there are many situations as humans where we can design by adapting conditions, not directly designing the whole object as such, but making a situation, and then leaving it to grow and knowing the outcome is a designed thing.
that we can know where every particle will be or has been' i think its a lack of imagination and good theology and insulting to the christian god, to suggest that he does not have the power to design a universe in this way. of course we think 'god plays dice' at the moment, but of course theologians can take this as a system humans may never grasp, a fair amount of scientists believe there is a limit to what we can understand.
the anti-evolutionist: surely its kind of an insult to your god, to suggest he can only build and design things like we do.
he'god for fuck's sake, he designed the system, the laws of nature, by creating the laws of nature, he might know from that what will take place that through a predetermined system of evolution he indirectly desgined the beings we know.
there is a phrase 'if we were to know the exact position of all the atoms in the universe, and the laws that they abide by,....
Magicians make great theological skeptics because so much of their lives are centered on BS and leading people into believing things that aren't true. They see the same types of deception in religious leaders.
What I'd like to know is where the disconnect between design by humans and evolution comes from.... Surely any design by humans is design in nature. even if it has taken millions of years for it to come out
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
When a cell replicates it can undergo a type of mutation known as a 'gene duplication'. Once a duplicate copy of a gene gets produced this way, then any other kind of mutation (a substutition, inversion, frameshift error, etc.) can alter one of the two copies, and alter the resulting protein. The result is a *new gene*.
Maybe you should do some research before you start making false claims...
@kiemul136 thank goodness someone refuted that moron already. There are certainly a finite number of combinations, but equally there are a finite number of particles in the universe.
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Derren Brown the most boring magician ever, now he's supposed to be a metaphysician. but he doesn't bother with Spinoza or Descartes--he's going to tackle the philosophy of bananas, which was on the internet somewhere...how impressive.
@MumblingMickey yeah that's what i said basically, except that i also noticed how easy it would be to do that. child's play, if he has something to say about or against religion (which it's clear he has, i've read articles by him & seen shows & so on) why not address more serious questions? i'll tell you why, imo it's because he can't but probably most people won't notice because standards of education are so low. what do you think about that?, disagree?
@LucyHarcarty Well the people they aim these things at are not primarily the well educated.
I think he does address such issues, in medicine V nonsense, education V's nonsense etc. etc. And to be fair he is certainly an authority on how the mind works socially.
I can't comment on the idea that education levels are so low people would not grasp such concepts. Other than to say education is increasing globally and steadily, and has been for along time.
@LucyHarcarty However I accept that using Ray Comforts banana rather than Aquinas's version of that same banana in the form of the the teleological argument was probably bringing the low brow down to the level of someone with eyes poking out their knees!
However Aquinas simply didn't understand the difference between designs requiring a designer and designs where a process was the designer. So, he lumped them together. Which I'm sure made sense in the 13th century.
@LucyHarcarty We know now that the teleological argument is bust... well most of us that bother to reason it do.
The problem however as you mentioned yourself is that there is not only a base education, but some people have been deliberately poisoning the education well... so when you show those a computer system running a process that comes up with new designs all by itself... based on nothing more than the math in the price equation they just close their eyes and hope it goes away.
@MumblingMickey that computer you mentioned was built & programmed at a previous stage by 'a designer' i suppose? so it doesn't sound the best example! i've heard of Unwin vaguely--what does he say? i don't draw a line, i'm interested in philosophy so i want to know what's true, or try to anyway...i respect the academics, on the other hand Socrates never had any qualifications & i've never been told how i'm wrong in my beliefs, though i've approached lots of people to discuss it.
@LucyHarcarty Yes machines are designed, not by the builder (in this case a team of human engineers) but by the process they went through to build it. Yes they did plan it in advance there was intent etc.
But, (big but) you are making the same error in logic that Aquinas made. You point to something we all know is designed with intent and project that onto everything. So if the initial premise is not accurate, any conclusion you draw cannot be accurate.
@MumblingMickey [continued/correction] i said 'my beliefs' in the last comment, but i think i was unfair to myself--they are, but i also have reasoned argument for them imo. would you like to discuss them, here or elsewhere? maybe you can tell me more about Unwin, & if you like to talk about these things you can try to show in what way i'm wrong?
@LucyHarcarty I'm not doubting you did not arrive at whatever beliefs you have using whatever ability to reason you have, there is after all no alternative to that... its the only way any beliefs can form.
So your qualifier is correct ie.. ' in your opinion' ...so you rationalize that you beliefs are in fact an opinion... you would be surprised how many people fail to recognize this.
However some things are not just opinions.
eg. water is wet regardless of my thoughts on the matter.
@LucyHarcarty Lastly yes you are free (as is anyone on a public social network) to send me your thoughts on why you reason what you do, what you conclude and how you rationalize that.
And assuming you are not off base by a billion miles (like for4 example ray comfort or our Islamic friend below) you might even get an intelligent response.
I certainly can't tell you where you might be wrong without knowing what you reason and why though.
@MumblingMickey don't jump to conclusions, never said i believe in any kind of 'intelligent design', or that i disbelieve evolution or anything like that. only said that about the computer because you brought it up & it was such an obvious non sequitur that i thought it was worth pointing out...ok though, i'd like to speak more--i'll send you a message soon if that's agreeable to you? however--i would like an intelligent response no matter what please!, you're clearly capable.
@LucyHarcarty On the computer thing I wasn't referring to the software or the machine... I was referring to the output of specific software and software that rewrites itself in relation to the conditions at the time.
The human designers are removed from that loop.. The software process itself either changes or completely fails under those circumstances. In some cases it does indeed fail.. in others it produces amazing advances...
@MumblingMickey well i'm not here to do Bananaman's job for him (lol) or even St. Thomas Aquinas', but (imo) the engineers/programmers could be analogous to 'God/s' & the computer could represent the universe for example & evolution could be like the software process perhaps?--but i don't want us to get hung up on that sort of stuff, i'm less interested in that side of it all.
