorly designed machine 1. the eyes. They take in the view of an image upside down and then flip it. Not to mention they are very prone to malfunctioning. 2. the genitals. These expel both the means to reproduce, and also expel waste. 3. the jaw. it's too small to house all of our teeth. 4. illness. Very prone to getting sick. If god did design humans, he did a poor job.
We can't see in the dark, there are people who are blind, color blind, and many people have other problems with vision. Illness is a significant issue as well. We can't breath underwater we can't fly without the aid of a plane or some other flying device, people are born with deformities and serious other problems, our brains are also far from perfect since people with mental illness are affected most by lunatic creationist rantings resulting in many high-profile crimes.
There is a BIG fallacy within your argument. Intelligent design does not say that stand alone complexity cannot have existed ad infinitum. It says that the high complexity that is throughout the universe could not have CAME INTO EXISTENCE by random chance.
Ok, it says that the high complexity that is throughout the universe is next to impossible to have CAME INTO EXISTENCE via the cause and effect of natural law.
@lchiddle No, the flaw is yours. We see spontaneous complexity in the universe ALL THE TIME. Far from next to impossible, it's practically inevitable!
@lchiddle No, it wasn't! I SHOWED THE GENETIC SEQUENCES! It's an ENTIRELY NEW GENE, from start codon to stop! It was the result of a frame shift, meaning it had NO amino acid sequences in common with the parent gene. NONE!
I even calculated how much new information was created.
And all you pathetic creationists can do about it--as usual--is LIE about it.
I'm talking about the information within the gene, not the makeup of the gene. If had a house but rearranged the bricks etc then I could construct an entirely new house, but the bricks etc would remain the same.
@lchiddle "I'm talking about the information within the gene"
SO AM I!!! The purpose of a gene is to form an amino acid sequence that results in a folded protein. The ENTIRE SEQUENCE is new--NONE of it is from the ancestral gene. NONE of it.
It is 100% new information, no matter how you look at it. DEAL with it.
I think evolution and the Big Bang are the best explanations science has for reality; I think they are plausible based on the evidence. I'm dubious about the supernatural and think the fundie Christian explanation for reality requires intentional ignorance. HOWEVER, you are making the same mistake as all other atheists who attack Intelligent Design -- you treat God as part of nature. ID says nothing NATURAL can be complex, eternal, etc. BY DEFINITION God is exempt from those requirements.
@gmsherry1953 Then they're dishonestly giving their God special dispensation.
If the laws of nature are local to the universe, then the Big Bang--by the same argument--cannot be "a part of nature." Yet, they're insisting it must be. Blatant Special Pleading.
@shanedk I don't understand your reply. Laws of nature, by definition, apply to nature -- to mass and energy. Those laws as we know them probably only DO apply to this Universe; the multi-universe theory posits different sets of laws for other Universes, doesn't it? The point is, God (if he exists) is not mass or energy; he is not part of Nature; he is supernatural, above nature, outside nature. Yes, it's a "cheat," it defines the problem away, but it's what they believe.
@gmsherry1953 "I don't understand your reply. Laws of nature, by definition, apply to nature -- to mass and energy."
Which were formed by the Big Bang, and therefore, by your definition, the Big Bang is NOT a part of nature and therefore doesn't need a cause any more than your God does.
@shanedk He's not my God; my argument is with the sufficiency of your logic. Mass, energy, the laws of nature all existed at the moment of the Big Bang -- whether they existed before then, who knows? My point is that you cannot go backwards through the chain of effect and cause, and reach a point in NATURE where you no longer need a cause -- even for the Big Bang. Only by stepping outside nature do the theists find their causeless Cause. Without a God, we have to settle for not knowing.
@shanedk The Creator of the universe by definition cannot be bound by space/time/matter. If God created time, he is not bound by it, nor matter, or space. To assume the designer needs a designer requires an explanation because it fails logically?
@shanedk I disagree. If I hear pots and pans crashing to the floor and you say nothing caused that banging, I know you are wrong. For every action there is a cause, you may not know the cause but there was one. God is not a cause, so your analogy is lacking. Why does God require a designer when He being eternal outside of time cannot come into existence, and does not age.
@superbill2 Your ENTIRE argument is that God isn't subject to causality because he cannot be bound by space, time, and matter, because he created these things. But we KNOW that space, time, and matter were created in the Big Bang, so BY THE SAME EXTENSION the Big Bang isn't subject to causality, either.
This is all just bogus Special Pleading because you have no other justification for your fairy tale.
@shanedk The Big Bang is an action, not a being... To say the Big Bang was not a cause is to say that natural processes occur without an action....is this your belief? I doubt it. No matter how much you dislike the idea of an ID, when it comes down to it you are left either denying or ignorant of the fact that Big Bangs need a cause which is transcendent of time, space, and matter. Trying to apply this same argument to a transcendent being is just silly. An ID does not require a cause to exist.
@shanedk alrighty then....you've jumped off the deep end and admitted to a natural event having no natural cause. That by definition is a miracle! A supernatural event that cannot be reproduced. But you would like to take that one step farther then a miracle by denying even a supernatural intervention, by claiming (no cause whatsoever). If you want to believe that nothing caused the biggest explosion in the history of this universe, go ahead but that takes more faith then ID, and isnt scientific
Not to mention that I could have designed some parts of the human anatomy better. Knees and lower backs that fail in middle age? What creator gives their creation intentional flaws? And really, I could figure out a better way than menstruating. Of course, they say that is my punishment from an all loving god for something I didn't do.
Your argument has a problem. God is not stuck in the time stream. God created time. Problem solved. So now you people believe that matter is eternal? Lovely.
@dapakman22 Science has held that energy (of which one form is matter) is eternal for a very long time (c. 1850). It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. No theory, including the big bang, says that matter is not eternal. Nor does it say that the universe is not eternal. All that the big bang says is the universe had the form of a singularity containing all matter, energy and the 4 perceivable dimensions 13.7 billion years ago, and that it has undergone expansion since then.
@lhvinny Not quite. It says that the matter and energy came from the quantum foam in the early universe. The quantum foam essentially adds 1 in one place while subtracting 1 somewhere else, so you can get things like atoms and molecules out of nothing without violating the Conservation of Energy.
I find it irritating that when a creationist is asked "Then who created god?", they can reply with a straight face that "He has just always existed."