@LucyHarcarty I think the analogy would be closer to the computer and the software representing the universe (computer) and the properties of that universe (software)
The engineers don't actually do anything....Such software is used for that very reason. We are at a point in history where humans simply can't design better microchips, cars or aircraft etc. We just don't have the design skills. Its beyond our capability.
We can't even input the rules, since we don't know what they would be.
@MumblingMickey oh no no (imo), you're wrong about that 1st thing anyway--it depends how you define 'designing better'. humans used to have a concept called 'beauty', which may or may not exist in some higher Platonic realm (it does imo). that allowed us to write Beethoven's piano sonatas & design cool beautiful cars & so on. machines don't do that, machines don't have souls--that's why all the cars look like melted toffee nowadays & there are no more piano sonatas.
@weeryan2008 i'll take your word for it, that line of questioning was becoming gratuitously off-topic anyway...if there are some good ones (piano sonatas), maybe you can send me links sometime? thanks */-
@LucyHarcarty However if you want the universe to be software, fair enough... but if a god is analogous to the programmers... then the final output was not a design instigated by the god. In this analogy the god sat back because the output (life, the universe, everything) in this analogy is beyond the gods ability.
So if you limit your god to needing a process above its own abilities then the analogy works fine. It would of course leave you wondering what the god in the analogy is for?
@LucyHarcarty Are you joking? He was demonstrating (with a very good example) how silly the whole "design" argument is - which is what they are talking about. Ray Comfort (an appalling evangelical Christian) used the banana as proof of how God designs with us in mind - "look, it fits in our hand, opens easily" etc. A stupid argument in iteself - but even stupider when you know that bananas only look like that because of our interference - "natural" ones are very different.
@Ellie8969 yes i agree all this banana stuff is ridiculous obviously. however--the point i was making was that it's superfluous to questions such as "is there a God?" or even "is Christianity true?"...there are more sophisticated people for someone as clever as Derren Brown to refute, which imo is the real agenda...if he ONLY wanted to say "intelligent design is false" then cool, he's done that well. but he doesn't (imo, based on my reading &viewing etc.)--he's against religion itself
@LucyHarcarty But he wasn't talking about whether there is a god, he was specifically talking about how people mistake nature for design, so on that basis, this was a good and very telling example. Plus, while he is clearly an atheist, he tends to focus on the psychological aspects of how we fool ourselves and others (the basis of his career). And, being an atheist does not necessarily mean you are "against religion", just that you don't believe in god.
@Ellie8969 maybe you're right--i'm not an expert on D.B., but honestly i think he is (against religion), not the same way as Richard Dawkins for example, but a bit. &of course, this one is about intelligent design but i'm just a random person watching videos and making comments which occur to me at the time. i'm not methodical, but i'm against atheists OR religiosos who don't think, or do lazy thinking, & imo vids like this give an excuse for that (indirectly)--because it's too easy.
@LucyHarcarty So you think that anyone who doesn't believe in a god should take every opportunity to refute the Ontological Argument or dispute Fine-Tuning? Sorry, not picking on you, it's just that I think you're being a bit unfair. He's an illusionist, that's what he does - expecting him to also be Christopher Hitchens when the mood takes him is a bit much. Incidentally, he (Derren) used to be an evangelical Christian, interestingly.
@Ellie8969 really?, i didn't know that about him--i admit that changes it a bit, it's sort of the reverse of me...was (basically) an atheist for most of my life, now i'm not but it would take a long time to explain where i'm at; so anyway i feel more comfortable arguing (philosophically) with atheists because it's what i know. i couldn't help noticing your icon, so i had a look at your page...it's something you like to discuss?, matters metaphysical? maybe we can speak more about that
@Ellie8969 Yeah I read his book, I found that pretty hard to believe.
As he says himself he finds it hard to believe but it was that belief that gave him an interest in why people swallow all sorts of nonsense.. His conclusion is that many people are not only 'lacking' information on which to draw a conclusion... but that they draw one anyway in the absence of such information...and often deliberately ignore information that they think would not support their preferred conclusion.
@MumblingMickey I can't remember the name (maybe "Messiah"?) but he did a show where he went to America and deliberately set out to convince groups of people that he had special powers regarding whatever it was they believed...alien abduction, psychics etc. One group were Christian evangelicals who virtually saw him as the second coming. It was extraordinary, and I think it was his insight into the mind of a believer that helped him achieve that. It's on 4OD if you're in the UK.
@LucyHarcarty Those other people are in fact refuted too.
People like Aquinas, Augustine, W. L Craig, Descartes all the way up the intellectual ladder to the math of Bayes and Unwins analysis of it have in fact been addressed. But I could probably count on one hand the amount of people I have met that have even heard of Stephen Unwin.
Meanwhile most of the worlds population can't even conceive of Unwins arguments... let along dissent logically. So where do you draw the intellectual line?
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
@jesussaves7777 Be happy in your world. There is nothing you can say that doesn't sound like mindless ranting and spewing of Bronze Age prejudices. Your rant is meerly tedious and doesn't even make one think, which I suspect is its object.
As for your 'are you a good man' questions - sheesh! What a load of rubbish! Such leading questions! No human - *NONE* - could say they have never stolen or lied! That we are all fallible has nothing to do with the presence of a God.
@McCobra811 religion itself!youre going by your own desires and wants,witch are obvuosly bieng suppressed.if youre a sick person,you will induldge in youre sadistic desires whether you are religios or not!history proves this!
@McCobra811 mate seriously?this is childs logic! you are just making enormous huge assumptions (leaps of faith) ,that is not logic!
This nonsense about "desires" i mean,what kind of desires do you think non believers have?most,like me,are normal family men.
Not people running around killing peolple,stealing and having orgys!there are mental ppl on both sides,athiests do what they want without fear of consequence,thiests do it by using thier religion for evil,in some cases,driven to evil by the
Good videos on you tube that respond to this video: Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens, Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox, Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson - Collision Of Lives, Wendy takes on Richard Dawkin
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
John 8:24 Jesus said: I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”
Romans 2:10 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them
Psalm 36 There is no fear of God before their eyes. In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect or hate their sin
Please read the following questions carefully, be honest and listen to your conscience. Would you consider yourself to be a good person? The Bible declares, most men will proclaim their own goodness. Let’s see if you qualify as being a good person. Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything, irrespective of its value? Have you ever used God’s name to curse? Jesus said, I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart?
@jesussaves7777 Lying is okay as long as it's justified and doesn't hurt anyone. Using God's name to curse, in my case, is either just a habit or for deliberate irony. Sex between consenting adults is only bad if it's hurting someone. To look at someone in lust is human nature, in the same way that other animals pursue the chance for procreation. If you're going to sit there and tell me these things, which are unharmful to humans, should be forbidden, then you sir are off your fucking gourd.
Have you ever looked at someone with lust? The Bible says that if someone hates another person they are a murderer (I John 3:15). Have you ever hated anyone? If you have answered, Yes, to the previous questions, then you have admitted that you are a liar, a thief, a blasphemer, an adulterer and a murderer and we’ve only looked at 4 of the 10 Commandments. If God were to judge you by this standard would you be innocent or guilty? You know you are guilty and deserving of an eternity in Hell.
Jesus Christ came to earth and died a criminal’s death not because He had broken the Law, but because we had. God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. What should you do? Repent, turn from your sins & put your complete faith in Jesus Christ as your Savoir and Lord. You may die today, in your sin. Is there any reason why you would not accept God’s gift? More info at living waters website with true & false conversion audio sermon. God Bless!
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I'm guessing English isn't your first language? If I've understood you right , though, you are saying the universe is a big and splendid thing and therefore it must be created? If so, I can only agree that indeed the universe is big and splendid, but there is still no evidence it was created. I'm afraid the Quran is of no use at all in explaining it ( nor is the Bible, nor are a hundred other religious texts ).
@reeceyhiggs Ou , religion ! Thats the problem isn't it , A creator created us and left us run on automatic , don't you think that if there is a creator who created us , he will send guidance to his creation ? Have you seen any thing made without a purpose ? There is a creator and he made us for no purpose , what a creator ! This idea is liked by the ones who don't want to be held accountable for what they do , thats the reason many people even reject God cos of accountability
@MrCobra811 The religion of logic you say? Islam, the religion of logic? The same Islam that says that salt water doesn't mix with regular water? Logic you say? The same Islam that scratched pieces out of their Koran because they did not like it and claimed that Mohammed was taking advice from Satan instead of Allah, in those verses? Logic you say? That a woman should be punished for seducing a man, even if that man i practically performed rape? Logic, yes, indeed, that logical Islam
@cueballB Yes the same Islam , who says salt water and regular water don't mix in the SEA , your hero dawkins twisted that because he got hammered by that fact ! HALOCLINE !
Watch : watch?v=d7laxNgKwR4 ! Next time try to read the whole verse of the Quran 25:53 : And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition.
@MrCobra811 I can't possibly believe that anyone would believe that verse was explaining halocline. You must be joking. Halocline has to do with different levels of salinity in salt water oceans. Your verse clearly states TWO types of water. One fresh and sweet and one salty. Even with halocline, salinity mixes, due to suface waters evaporating and being stronger in salinity, leading to mixing. Even if the verse ment what you want it to mean, you would still be wrong.
@MrCobra811 It is a misrepresentation. Let me put it this way: it was very easy at the time of the conception of the Quran to observe that snow does not fall it the desert. They could have written in the Quran that Allah placed a barrier of fire between the clouds and the horizon, so to prevent snow from falling. It would have kind of made sense now, yet it would not be correct. Neither is the verse, and the natural occurence is explained due to natural effects, not through devinity
@MrCobra811 Having watched the video about the two seas meeting and not mixing I fail to see what your point is. This is a very normal situation governed by the ordinary, everyday laws of physics - nothing special. Mildly interesting, but not a revalation about the truth of the Quran and God. Perhaps the extent of the separation has seen to be much greater because scientific instruments are getting better and scientists are starting to study the oceans a little more thoroughly.
@Neilhuny Laws of physics , Lmao ! Did you think that God uses a magic stick to seperate the seas ? God seperates them by the laws of physics which he created ! My friend , thats just one of many proves from the Quran ! How did quran know 1400 years ago that every human has unique fingerprints ? Universe has a begining and will end and descibes how it will end ! watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
@MrCobra811 Well first fingerprints are not in fact unique... and oddly humans aren't the only creatures to have fingerprints either.
"Does man think that WE Cannot assemble his bones? Nay, WE are able to put Together in perfect order The very tips of his fingers."
That also doesn't mention fingerprints...and certainly not that they are unique (which would be wrong anyway) it mentions the tips of fingers... its YOU that's interpreting this means fingerprints.
@MumblingMickey You are trying in any way to refute something so clear , why ? What is so special from the tips of the fingers ? He is pointing out that every one has unique fingerprints and he is able to do them , he is telling you to reflect that he is capable of resurrecting you !
Fingerprints are not unique , really? the science must be wrong then ? You don't want to accept the fact that there is a creator because you don't want to be held accountable for your actions
@MrCobra811 No... I am saying that the quran does not mention fingerprints... anywhere... not once...
Fingerprints are not unique... there is no math that would allow this to be so... and its not in the quran anyway... so your argument against it is pointless.
And no, there is no creator... because there is no evidence of one... the very same reason you don't think there are any leprechauns in the world.
I couldn't care less what you think of my actions......
@MrCobra811 Tips of fingers is not fingerprints its the tips of fingers. If the verse had read 'to the balls of their eyes'... would you be insisting that the Quran predicted retinal uniqueness... just for mentioning eyes! This is absolutely nonsense...moreover you know its nonsense!