They feel the need to explain the universe with a magical deity, but are at once satisfied and don't feel that the deity itself needs further explanation. It's either a case of intellectual dishonesty or simple, simple minds.
@SkeksisRule How did the big bang occur? There's still a lot left to be told. Once humanity comes to the conclusion that we can all get along without need of being right, then there will be no wrong.
@shanedk Yeah.. Because the youtube browse page is filled with TONS of creationist videos about ponies. Stop blaming others and just get along like the rest of us.
Well, I suppose if false DMCA's, false flagging, votebots, thumbbots, disabling comments and video responses, lying to children qualify as "getting along", and speaking out about those things and trying to stop them are considered, "not getting along" then yes. :3
@Dyygn It doesn't matter to me how any of it got started, but I'm not the one claiming to have access to some magical, undeniable, perfect truth. The religious make those claims, and they freak out whenever someone opposes them. Conveniently though, they have no evidence to back up those claims. Faith is just incompatible with a rational mind.
@SkeksisRule I gotta ask: "Who cares?" I can believe in the magical unicorn all I want and it's true, for me. No one cares what you think or anyone else. Once you learn this ultimate truth, we can all get along.
@Dyygn Pfeh...you bleat on and on about how "there's no need to be right," and then try to insist that this guy accepts "this ultimate truth." How laughable!
@TheAnthrochocobo Except with evolution, there's no "bingo." There's no goal other than the immediate survival of the species. It's like a series of complete sculptures perpetually morphing one into the other.
@Surhotchaperchlorome None, largely because they don't even understand that evolution IS a designer, just a different kind of one. Their authoritarian brains can't handle the concept.
Wow, I am an atheist but that logic is based on a severly flawed understanding and complete misinterpretation of the argument you're trying to debate. Take this down, it's absolutely moronic.
What about it is a misinterpretation? The ID theory says that for certain levels of complexity to exist, they require a designer, otherwise they could not exist. Shane points out that while in this "theory" one would accept that such things could not exist without a designer, but does not account for how this designer can exist without an outside cause. If you're going to call something "moronic" it helps to give a more detailed explanation of why it is so.
that creationista attribute this infinicty (I don't even know if that's a real word! :D) to God rather than simply to the universe is neither here nor there. To sumarise, both creationists and evolutionists believe in the same principal to a start point/infinity - just one believes it was by a 'supernatural' God, the other believes it's down to 'chance'/nature/whatever. No belief system is disproved by this video. Take care.
It is simply not true that the fact that creationists have an 'opt-out' for the normal rules that govern the creation is self-crontradictory to their belief. Whether you are a creationists, evolutionist or a beliver in any other philospohy, you must accept that if the universe started at some point that SOMETHING came from nothing to kick-start the whole thing, even if it was one single cell or even less. The alternative is that the universe is infinate and so had no start point. The fact
Almost right. The one point you missed is that evolution requires some random chance. Mutations caused by errors that occur randomly in DNA are an important part of evolution.
There are other websites and videos that have tried to make the same arguments this guy has, and other websites and videos that show this guy's logical fallacy:
Straw man argument--which is an argument used when one does not understand the argument of the other side, sets up his own argument for them, and then attacks it.
Before you get force fed this stuff, I'd highly recommend getting both sides of issue.
Great. Why don't you then explain the argument you're trying to make that you claim shanedk is strawmanning? 'Cause his presentation of ID theory is more or less what I've heard from most of its proponents. The whole "How can you have a painting without a painter" argument.
i don't believe in evolution because i know its true and is there is no more evidence to support gravity than evolution and if we said gravity didn't exist or is only possible then,theoreticaly, i can float around where ever i want
BTW it takes a certain amount of lack of intelligence to keep trying the same agruments that only the ones that are even dumber than youself would buy into.
You can't argue that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than magic man, when everybody with even a remote understanding of how the scientific world works just makes a big palmface. They build their knowledge one block at a time and won't trust anything other than what they know. Faith is just not applicable!!!!!!!!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
it takes far more faith to believe in the theory of evolution which i remind you will never answer questions of whence or wither. science can not explain the "simple cell", DNA, the birth of a child, etc. try as they may, it's all just a theory- electricity too. furthermore its finite knowledge in a finite existence which is laughable at best. think about all the question marks that surrround your life in a world without god.
yes its very easy to say "god did it" isn't it but it gives no further information about the world around us its simply a cop out in order to avoid answering the difficult questions.
And "god did it" isnt even a properargument as you could easily say "a wizard did it" or a "titan did it" it doesnt explain anything it is the absence of an explanation
and btw science can explain the things youve listed
Think about all the question marks that would be straightened out to exclamation marks if you don't start with all the answers and answere them with "magic man done it!" which leads you nowhere. Sience does not have all the answers, but compared to the bible they have made progress at least. the bible is a dead end street, and it's fading. There is no future for obsolete solutions and valuse so your world is sinking. But you can maybe build another ark
@Matthus8888 remember, people don't understand the use of the word "theory". Creationism is only a hypothesis, and hasn't passed scientific scrutiny to be a theory. There's the theory of gravity, etc., there's even music theory. It tells us how things work together in predictable ways, etc.
correct 338- someone knows. but you dont- yet you still wholefully accept it. i made my point which in your emotion of anger you completely missed. point being that just because you don't understand it does not mean you can not accept it. point made- point confirmed. thats electric
oh well- i tried. it is interesting to note though that the same book that predicted 710 years before christs appearance to the exact city from which he came, predicts he will also come again. other prophecy confirms that in the last days there will come scoffers who will say what god- where is the promise of his coming? best of luck to you all. and may you come to him with a humble heart asking forgiveness
if you wish to dig your hole deeper just keep trying to play your childish games. who wrote the bible is probably the worst possible question you could retort with. the fact of the matter is that until you humble your own intellect and lose your "wise" pride, there's NO evidence i can present to convince you of the "isness" of god. God will cater to the HONEST seeking heart, but he does NOT do tricks for the arrogant. And he is in no way obligated to satisfy your curiosity.
sorry youve just resorted to rambling here were asking you to provide evidence for your claims but youve already admitted you have none and cannot explain to us what you are talking about so why are you continuing to speak here?