By the same logic we could assume Aristotle predicted the arab spring risings of 2011 in 300bc... he did after all state that 'Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.'
@MumblingMickey You are trying to find exiuses like the Guy who loved alcohol and when you tell him alcohol is forbiden in Islam ,he says : where is it writen in the Quran that heineken is forbiden ? This is called playing hide and seek with yourself !
@MrCobra811 Nothing wrong with alcohol.... well obviously drinking yourself stupid whilst ignoring your responsibilities is wrong. But its the ignoring responsibilities that's wrong there. There's also nothing wrong with driving, unless you drive over random pedestrians whilst in a hurry.
The guy was right, only wine is forbidden in the Quran, you should read it some time! Plus alcohol was not always forbidden in Islam, that's relatively recent.
@MrCobra811 Plus a little odd that you insist the Quran mentions the uniqueness (rarity) of two fingerprints... because in those 1400 years it seems not a single reader of the Quran put that to any use...
How many criminalswere identified by this discovery during all that time? Have a guess? I'll give you a hint, its lower than one!
But lets test that ... if there really are discoveries made in the Quran before other civilizations made them then that holds true right now, agreed?
So t should be pretty obvious there is information in the Quran that we currently do not posses right now. Scientific information we have yet to discover ... yes?
Okay... name one. Something we haven't discovered yet... just one. Lets not wait for science to discover it... lets look in the Quran..
So off you go, tell us something we currently DO NOT know that is already in the Quran.
@MumblingMickey Ou yeah , Few years ago , I can even show you the text of some people who were mocking Quran for saying ants talk , to their nightmare scientists found out that ants talk by sound with each other !
Second : Quran talks about 7 heavens , talks about worlds , plural !
If there is any other worlds out there Quran has it already here writen in it but we haven't discover it yet !
@MrCobra811 But if the Quran was perfect, you would be able to read it and understand everything it says and all of its meanings in every language, and you wouldn't have all this shit about "YOU CAN'T COMMENT U NO SPEAK ARAB"
@MrCobra811 So what you are saying is that Allah is actually pretty shit at communication...and only manages to pass such communications on to a minority of peple who understand 7th or 8th century arabic...
Not exactly the best start in a debate regarding the accuracy of a book is it? Admitting the communicator of the message is a fucking dimwit that can't compete with Google translate!
@MumblingMickey Allah chose the perfect language for people , you don't need Arabic to know God exists , you can understand the message even from the translation ! Arabic is for those who are really interested in Allah and miracle of Quran , If you need something you have to work for it and will appreciate it more ! Allah could have just made everything ready for us but this life is a test , and for us to appreciate things by working !
@MrCobra811 Yeah those people spoke Arabic before the Quran came about... a long time before..The vast majority of them couldn't read and write then, and by 1980 it had only reached 50% thanks to educational programs by the UN, not Allah!...
Why a god would consider a book a good method of communication when only one person in 30 were literate is absurd.
So a book? in a written language few could understand? Not the sharpest tool in the box is he?
"Arabic is a rich language and many words cannot be translated in other languages"
nonsense... all concepts capable of being understood by humans and many that are NOT capable of being understood by humans can be conveyed in other languages...or using modal logic, or math etc....
This claim just states that the you think the creator of the universe is shit at communication.
In fact any word in any languge can be conveyed as a concept in any other... and where a word is lacking one is created to explain it... for example the japanese have a word for a person who dies from overworking themselves... its a unique word ...but well understood.. 'Karōshi'
In english this translates as 'death by over excertion or death by overwork'
We could easily make up a new word... lets call if 'workdeath'... that matches the former perfectly.
@MrCobra811 Anyway, tell you what I speak 4 languages...english, spanish, french and german, 5 if you count Gaelic.
So tell you what, I was going to learn mandarin...and still will. But from what I see arabic with only 100k words and only 10k spoken on average by native Arabic speakers its simplistic.
So, I'll learn written and spoken arabic then I'll read the Quran and we can discuss it...yes? Give me a month.
From what I see Arabic is easier than any basic programming language syntax.
Some of us are just slightly brighter than others... in my case its more of a curse.
Anyway one month, in fact in one months time (you can time me) I'll make a video in arabic,.. explaining how since western atheists can't generally speak arabic its a good Idea that they do!
I'll be sure to give you credit for coming up with that idea of non believers learning arabic too! I't the least I can do for you explaining why I should!
@MrCobra811 BTW.. thats classical Arabic, not Modern Standard Arabic... since the Quran is written in classical Arabic... I'm sure the modern Arabic will be easier after that.
Y'know what, I also know rather a lot of people (all atheists) who would probably be able to do the same... it might start a trend.
I'm sure other Muslims would be absolutely delighted with you for setting a horde of atheists all learning classical arabic? yes?
@MrCobra811 Ants do not talk... they communicate using chemical messages and vibrations... this is an automated process, they don't 'think' about it, anymore than you think about breathing. they also don't understand language for many reasons...not least of which is the size of their brain (100k neurons) and also because they do no possesses a language interpretation center in their brain....(brocas area)
You may as well tell me that could communicate with plants by raining on them.
@MrCobra811 "They don't speak english obviously but their own language !"
sound vibrations that act as a stimulus for an ant to carry out a reaction is NOT a language...
Plus you are missing the entire point... the messages outlined in the Quran that these ants are supposed to have sent to and from one another is not possible... Ants can't communicate using language...and because they can't use language they certainly cannot transmit complicated concepts as outlined in the quran.
@MumblingMickey Ooops....looks like you've upset someone - "flagged as spam"! I've thumbs-upped you. So annoying when people do that - wish they'd grow the fuck up.
@MrCobra811 You also point blank missed the opportunity (which I have to say is entirely fair) to point out something in the quran we do not yet know...
That was the entire point I made, you ignored it completely.
Something that is IN the Quran right now...that the rest of us have not discovered... its a short book, this should be easy. We know we haven't discovered it yet.... I told you that, no point in repeating my own words back to me...
@MrCobra811 I think you'll find the idea of both other worlds and life on other worlds has been a hot topic of debate since before the greeks, even the chinese philosophers got in on the act...
Pointing out that threes a single mention of it in the quran when there are books that predate that mention by 2k years is rather silly don't you think...
Would you like a list of those books or are you okay to go find them yourself?
@MumblingMickey Buddy , Islam is the only logical religion which makes sense in every aspect !
Islam was on earth since the first man Adam , Islam is not a new religion , its the religion of Moses , Jesus and thousands of prophets before until Adam !
Those ancient greeks and others took stuff from Islam of that time and mixed them with their own fantasy to suit their desires !
There were loads of genereations before us more advanced then Us , its in the Quran !
@MrCobra811 Its certainly not logical. People do not travel to the moon, split the moon in two, reproduce a full population from two breeding people, converse in their head with invisible beings, these are not premises that are in any way part of a logical argument...they are illogical.
I'd suggest you go look up the concept of logic.
start with the basics of logic, for example the law of identity and work your way through the basics of logic, then apply that to the quran!
@MrCobra811 Its certainly not logical. People do not travel to the moon, split the moon in two, reproduce a full population from two breeding people, converse in their head with invisible beings, these are not premises that are in any way part of a logical argument...they are illogical.
I'd suggest you go look up the concept of logic.
start with the basics of logic, for example the law of identity and work your way through the basics of logic, then apply that to the quran!
@MrCobra811 Then ancient Greek culture spans from around 400bc to about 580 ad or so... it died out some time before Mohammad was born!
So that's that nonsense out of the way... unless you think Aristotle rose from the dead to read the Quran?
Now, older civilizations, less technology and knowledge, modern civilizations more technology and knowledge... that's the way it is... unless you think the city of Ur was powered by a nuclear reactor? So clearly the Quran is wrong there.
@MumblingMickey An atheist talking about the concept of logic pfahah! The word atheism in itself means illogic! How ? I tell you how!
Logic is based on our surrounding environment and experience , if a car is build by a mechanic and that is logical , if a building is build by a builder and that is logical , now based on this logic how on earth you say the universe designed itself and call it logical?
you have a contradiction of logic in the atheistic point of view , oopss
@MumblingMickey You cannot have the logic contradicting itself , sorry ! If universe creating itself is logical , then this logic must be applied to our world we living too !
Logic doesn't change 2+2=4 , it will never become 5, This scientific example of maths we found during our experience of our surroundings , and a car designed by a mechanic is part of this logic , of our surroundings ! If you gonna say the universe designed itself the you are saying 2+2=5, logic change
@MumblingMickey Since you have no clue of Quran , then let me explain you! Quran is the last revelation from God, thousands of prophets and revelations with the same message were sent from the time of Adam to the last one Quran ! The gospel of Jesus and the Torah of Moses were part of this chain , "Older civilization less tech" are you kidding me ? there were generations before us more advanced then us , you don't know this , just look at the south american old buildings !
@MrCobra811 I read the Quran, the bibles, read the bhagavad gita, and in fact a lot of new and old religions and scriptural dogma and religious philosophy.
Old buildings in south america are were constructed with LESS technology and are LESS advanced than modern ones. Less, not more. Why don't you look at those Mayan pyramids...and compare them to say the sky park in singapore? Is the Mayan pyramid MORE advanced or LESS advanced?
Fuck its giving me a headache to think down to this level..
@MrCobra811 Maybe you could compare anything you like from antiquity with say the international space station... is the space station more advanced or less advanced?
The main question here is why do I even have to point this out.
I get the feeling you are mentally ill or something
Anyway, as I said I'll be giving you credit for persuading me to learn Arabic where I will make a point of pulling the Quran apart sura by sura in Arabic at every turn. As far a s I see its a new audience.
@MumblingMickey How do you compare something from antiquity with today ? there were civilization more advanced then us before we started recording our history you dummy , Antiquity doesn't start 10 thousands years ago when history we know started to record ! There were civilisation which were desroyed who left pictures of space crafts and tech , where did they get those pictures from !
@cueballB If you brought verses from the Quran , I will debate with you ! But if you go by emotions and wishfull thinking then sorry ! No a women shouldn't be punished for seducing a man , she should shag him and make some bastards and destroy the society same as its being destroyed , If you are ok that your sister or mother can seduce a man than welcome to animalism cos you have nothing in common with humans !
@MrCobra811 First of all, do not delude yourself in thinking that seducing a man, as a woman, is a bad thing. Men are notoriously bad in wooing women. (Hence all the crummy pickup lines) Someone has to do it. Animalism has nothing to do with it. In the animal kingdom, most are ruled by alpha males. They fight for the right to mate with women, not the other way around. You my friend, so willing to take away basic rights of women, to get a man they fancy, are much closer to animalism.
@cueballB Man they fancy , If you like the girl you go and ask her parents to meet with her for marriage not for anything else ! Women are not for play ground , just for squizing your hormones and dump them in bin when you are bored ! You get married with the girl and if things don't work , you divorce her and she takes half of your property , thats how it works ! You would think twice to divorce her for stupid reasons cos you loose your house !
@MrCobra811 You are misrepresenting what i said. (Strawman, as they say) You clearly have no wish to respect how women feel about the person they are going to marry. It is not because you let women enjoy the right to choose their own spouse, that they are treated as a play ground. (reductio ad absurdum) you are a walking logical fallacy canon.
Women are not your property, you don't get to decide jack fucking shit what they are for... They can decide that for themselves... and if you don't like it,....well thats just tough shit!
Your ideas of what women are may as well be scrawled on a cave wall 30 thousand years ago, you are a fucking neanderthal!
Why has a woman doing the very same as a man any impact on you? Now you claim your moral values aren't just yours...they should be adhered to by others that don't share them ?
What I do note, .ironically, is that you get these moral dictates from a book which was written by of all people a fucking pedophile! Do you really think a child molester will give you good moral values? Your prophet fucked children, don't pretend to use his moral values to tell others how to behave!