"Worst question he could retort with"? WHY? Case and point, PLEASE. What's your logical reasoning behind that statement? And what you said at the end is that god only displays himself to stupid people who already believe in him without ANY proof, but he's too pussy to show himself to a skeptic who uses his fuckin brain and decides not to believe in shit that he doesn't have the slightest reason to believe in.
gods word declaring it is good enough for me. and just because you and I cannot rationaly explain to one another how that is, apart from divinity, does not mean that we can't accept it. You dont understand how a brown cow eats green grass, produces white milk, and yellow butter is made, but these things are. you probably cannott explain how electricity works but you dont choose to sit in the dark do you?
But what you're relying on is not god's word. You're relying on what humans tell you is god's word.
Different colours in nature can be explained by physics I'd say. What, did you think the milk had to be brown cause the cow's hairs are? And grass is green cause it's got chlorophyll in it, I doubt that gets transferred directly to the milk. Nothing miraculous about it.
And we can see that electricity works, that's why we believe it. And many people know how it works.
"You probably cannot explain how electricity works". No, BUT SOMEONE ELSE CAN! JUST LIKE SOMEONE SOMEWHERE KNOWS EXACTLY HOW BROWN COWS EAT GREEN GRASS AND MAKE WHITE MILK! If you really want the entire fucking sequence of chemical changes that lead to substances that reflect all those different colors, go ahead and look it up. Talk about sitting in the dark, you act like everything is a god damn mystery, when it's ALREADY BEEN SOLVED!
sure- however you want to slice it, you have a sense of oughtness; or what ought to be. and if something ought not be, you have a sense of that as well. Now where would this sense of oughtness come from? its called a conscience! god has also revealed himself to you through your conscious which you have admitted to possessing. If this is not evidence for being made with a knowledge of God, then at what point does your evolution make an attempt to explain where ones conscience comes from?
yes of course- just convenient non-sense that everbody including yourself organize your life by. well then- do you accept that there are things in this wolrd that are good and evil- or do you call it right and wrong?
Cool vid!
I've another question for creationists: If there is an intelligent designer, why do humans have an appendix and a tailbone?
loveyouxxaniek 3 months ago
I can see that the common problem with Evolutionists as well as Atheists is that, because they got so intelligent about science, they always try to measure God in their own logical, personal and scientific ways. The thing here is, humans cannot measure God for He is immeasurable, he is infinite, no beginning and without end. He is the Almighty and ever Intelligent being who created us out of his own plan. So sad! Its like Nimrod that dares to challenge God after he got so high with his ego. :(
eduardtube1980 9 months ago
@eduardtube1980 "humans cannot measure God for He is immeasurable, he is infinite, no beginning and without end. He is the Almighty and ever Intelligent being who created us out of his own plan. So sad!"
Yes, it is sad that you people have to resort to Special Pleading to cover up the fact that you don't have any good reason whatsoever to believe what you do.
shanedk 9 months ago 2
@shanedk oh yes, we do have a lot of reasons to believe. Its amazing how people only happen to discover things that were written in the Bible thousands of years before science became what it is today. A lot of things are now clear for us that answers the biggest questions like Why we are here? Why does life flourish ONLY in planet Earth? Why are we the most intelligent than animals, Why are things getting worse today? and Whats gonna happen next? Does science have answers to all that questions?
eduardtube1980 9 months ago
@eduardtube1980 "Its amazing how people only happen to discover things that were written in the Bible thousands of years before science became what it is today." [citation needed]
Many of your questions are invalid. We DON'T know that life ONLY flourishes here on Earth; in fact, there's almost certainly many other planets with life elsewhere in the Universe. And who says things are getting worse? People are living longer with higher-quality lives--thanks to SCIENCE, not your superstitious bull!
shanedk 9 months ago 2
Comment removed
eduardtube1980 6 months ago
@shanedk "Its amazing how people only happen to discover things that were written in the Bible thousands of years before science became what it is today." [citation needed]. One of the biggest discoveries of modern science (as Edwin Hubble has seen on his Space Telescope) is that the Universe is expanding. That lead him as an astronomer, as well as other astronomers and scientists to the conclusion that our Universe had a beginning. Which is the very first statement in Genesis 1:1.
eduardtube1980 6 months ago
@eduardtube1980 Except when you get into the actual DETAILS of what it says, it gets everything LAUGHABLY wrong! (The Earth created before the sun and stars, plants created before the sun, etc.)
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk How can you say that "it gets everything LAUGHABLY wrong!", you weren't there when God worked with Jesus during the creation. God made everything out of nothing. He established the laws of nature that governs everything in their right place and behavior. It is only logical to think that he only knows how everything really came to be, on whatever order he desires them to be. You and me are just a subatomic speck of dust compared to his knowledge that is beyond the universe itself.
eduardtube1980 6 months ago
@eduardtube1980 And how did this god occupy his eternity before creating, well, everything ?
Acrimonator 5 months ago
@Acrimonator That is a good question. One answer that I can think of is that he lives in the spiritual dimension beyond our physical universe. That is where He is when he start with the creation of everything. But non-the-less, when you come face-to-face with God, you may ask Him that question. :)
eduardtube1980 5 months ago
@eduardtube1980 shut up you idiot. So what now you get to choose the dimensions of god? Classic religious lying and slithering. I will never ask god as he is non existant,
itchygonads 4 months ago
@itchygonads My friend, I hope you don't hold on that belief until you die because it is written. That the day will come when all the dead ones will be resurrected and will face God and be judged according to his deeds (while still living). Revelations 20:13. That will be the MAJOR shock of your life. God Bless you and your whole family, my dear friend.
eduardtube1980 4 months ago
@eduardtube1980 well no as you cannot quote from the bible to prove it...circular logic moron. But whatever i will let you satisfy your tiny brain.....Well done! aw your logic is soooo good! you must have a big boy brain (:
happy? idiot.
itchygonads 4 months ago
@shanedk "Many of your questions are invalid." Says who? You? That is not what rational scientists have in mind. A lot have actually asked the same questions and some of them already found the answers through science. Now to say that "We DON'T know that life ONLY flourishes here on Earth; in fact, there's almost certainly many other planets with life elsewhere in the Universe." Is no where near a conclusive evidence. Give us your proof to back-up your claim.
eduardtube1980 6 months ago
@eduardtube1980 I don't NEED conclusive evidence to show that the invalid assumption is, in fact, an invalid assumption! Unless YOU can prove that there is ABSOLUTELY NO LIFE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE, the question is invalid.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk "I don't NEED conclusive evidence to show that the invalid assumption is, in fact, an invalid assumption!" See? you make conclusions out of your imagination! We, Christians don't just believe in an imaginary God. God is a personal spiritual and intellectual being. We are being backed-up by the best scientists known to man to prove to you guys that the universe, and everything in it was created. That there was a Creator. That God created everything including you. God Bless.
eduardtube1980 6 months ago
@eduardtube1980 "We are being backed-up by the best scientists"
Please, give us some names...
Acrimonator 5 months ago
@shanedk "And who says things are getting worse? People are living longer with higher-quality lives--thanks to SCIENCE" Yes, science have made a lot of improvements in human life, but what you didn't mention is the negative implications of these breakthroughs that is harming a lot of us today. The modernization and industrialization has punched holes in our ozone layer. Modern food processing gave people cancer. The military keeps on producing weapons of mass destruction....
eduardtube1980 6 months ago
@eduardtube1980 There are more humans than ever before, they are living longer than ever before, and they are richer than ever before all thanks to scientific advancement and industrialization.
And we can claim that "there is almost certainly life elsewhere" on account of just how many stars there are in the Universe. If only one in a billion has life then there are 500 examples of alien life in the Milky Way alone and 500 billion examples across the Universe.
bluecode320 6 months ago
@bluecode320 Actually, by my quick figuring, if one in a billion stars has a planet with life, then given the current estimation for stars in the universe there are 700 TRILLION examples.
Amazing how easy it is to UNDERestimate this kind of thing!
shanedk 6 months ago
@bluecode320 & @shanedk, My friends, the numbers are just logical implications based on mathematical assumptions. But it is not just the numbers that is the single factor to conclude that life also exists in other planets. The perfect conditions of the Earth like the our location in the Milky Way, the Heliosheath, the orbit, tilt, the layers of our Atmosphere, The cycles of nature, the gravity, size, moon etc, all contribute to the reason why the Earth is thriving with living creatures.
eduardtube1980 5 months ago
@eduardtube1980 No, they don't. This has actually been STUDIED. The reason why life counts on those things here is because life EVOLVED here. But if you look at the work of Victor Stenger and Fred Adams, you'll see that, not only can we expect life in lots of different places and configurations in THIS universe, but lots of OTHER, different universes as well!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk cont.... And life expectancy / mortality is now getting lower and lower. Thanks to Science!
eduardtube1980 6 months ago
@eduardtube1980 That is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. So it seems you're just another religious wackjob LIAR.
shanedk 6 months ago
pi. infinity. the golden ratio. sacred geometry?
shreddingNBD 10 months ago
Nice music!
ManOfDeath567 1 year ago
I have to admit that ID is a brilliant back door or end around strategy. It appeals to common sense. The ID supporter just points out that the biological machine and says it sure looks like a motor. This is too complex to just happen by accident. It is an appeal to to common man in a common sense way. Of course it is rubbish but the common sense appeal is a great marketing strategy. Kind of like of course the sun goes around the earth, just watch it. Defend real Science!
jim6584 1 year ago
"Evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life...." Perhaps. But it does not even begin to explain the origin of life. You tout "science" as if science is something that exists in sovereignty apart from the intellectual musings of man. Yeah, right. We have yet to see science empirically demonstrate one single example of the formation of even the simplest cell or amino acids. Evolution requires way more faith than Design. Besides, for all you know maybe evolution is the design?LOLLMAO
soundchaser59 1 year ago
@soundchaser59 "But it does not even begin to explain the origin of life."
Because it's not ABOUT the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. Evolution is a theory of biology, whereas abiogenesis is a theory of chemistry. Two entirely different fields of science.
"We have yet to see science empirically demonstrate one single example of the formation of even the simplest cell or amino acids."
We've seen the formation of 22 amino acids, as well as proto-cells.
shanedk 1 year ago 12
@shanedk
you're missing something here. from the start of the religion, it has been believed that God is eternal with no beginning or end. that belief has been around long before people started using logic and science to try and disprove the bible. you act as we say that as an excuse, but it's what people have believed for thousands of years.
Fluffypopcicle 9 months ago
@Fluffypopcicle That doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes it all the more probable that it's completely wrong.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
that's nice, now explain why and then i will listen to you.
Fluffypopcicle 9 months ago
@Fluffypopcicle Ancient beliefs were founded without an underlying understanding of how the world works. They were making the best guess that they could. That's not to insult them or anything; we stand on their shoulders, but even though you could argue that they needed a belief in astrology to boost research into astronomy, or alchemy to boost chemistry, there came a time when science had to discard these underpinnings to advance our knowledge. Can you name ONE time it worked the other way?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
the only scientists that had to completely abandon the theory of religion to advance is darwin. galileo was a christian and stephen hawking called him the most important scientist of all time.
Fluffypopcicle 9 months ago
@Fluffypopcicle Newton was an alchemist. So what?
All Galileo did was discover some basic laws of motion. And even that conflicted with a LOT of people's religious beliefs at the time.
shanedk 9 months ago
@Fluffypopcicle Besides, if it's only Darwin, then how come so many creationists spend so much time trying to disprove Einstein and much of cosmology, geology, radiology, and other non-Darwinian theories that threaten their religion?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
they don't. creationists don't try t o disprove those things, they find ways to fit it into their religion which doesn't always work. you're also pretty looney if you think radiology threatens religion in any way shape or form. it doesn't. galileo's discoveries didn't conflict with religion, they conflicted with the misconceptions of their own religion that isn't even part of their religion. galileo was also crucial in astronomy.
Fluffypopcicle 9 months ago
@Fluffypopcicle Well, astronomy and the laws of motion are inextricably intertwined. As for the conflict, see my video, "A Trip Around Orion" for how the people who wrote the Bible viewed the universe.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
*sighs* i have made this mistake before so i am just going to stop now. what i mean by that is that i left my religious opinions on things on several different videos and was bombarded with comments about why i am wrong, stupid etc. and for some reason i made that mistake again. religious arguments over the internet go nowhere, i should have taken that into consideration.
Fluffypopcicle 9 months ago
@Fluffypopcicle Maybe they only go nowhere when the religious person in question refuses to consider the counterarguments. Have you considered that?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
maybe they go nowhere because of the constant insulting, usually from the atheist.