@MumblingMickey You mumblinmickey are another ignorant that needs to be slaped around logically ! Here comes the slap : You are accusing The prophet for doing something immoral (which is not the case any way), when you believe in the survival of the fittest and macro evolution , is there any moral in the survival of the fittest ? the prophet looks immoral to you,yet you believe you had reptiles as ancestors and that goes well with you without being offended , pfffahaahah
@MumblingMickey If you believe in survival of the fittest and macro evolution then Islam and the prophet is part of that process, there is no moral in survival of the fittest, anything goes! when you try to call somebody Immoral and you yourself believe in macro evolution then you are a hypocrit! If you attack somebody on moral issues you have to have better foundation morals then him, your foudation is survival of the fittest which is immoral therefore you are attacking yourself
@McCobra,go and find a dictionary and look up the word "logic/logical" ,apply it,and then i"ll be happy to debate.i cant debate with someone who doesnt understand logic its like debating with a brick wall!
@reeceyhiggs I have looked it up , it says a building needs a builder , non in the face of the earth exept atheists believe that something designed itself ! So the logic bites you in the head ! A car is made from a mechanic, is logic! A building is made by a builder , its logic ! By this logic we believe that the universe must be made by someone , you don't apply this logic , why is it ? You apply the illogical aproach , an Universe can design itself whith no logical foundation!
@McCobra811u are using the typicsl argument of a religious ppl,yes,youre right,i will not allow ancient myths with ZERO evidence to dictate my decisions and actions ,u bring that up because u feel like ur in a prison and totally restricted!thats ur curse,not for me thanks.if god showed even the smallest sign he was real then i would convert instantly,im not living a very restricted life on the promise of cavemen,its the height of stulidity!
@reeceyhiggs You will not allow logic to set in your brain , i know! Typical argument of religious people , I should't use logic just because religious people use it ! Wether you like it or not God dictates your decisions , to him you will return , jump up and down there is no escape ! There is plenty of signs but its all about believe , wether you believe the sign or not ! You cannot make decisions on your own, decide not to breath, decide not to go to toilet , decide not to eat?
@MrCobra811 I'm sorry, but Thor makes as much sense. After all, he did promise to rid the world of ice giants, and I don't see many ice giants around, do you? As for me, I don't beleive in any gods , the whole idea of it is just silly to my mind.
@McCobra811,seriously bud,read up on the scientific theorys before assuming anything,there are two proposals,a creator and no creator,no one knows for SURE witch is the answer,that includes acient desert ppl.my argument is that relgion is total BS.logic can go either way on a creator,logic dectates that religion is BS!
@reeceyhiggs I know why religion is BS cos it tells you to change yourself , and you are not willing to give up your desires , thats the problem ! The reason you don't accept that God exists is because you know you will have to have responsibilities and restrict yourself from desires , therefore you play hide and seek with your own self , without knowing that you are only putting your own self in danger
@McCobra811 "the universe organised itself" that statement alone proves youre not familiar with the scientific processes that went into it "organising itself" ! You mock a complex scientific process by simplefying it like that,so if thats the ignorant game you want to play then i believe in scientific procesess and not myths of acient desert ppl!:-)
@reeceyhiggs If universe didn't organise itself than someone did it ? one or the other , we are not stupid are we , you don't want to accept it cos you know it leads to a designer logically ! Why doesn't any scientific process like nuclear plant work itself here on earth , from disorder comes order without intervention , but only in the universe cos in our world that is not the case , why are they doing this ? logic of this world is connected , everything is connected logically
@MrCobra811 wow! i wouldnt even know where too start with your flawed logic and @TheRichardHinckley i would give up mate,u cant reason with the unreasonable!or have an intelligent debate with someone who isnt intelligent! lol
@reeceyhiggs My logic is flawed I believe in God rather than universe organising itself , which has no logical base in our wold of understanding how things work !
Errrrrrr, the interviewer is basing all his opinions on DAVID HUME, a fuckin' 18th century philosopher - gee mate, don't you think philosophy has progressed since the heady days of the 18th century? Don't you think other philosophical ideas, tools and, yes, even science has substantiated philosophy and religion in ways Hume could never have envisaged.
I'm really angry that these dullards are given the time of day: these are Derren's 'gut instinct' views, i.e., they're the views of an ignorant man, no more relevant than the views of Joe Average.
Philosophy of religion is a vast and complex discipline - come on, show us the views of Alvin Plantinga, Graham Oppy, Quentin Smith or Richard Swinburne - not this pop psychologist.
Derren: Intelligent Design forms the basis of teleological arguments, it isn't necessarily wedded to biological design.
@CharlesDilkes Do you expect Derren to give the interviewer the views of someone else? He know how people can trick themselves and be manipulated by others, which essentially is religion in a nutshell.
@Bumblybee256 No, it isn't 'religion in a ntushell', it's Brown's baseless, ignorant, gut instinct in a nut shell. He should shut the fuck up if he doesn't know anything about the subject matter.
@Bumblybee256 Sorry, was you expecting a fuckin' essay to your quip? A bon mot engenders a likewise response: sorry it wasn't to your taste.
But then again, someone who writes: 'lol, answer izz question then whoo created God??' - and thinks this an oh so stumbling point in religion deserves nothing but contempt. Go a read a book you moron. I'm sick and tired and spastics like you averring your ignorant opinions.
Look at your channel: full of polemics and diatribes. go figure.
@CharlesDilkes You're really very angry aren't you. Isn't the only useful thing about religion supposed to be that it's soothing? You still can't actually seem to answer said 'stumbling block' and have instead decided to stalk and continue to insult me. Way to represent the godheads. Fail.
@Bumblybee256 Angry? How the fuck would you know? I could be writing this with a beaming smile upon my face - hint, moron, the internet has a veil of anonymity which I utilise to the fullest; the words written don't necessary correspond to emotion. Savvy?