Fluffypopcicle 9 months ago
@Fluffypopcicle Oh, look: another pathetic creationist LIE. There are LOTS of arguments against your dogma. Don't go blaming others just because you have no response to them!
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
you try responding to 6 angry atheists every time you log onto your youtube account. it isn't pleasant. you should go on a video called "lee strobel on richard dawkings and the god delusion" where i admitted that i had nothing against the person i was arguing with. i admitted defeat. i would have done so replying to you if you had actually bested me, but you didn't. i just wanted out all this arguing because it's too much for me to take on all these people at once.
Fluffypopcicle 9 months ago
@Fluffypopcicle Oh, and WHY WOULD THEY BE ANGRY WITH YOU??? Gee, I have no clue at all...
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
because they can't listen to another opinion without getting really angry. just leave me alone, neither of us are accomplishing anything.
Fluffypopcicle 9 months ago
@Fluffypopcicle The first part of that comment is more projection. The second is the most intelligent thing you've said.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk "We've seen the formation of 22 amino acids"
if so, then how were they made?
sk1ll3tfr34k 8 months ago
@sk1ll3tfr34k Check out the Miller-Urey experiments that creationists love lying about so much.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk i looked them up and all those experiments proved was that 11/20 amino acids needed for life could be made through natural events. it said NOTHING about the 100+ proteins a single cell needs to survive, many of which the cell produces. it also said NOTHING about the other 9 amino acids. how were these (the proteins and the other 9 amino acids) formed?
sk1ll3tfr34k 8 months ago
@sk1ll3tfr34k Nope, 22 amino acids. Deal with it.
"it said NOTHING about the 100+ proteins"
Proteins are MADE OF AMINO ACIDS, you idiot!!!
shanedk 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk "Nope, 22 amino acids. Deal with it."
i've caught evolutionists lying to me before bud. and what i read was clearly 11/20. not 22. should i quote what i found?
"Proteins are MADE OF AMINO ACIDS, you idiot!!!"
that doesn't answer anything. as i have already said, there are quite a few proteins that ONLY CAN BE MADE BY THE ORGANISM! without these proteins, the organism would DIE!
sk1ll3tfr34k 8 months ago
@soundchaser59
you're a fucking goof ball. utterly ignorant.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
The video fails on this one account - the designer must be as complex as we are. That is not something that can be proven. If an ultimate supernatural being exists that is not subject to the processes that he utilizes to create, then there is no justification for subjugating such a being to processes that don't even apply to him. So, the video fails because it does not in any way invalidate the appearance of design by attacking the proposed designer. That amounts to a strawman argument...
JoelJW 1 year ago
@JoelJW That's THEIR claim. The moment they acknowledge that something more complex can be formed by something less complex, their entire argument falls apart.
shanedk 1 year ago 7
God exist look at your bodies it evidence,u have nose to breath,eyes to see,holes in your butt to empty waste,someone was ovbiloulsy thinking of us.But we have become a know it all society,God is coming wheter you belive it or like it,Keep letting Satan lie to you,it will lead you to hell.
ani1616 1 year ago
@ani1616
LOL bible basher.
DimebagAndrew 1 year ago
@ani1616
We also have brains to think... think about that!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@ani1616 You have multiple anuses? Let's think about it. Say the human body is like a machine. Well it's a poorly designed machine 1. the eyes. They take in the view of an image upside down and then flip it. Not to mention they are very prone to malfunctioning. 2. the genitals. These expel both the means to reproduce, and also expel waste. 3. the jaw. it's too small to house all of our teeth. 4. illness. Very prone to getting sick. If god did design humans, he did a poor job.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
@ani1616 Could you ask your god to come faster? You people have been saying this for the past 2000 years.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@ani1616
We can't see in the dark, there are people who are blind, color blind, and many people have other problems with vision. Illness is a significant issue as well. We can't breath underwater we can't fly without the aid of a plane or some other flying device, people are born with deformities and serious other problems, our brains are also far from perfect since people with mental illness are affected most by lunatic creationist rantings resulting in many high-profile crimes.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@ani1616
did u pay attention to the video AT ALL?
itzahazylife 10 months ago
Evolution is technical knowledge -it isn't for everyone: watch?v=xiwMdNPaxcg
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
There is a BIG fallacy within your argument. Intelligent design does not say that stand alone complexity cannot have existed ad infinitum. It says that the high complexity that is throughout the universe could not have CAME INTO EXISTENCE by random chance.
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle Well, then, since no scientific theory SAYS it came into existence by random chance, then ID is STILL wrong.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Ok, it says that the high complexity that is throughout the universe is next to impossible to have CAME INTO EXISTENCE via the cause and effect of natural law.
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle And they're WRONG.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Right or wrong, your argument is still FLAWED!!
lchiddle 1 year ago
@shanedk
Still, your word games don't takeaway the fact that you have a massive flaw in your argument.
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle No, the flaw is yours. We see spontaneous complexity in the universe ALL THE TIME. Far from next to impossible, it's practically inevitable!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
That doesn't change the fact that your argument is flaw.
Just out of interest have you an example of spontaneous complexity in the universe?
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle There are examples throughout my videos.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Can you pin point a single example please?
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle Nylonase.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Nylonase is not spontaneous complexity. It is borrowed complexity at the expense of other complexity.
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle WTF does that mean, "borrowed complexity"? It's the result of an ENTIRELY NEW GENE, start to finish. How is that NOT additional complexity?
Do you even KNOW how it happened? My video shows it in detail.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
It means that the supposed "new" information was not new but already existing.
/watch?v=dFb01D7Ya2k
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle No, it wasn't! I SHOWED THE GENETIC SEQUENCES! It's an ENTIRELY NEW GENE, from start codon to stop! It was the result of a frame shift, meaning it had NO amino acid sequences in common with the parent gene. NONE!
I even calculated how much new information was created.
And all you pathetic creationists can do about it--as usual--is LIE about it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
I'm talking about the information within the gene, not the makeup of the gene. If had a house but rearranged the bricks etc then I could construct an entirely new house, but the bricks etc would remain the same.
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle "I'm talking about the information within the gene"
SO AM I!!! The purpose of a gene is to form an amino acid sequence that results in a folded protein. The ENTIRE SEQUENCE is new--NONE of it is from the ancestral gene. NONE of it.
It is 100% new information, no matter how you look at it. DEAL with it.
shanedk 1 year ago
Have you seen the video response from creationliberty?
Looks like yet another Kent Hovind Wannabe.
In some of his other videos, I saw him trying to equivocate atheism and communism based on what some humanist organization said.
vspqbd 1 year ago
I think evolution and the Big Bang are the best explanations science has for reality; I think they are plausible based on the evidence. I'm dubious about the supernatural and think the fundie Christian explanation for reality requires intentional ignorance. HOWEVER, you are making the same mistake as all other atheists who attack Intelligent Design -- you treat God as part of nature. ID says nothing NATURAL can be complex, eternal, etc. BY DEFINITION God is exempt from those requirements.
gmsherry1953 1 year ago
@gmsherry1953 Then they're dishonestly giving their God special dispensation.
If the laws of nature are local to the universe, then the Big Bang--by the same argument--cannot be "a part of nature." Yet, they're insisting it must be. Blatant Special Pleading.
shanedk 1 year ago 2
@shanedk I don't understand your reply. Laws of nature, by definition, apply to nature -- to mass and energy. Those laws as we know them probably only DO apply to this Universe; the multi-universe theory posits different sets of laws for other Universes, doesn't it? The point is, God (if he exists) is not mass or energy; he is not part of Nature; he is supernatural, above nature, outside nature. Yes, it's a "cheat," it defines the problem away, but it's what they believe.
gmsherry1953 1 year ago
@gmsherry1953 "I don't understand your reply. Laws of nature, by definition, apply to nature -- to mass and energy."
Which were formed by the Big Bang, and therefore, by your definition, the Big Bang is NOT a part of nature and therefore doesn't need a cause any more than your God does.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk He's not my God; my argument is with the sufficiency of your logic. Mass, energy, the laws of nature all existed at the moment of the Big Bang -- whether they existed before then, who knows? My point is that you cannot go backwards through the chain of effect and cause, and reach a point in NATURE where you no longer need a cause -- even for the Big Bang. Only by stepping outside nature do the theists find their causeless Cause. Without a God, we have to settle for not knowing.
gmsherry1953 1 year ago
@gmsherry1953 "Mass, energy, the laws of nature all existed at the moment of the Big Bang"
No, they didn't. Go read up on the subject.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The Creator of the universe by definition cannot be bound by space/time/matter. If God created time, he is not bound by it, nor matter, or space. To assume the designer needs a designer requires an explanation because it fails logically?
superbill2 1 year ago
@superbill2 "The Creator of the universe by definition cannot be bound by space/time/matter."
By the same token, neither can the Big Bang itself. So if God doesn't need a designer, then the Big Bang doesn't need a cause.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I disagree. If I hear pots and pans crashing to the floor and you say nothing caused that banging, I know you are wrong. For every action there is a cause, you may not know the cause but there was one. God is not a cause, so your analogy is lacking. Why does God require a designer when He being eternal outside of time cannot come into existence, and does not age.
superbill2 1 year ago
@superbill2 Your ENTIRE argument is that God isn't subject to causality because he cannot be bound by space, time, and matter, because he created these things. But we KNOW that space, time, and matter were created in the Big Bang, so BY THE SAME EXTENSION the Big Bang isn't subject to causality, either.
This is all just bogus Special Pleading because you have no other justification for your fairy tale.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The Big Bang is an action, not a being... To say the Big Bang was not a cause is to say that natural processes occur without an action....is this your belief? I doubt it. No matter how much you dislike the idea of an ID, when it comes down to it you are left either denying or ignorant of the fact that Big Bangs need a cause which is transcendent of time, space, and matter. Trying to apply this same argument to a transcendent being is just silly. An ID does not require a cause to exist.
superbill2 1 year ago
@superbill2 "The Big Bang is an action, not a being."
So? Are beings intrinsically less susceptible to the chain of cause and effect than any other natural process?
NOTHING in the Big Bang requires a cause. NOTHING. And if you did a MODICUM of research on the subject--instead of LYING ABOUT IT--you'd know that.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk alrighty then....you've jumped off the deep end and admitted to a natural event having no natural cause. That by definition is a miracle! A supernatural event that cannot be reproduced. But you would like to take that one step farther then a miracle by denying even a supernatural intervention, by claiming (no cause whatsoever). If you want to believe that nothing caused the biggest explosion in the history of this universe, go ahead but that takes more faith then ID, and isnt scientific
superbill2 1 year ago
@superbill2 Thank you for showing that you're a liar with no interest in honest debate.
(And the Big Bang was NOT an explosion.)
shanedk 1 year ago
@superbill2
Yo, superbill2 I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but the Big Bang and Evolution show Genesis is bullshit, man. Total Bullshit.
:P
@Shane: I *heart* memes, I couldn't resist.
vspqbd 1 year ago
Not to mention that I could have designed some parts of the human anatomy better. Knees and lower backs that fail in middle age? What creator gives their creation intentional flaws? And really, I could figure out a better way than menstruating. Of course, they say that is my punishment from an all loving god for something I didn't do.
itbevee 1 year ago
God is outside of time. So you don't need infinite creators. You're assuming that the designer is part of the time stream. "Problem" solved.
dapakman22 1 year ago
@dapakman22 Not even CLOSE. See my video "'The God Delusion Refuted' Refuted."
shanedk 1 year ago
Your argument has a problem. God is not stuck in the time stream. God created time. Problem solved. So now you people believe that matter is eternal? Lovely.
dapakman22 1 year ago
@dapakman22 Science has held that energy (of which one form is matter) is eternal for a very long time (c. 1850). It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. No theory, including the big bang, says that matter is not eternal. Nor does it say that the universe is not eternal. All that the big bang says is the universe had the form of a singularity containing all matter, energy and the 4 perceivable dimensions 13.7 billion years ago, and that it has undergone expansion since then.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny Not quite. It says that the matter and energy came from the quantum foam in the early universe. The quantum foam essentially adds 1 in one place while subtracting 1 somewhere else, so you can get things like atoms and molecules out of nothing without violating the Conservation of Energy.
shanedk 1 year ago
@dapakman22
Who's ever said that "matter is eternal" other than theologic apologists? Certainly no physicist I know.
MsCoralline 1 year ago
@shanedk 'Cause I've never heard of it and silly internet wars are for trolls and people with no lives.