No, God isn't 'utility' you fool, God is TRUTH, a religious believer subscribes to TRUTH, that's why they believe in God. Come on, think about it you simpleton.
@CharlesDilkes Probably the aggressive language- who can say? No, they don't necessarily correspond but I think it's safe to assume in you case they do. On the other hand the dissonance might be apt.
Lol, nope, that still sounds like mental illness. If you believed in TRUTH you would not block off paths of enquiry by plonking god in the middle of them. Still no answer.
@Bumblybee256 Didn't see this bit: you think I haven't addressed the 'stumbling block' - well yes I did you moron, look what I wrote:
"The standard defence of God is as a necessary and causeless Being."
I imagine you're scratching your head over that because, to you, that sentence is meaningless, and yet it has been the standard apologetic defence of God since the inception of Christianity. Trying reading a book, you might learn something.
"The standard defence of God is as a necessary and causeless Being."
That is not an answer. There is no reason for a god to exist. Defining it as necessary and causeless does not make it so. Why can't the universe be 'causeless' thereby eliminating the need for god? Lol I know what you're 'defences' are, but they're crap and have been destroyed a million times.
there are many situations as humans where we can design by adapting conditions, not directly designing the whole object as such, but making a situation, and then leaving it to grow and knowing the outcome is a designed thing.
jorgepeterbarton 5 days ago
that we can know where every particle will be or has been' i think its a lack of imagination and good theology and insulting to the christian god, to suggest that he does not have the power to design a universe in this way. of course we think 'god plays dice' at the moment, but of course theologians can take this as a system humans may never grasp, a fair amount of scientists believe there is a limit to what we can understand.
jorgepeterbarton 5 days ago
@jorgepeterbarton insulting to an imaginary being, or to the ones who believe he exists?
speider 2 hours ago
the anti-evolutionist: surely its kind of an insult to your god, to suggest he can only build and design things like we do.
he'god for fuck's sake, he designed the system, the laws of nature, by creating the laws of nature, he might know from that what will take place that through a predetermined system of evolution he indirectly desgined the beings we know.
there is a phrase 'if we were to know the exact position of all the atoms in the universe, and the laws that they abide by,....
jorgepeterbarton 5 days ago
Magicians make great theological skeptics because so much of their lives are centered on BS and leading people into believing things that aren't true. They see the same types of deception in religious leaders.
ChipArgyle 6 days ago 9
What I'd like to know is where the disconnect between design by humans and evolution comes from.... Surely any design by humans is design in nature. even if it has taken millions of years for it to come out
MickeyMcGoo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 week ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 This is how a new gene can be formed:
When a cell replicates it can undergo a type of mutation known as a 'gene duplication'. Once a duplicate copy of a gene gets produced this way, then any other kind of mutation (a substutition, inversion, frameshift error, etc.) can alter one of the two copies, and alter the resulting protein. The result is a *new gene*.
Maybe you should do some research before you start making false claims...
kiemul136 1 week ago
@kiemul136 thank goodness someone refuted that moron already. There are certainly a finite number of combinations, but equally there are a finite number of particles in the universe.
hjenkinz 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 week ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 it did look at RNA
murraybeans123456 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 week ago
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52
Why can't genetic information happen by chance?
TomARowly 6 days ago
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 1 week ago
I knew asoon as i saw the length of the first two comments that i wasnt traveling any further..
Funbobby92 2 weeks ago
Knowing he's gay, watching him handle that nana makes me cringe.
gotsda 2 weeks ago
@gotsda Didn't know derran brown was gay... but there you go, you learn something new every day.
In that case he did sort of pic the wrong example.... given the context
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
Derren Brown the most boring magician ever, now he's supposed to be a metaphysician. but he doesn't bother with Spinoza or Descartes--he's going to tackle the philosophy of bananas, which was on the internet somewhere...how impressive.
LucyHarcarty 2 weeks ago
@LucyHarcarty Nope he was talking about banana man...ie. Ray Comfort.
Comfort subsequently went on to look like a bigger twat than he was already, despite many thinking this was impossible.
The banana thing was in fact used as a descriptor of why things are designed by a God, of course the audience its aimed at are not very well educated.
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey yeah that's what i said basically, except that i also noticed how easy it would be to do that. child's play, if he has something to say about or against religion (which it's clear he has, i've read articles by him & seen shows & so on) why not address more serious questions? i'll tell you why, imo it's because he can't but probably most people won't notice because standards of education are so low. what do you think about that?, disagree?
LucyHarcarty 2 weeks ago
@LucyHarcarty Well the people they aim these things at are not primarily the well educated.
I think he does address such issues, in medicine V nonsense, education V's nonsense etc. etc. And to be fair he is certainly an authority on how the mind works socially.
I can't comment on the idea that education levels are so low people would not grasp such concepts. Other than to say education is increasing globally and steadily, and has been for along time.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty However I accept that using Ray Comforts banana rather than Aquinas's version of that same banana in the form of the the teleological argument was probably bringing the low brow down to the level of someone with eyes poking out their knees!
However Aquinas simply didn't understand the difference between designs requiring a designer and designs where a process was the designer. So, he lumped them together. Which I'm sure made sense in the 13th century.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty We know now that the teleological argument is bust... well most of us that bother to reason it do.
The problem however as you mentioned yourself is that there is not only a base education, but some people have been deliberately poisoning the education well... so when you show those a computer system running a process that comes up with new designs all by itself... based on nothing more than the math in the price equation they just close their eyes and hope it goes away.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey that computer you mentioned was built & programmed at a previous stage by 'a designer' i suppose? so it doesn't sound the best example! i've heard of Unwin vaguely--what does he say? i don't draw a line, i'm interested in philosophy so i want to know what's true, or try to anyway...i respect the academics, on the other hand Socrates never had any qualifications & i've never been told how i'm wrong in my beliefs, though i've approached lots of people to discuss it.