Dyygn 1 year ago
Who created god? It's turtles all the way down!
I find it irritating that when a creationist is asked "Then who created god?", they can reply with a straight face that "He has just always existed."
They feel the need to explain the universe with a magical deity, but are at once satisfied and don't feel that the deity itself needs further explanation. It's either a case of intellectual dishonesty or simple, simple minds.
SkeksisRule 1 year ago
@SkeksisRule How did the big bang occur? There's still a lot left to be told. Once humanity comes to the conclusion that we can all get along without need of being right, then there will be no wrong.
Dyygn 1 year ago
@Dyygn But the only people who aren't doing that are the creationists.
shanedk 1 year ago 3
@shanedk Yeah.. Because the youtube browse page is filled with TONS of creationist videos about ponies. Stop blaming others and just get along like the rest of us.
Dyygn 1 year ago
@Dyygn
Creationists get along?
Well, I suppose if false DMCA's, false flagging, votebots, thumbbots, disabling comments and video responses, lying to children qualify as "getting along", and speaking out about those things and trying to stop them are considered, "not getting along" then yes. :3
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome Purely subjective.
Dyygn 1 year ago
@Dyygn WTF is subjective about that? How can you excuse the creationist votebot and false-flag campaigns?
shanedk 1 year ago
@Dyygn It doesn't matter to me how any of it got started, but I'm not the one claiming to have access to some magical, undeniable, perfect truth. The religious make those claims, and they freak out whenever someone opposes them. Conveniently though, they have no evidence to back up those claims. Faith is just incompatible with a rational mind.
SkeksisRule 1 year ago
@SkeksisRule I gotta ask: "Who cares?" I can believe in the magical unicorn all I want and it's true, for me. No one cares what you think or anyone else. Once you learn this ultimate truth, we can all get along.
Dyygn 1 year ago
@Dyygn Pfeh...you bleat on and on about how "there's no need to be right," and then try to insist that this guy accepts "this ultimate truth." How laughable!
shanedk 1 year ago
@Dyygn There is no such thing as a subjective truth, or "true for me" as you put it. Just because you believe it does not make it true. Period.
SkeksisRule 1 year ago
@SkeksisRule wikipedia: Truth -- Truth is just a theory; there is no absolute truth. L2Facts.
Dyygn 1 year ago
@TheAnthrochocobo Except with evolution, there's no "bingo." There's no goal other than the immediate survival of the species. It's like a series of complete sculptures perpetually morphing one into the other.
shanedk 1 year ago 2
@shanedk There's no need to defend myself. I'm just saying what I think. Like it or lump it.
Dyygn 1 year ago
Emergence for the win! :D
So how many creationists accused you of worshipping "evolution" because you said that it "designed" life?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome None, largely because they don't even understand that evolution IS a designer, just a different kind of one. Their authoritarian brains can't handle the concept.
shanedk 1 year ago 2
Wow, I am an atheist but that logic is based on a severly flawed understanding and complete misinterpretation of the argument you're trying to debate. Take this down, it's absolutely moronic.
demizmo 2 years ago
@demizmo,
What about it is a misinterpretation? The ID theory says that for certain levels of complexity to exist, they require a designer, otherwise they could not exist. Shane points out that while in this "theory" one would accept that such things could not exist without a designer, but does not account for how this designer can exist without an outside cause. If you're going to call something "moronic" it helps to give a more detailed explanation of why it is so.
NAARandom 2 years ago
It's an ILLUSION of Logic, is all. I don't want to waste my time explaining. just scrutinize it objectively.
demizmo 2 years ago
Uh-huh, riiiight...
shanedk 2 years ago
To me "I won't explain why I'm calling this moronic" = "I can't explain it, so don't question me".
Once again: Which part is a misinterpretation?
NAARandom 2 years ago
that creationista attribute this infinicty (I don't even know if that's a real word! :D) to God rather than simply to the universe is neither here nor there. To sumarise, both creationists and evolutionists believe in the same principal to a start point/infinity - just one believes it was by a 'supernatural' God, the other believes it's down to 'chance'/nature/whatever. No belief system is disproved by this video. Take care.
tot1enham 2 years ago
It is simply not true that the fact that creationists have an 'opt-out' for the normal rules that govern the creation is self-crontradictory to their belief. Whether you are a creationists, evolutionist or a beliver in any other philospohy, you must accept that if the universe started at some point that SOMETHING came from nothing to kick-start the whole thing, even if it was one single cell or even less. The alternative is that the universe is infinate and so had no start point. The fact
tot1enham 2 years ago
Almost right. The one point you missed is that evolution requires some random chance. Mutations caused by errors that occur randomly in DNA are an important part of evolution.
Retact 2 years ago
There are other websites and videos that have tried to make the same arguments this guy has, and other websites and videos that show this guy's logical fallacy:
Straw man argument--which is an argument used when one does not understand the argument of the other side, sets up his own argument for them, and then attacks it.
Before you get force fed this stuff, I'd highly recommend getting both sides of issue.
Beware the sound of one hand clapping.
creationliberty 2 years ago
@creationliberty
which part/parts of your side of the argument did he set up?
Zentz29 2 years ago
@creationliberty,
Great. Why don't you then explain the argument you're trying to make that you claim shanedk is strawmanning? 'Cause his presentation of ID theory is more or less what I've heard from most of its proponents. The whole "How can you have a painting without a painter" argument.
NAARandom 2 years ago
Also, how is this "force-feeding"? It's a video on youtube. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch it.
NAARandom 2 years ago
@NAARandom I shouldn't have said force fed. That's correct, no one is forced to watch it.
creationliberty 2 years ago
i don't believe in evolution because i know its true and is there is no more evidence to support gravity than evolution and if we said gravity didn't exist or is only possible then,theoreticaly, i can float around where ever i want
MrEnrique223 2 years ago 12
BTW it takes a certain amount of lack of intelligence to keep trying the same agruments that only the ones that are even dumber than youself would buy into.
You can't argue that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than magic man, when everybody with even a remote understanding of how the scientific world works just makes a big palmface. They build their knowledge one block at a time and won't trust anything other than what they know. Faith is just not applicable!!!!!!!!!!
heyawhaw 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it takes far more faith to believe in the theory of evolution which i remind you will never answer questions of whence or wither. science can not explain the "simple cell", DNA, the birth of a child, etc. try as they may, it's all just a theory- electricity too. furthermore its finite knowledge in a finite existence which is laughable at best. think about all the question marks that surrround your life in a world without god.
bozenbros 2 years ago
yes its very easy to say "god did it" isn't it but it gives no further information about the world around us its simply a cop out in order to avoid answering the difficult questions.
And "god did it" isnt even a properargument as you could easily say "a wizard did it" or a "titan did it" it doesnt explain anything it is the absence of an explanation
and btw science can explain the things youve listed
excandersham 2 years ago
and btw i dont believe in evoloution i accept it as a valid explanation belief is not conscious
excandersham 2 years ago
Think about all the question marks that would be straightened out to exclamation marks if you don't start with all the answers and answere them with "magic man done it!" which leads you nowhere. Sience does not have all the answers, but compared to the bible they have made progress at least. the bible is a dead end street, and it's fading. There is no future for obsolete solutions and valuse so your world is sinking. But you can maybe build another ark
hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha
heyawhaw 2 years ago
What about the birth of a child cannot be explained by science?
Yes, there are many things that cannot be explained by science, but can belief in a god allow you to explain such things? I think not.
CrazyToastie 2 years ago
Does it take faith to believe in Gravity: no
Therefore it does not take faith to believe in Evolution.
Idiot.
Hiddeknight0 2 years ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hiddeknight0 Evolution is technical knowledge -it isn't for everyone: watch?v=xiwMdNPaxcg
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@Hiddeknight0
that's because gravity is a fact and only certain forms of evolution are true.
Fluffypopcicle 9 months ago
@bozenbros
Gravity's a theory too!
Guess that means we shouldn't trust that one either?
Matthus8888 2 years ago
@Matthus8888 remember, people don't understand the use of the word "theory". Creationism is only a hypothesis, and hasn't passed scientific scrutiny to be a theory. There's the theory of gravity, etc., there's even music theory. It tells us how things work together in predictable ways, etc.
RevSpike 1 year ago
correct 338- someone knows. but you dont- yet you still wholefully accept it. i made my point which in your emotion of anger you completely missed. point being that just because you don't understand it does not mean you can not accept it. point made- point confirmed. thats electric
bozenbros 2 years ago
we accept it because their position is based on evidence andexperimental testing
we dont accept your position as you go on faith and statements with no evidence
excandersham 2 years ago
oh well- i tried. it is interesting to note though that the same book that predicted 710 years before christs appearance to the exact city from which he came, predicts he will also come again. other prophecy confirms that in the last days there will come scoffers who will say what god- where is the promise of his coming? best of luck to you all. and may you come to him with a humble heart asking forgiveness
bozenbros 2 years ago
a religion which values belief over a persons practical application of helping others is not one i would ever accept and find incredibly immoral
and btw good luck to you too if any other religion is right btw pascals wager is a false logical standpoint
excandersham 2 years ago
So, a story book that predicted the validity of itself. Too bad that doesn't prove shit in the real world....
338dmac 2 years ago
if you wish to dig your hole deeper just keep trying to play your childish games. who wrote the bible is probably the worst possible question you could retort with. the fact of the matter is that until you humble your own intellect and lose your "wise" pride, there's NO evidence i can present to convince you of the "isness" of god. God will cater to the HONEST seeking heart, but he does NOT do tricks for the arrogant. And he is in no way obligated to satisfy your curiosity.
bozenbros 2 years ago
Well, YOU'RE the most arrogant one here...
shanedk 2 years ago 3
sorry youve just resorted to rambling here were asking you to provide evidence for your claims but youve already admitted you have none and cannot explain to us what you are talking about so why are you continuing to speak here?
excandersham 2 years ago
"Worst question he could retort with"? WHY? Case and point, PLEASE. What's your logical reasoning behind that statement? And what you said at the end is that god only displays himself to stupid people who already believe in him without ANY proof, but he's too pussy to show himself to a skeptic who uses his fuckin brain and decides not to believe in shit that he doesn't have the slightest reason to believe in.
338dmac 2 years ago
gods word declaring it is good enough for me. and just because you and I cannot rationaly explain to one another how that is, apart from divinity, does not mean that we can't accept it. You dont understand how a brown cow eats green grass, produces white milk, and yellow butter is made, but these things are. you probably cannott explain how electricity works but you dont choose to sit in the dark do you?
bozenbros 2 years ago
Really it's gods words
Please tell me who do you think wrote the bible?
excandersham 2 years ago
you say this and yet ask me to blindly accept what you are saying without providing any evidence to back up your claims
excandersham 2 years ago
But what you're relying on is not god's word. You're relying on what humans tell you is god's word.
Different colours in nature can be explained by physics I'd say. What, did you think the milk had to be brown cause the cow's hairs are? And grass is green cause it's got chlorophyll in it, I doubt that gets transferred directly to the milk. Nothing miraculous about it.
And we can see that electricity works, that's why we believe it. And many people know how it works.
Mithcoriel 2 years ago
And whose word do you have that it's God's word?
shanedk 2 years ago
"You probably cannot explain how electricity works". No, BUT SOMEONE ELSE CAN! JUST LIKE SOMEONE SOMEWHERE KNOWS EXACTLY HOW BROWN COWS EAT GREEN GRASS AND MAKE WHITE MILK! If you really want the entire fucking sequence of chemical changes that lead to substances that reflect all those different colors, go ahead and look it up. Talk about sitting in the dark, you act like everything is a god damn mystery, when it's ALREADY BEEN SOLVED!
338dmac 2 years ago
sure- however you want to slice it, you have a sense of oughtness; or what ought to be. and if something ought not be, you have a sense of that as well. Now where would this sense of oughtness come from? its called a conscience! god has also revealed himself to you through your conscious which you have admitted to possessing. If this is not evidence for being made with a knowledge of God, then at what point does your evolution make an attempt to explain where ones conscience comes from?
bozenbros 2 years ago
do you have any evidence a conscience is directly given by god?
If this is so why do different people have different opinions of right and wrong?
excandersham 2 years ago
you have equated the possesion of a conscience with god
however simply stating it does not make it so
you have to prove it using evidence
excandersham 2 years ago
yes of course- just convenient non-sense that everbody including yourself organize your life by. well then- do you accept that there are things in this wolrd that are good and evil- or do you call it right and wrong?
bozenbros 2 years ago