LucyHarcarty 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty Yes machines are designed, not by the builder (in this case a team of human engineers) but by the process they went through to build it. Yes they did plan it in advance there was intent etc.
But, (big but) you are making the same error in logic that Aquinas made. You point to something we all know is designed with intent and project that onto everything. So if the initial premise is not accurate, any conclusion you draw cannot be accurate.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey [continued/correction] i said 'my beliefs' in the last comment, but i think i was unfair to myself--they are, but i also have reasoned argument for them imo. would you like to discuss them, here or elsewhere? maybe you can tell me more about Unwin, & if you like to talk about these things you can try to show in what way i'm wrong?
LucyHarcarty 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty I'm not doubting you did not arrive at whatever beliefs you have using whatever ability to reason you have, there is after all no alternative to that... its the only way any beliefs can form.
So your qualifier is correct ie.. ' in your opinion' ...so you rationalize that you beliefs are in fact an opinion... you would be surprised how many people fail to recognize this.
However some things are not just opinions.
eg. water is wet regardless of my thoughts on the matter.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty Lastly yes you are free (as is anyone on a public social network) to send me your thoughts on why you reason what you do, what you conclude and how you rationalize that.
And assuming you are not off base by a billion miles (like for4 example ray comfort or our Islamic friend below) you might even get an intelligent response.
I certainly can't tell you where you might be wrong without knowing what you reason and why though.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey don't jump to conclusions, never said i believe in any kind of 'intelligent design', or that i disbelieve evolution or anything like that. only said that about the computer because you brought it up & it was such an obvious non sequitur that i thought it was worth pointing out...ok though, i'd like to speak more--i'll send you a message soon if that's agreeable to you? however--i would like an intelligent response no matter what please!, you're clearly capable.
LucyHarcarty 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty On the computer thing I wasn't referring to the software or the machine... I was referring to the output of specific software and software that rewrites itself in relation to the conditions at the time.
The human designers are removed from that loop.. The software process itself either changes or completely fails under those circumstances. In some cases it does indeed fail.. in others it produces amazing advances...
Anyway, yeah go for it.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey well i'm not here to do Bananaman's job for him (lol) or even St. Thomas Aquinas', but (imo) the engineers/programmers could be analogous to 'God/s' & the computer could represent the universe for example & evolution could be like the software process perhaps?--but i don't want us to get hung up on that sort of stuff, i'm less interested in that side of it all.
LucyHarcarty 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty I think the analogy would be closer to the computer and the software representing the universe (computer) and the properties of that universe (software)
The engineers don't actually do anything....Such software is used for that very reason. We are at a point in history where humans simply can't design better microchips, cars or aircraft etc. We just don't have the design skills. Its beyond our capability.
We can't even input the rules, since we don't know what they would be.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey oh no no (imo), you're wrong about that 1st thing anyway--it depends how you define 'designing better'. humans used to have a concept called 'beauty', which may or may not exist in some higher Platonic realm (it does imo). that allowed us to write Beethoven's piano sonatas & design cool beautiful cars & so on. machines don't do that, machines don't have souls--that's why all the cars look like melted toffee nowadays & there are no more piano sonatas.
LucyHarcarty 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty Cars are not deseigned by computers, they are still designed by humans, and there are piano sonatas, they just aren't mainstream.
weeryan2008 1 week ago
@weeryan2008 i'll take your word for it, that line of questioning was becoming gratuitously off-topic anyway...if there are some good ones (piano sonatas), maybe you can send me links sometime? thanks */-
LucyHarcarty 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty However if you want the universe to be software, fair enough... but if a god is analogous to the programmers... then the final output was not a design instigated by the god. In this analogy the god sat back because the output (life, the universe, everything) in this analogy is beyond the gods ability.
So if you limit your god to needing a process above its own abilities then the analogy works fine. It would of course leave you wondering what the god in the analogy is for?
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty Are you joking? He was demonstrating (with a very good example) how silly the whole "design" argument is - which is what they are talking about. Ray Comfort (an appalling evangelical Christian) used the banana as proof of how God designs with us in mind - "look, it fits in our hand, opens easily" etc. A stupid argument in iteself - but even stupider when you know that bananas only look like that because of our interference - "natural" ones are very different.
Ellie8969 2 weeks ago
@Ellie8969 yes i agree all this banana stuff is ridiculous obviously. however--the point i was making was that it's superfluous to questions such as "is there a God?" or even "is Christianity true?"...there are more sophisticated people for someone as clever as Derren Brown to refute, which imo is the real agenda...if he ONLY wanted to say "intelligent design is false" then cool, he's done that well. but he doesn't (imo, based on my reading &viewing etc.)--he's against religion itself
LucyHarcarty 2 weeks ago
@LucyHarcarty But he wasn't talking about whether there is a god, he was specifically talking about how people mistake nature for design, so on that basis, this was a good and very telling example. Plus, while he is clearly an atheist, he tends to focus on the psychological aspects of how we fool ourselves and others (the basis of his career). And, being an atheist does not necessarily mean you are "against religion", just that you don't believe in god.
Ellie8969 2 weeks ago
@Ellie8969 maybe you're right--i'm not an expert on D.B., but honestly i think he is (against religion), not the same way as Richard Dawkins for example, but a bit. &of course, this one is about intelligent design but i'm just a random person watching videos and making comments which occur to me at the time. i'm not methodical, but i'm against atheists OR religiosos who don't think, or do lazy thinking, & imo vids like this give an excuse for that (indirectly)--because it's too easy.
LucyHarcarty 2 weeks ago
@LucyHarcarty So you think that anyone who doesn't believe in a god should take every opportunity to refute the Ontological Argument or dispute Fine-Tuning? Sorry, not picking on you, it's just that I think you're being a bit unfair. He's an illusionist, that's what he does - expecting him to also be Christopher Hitchens when the mood takes him is a bit much. Incidentally, he (Derren) used to be an evangelical Christian, interestingly.
Ellie8969 2 weeks ago
@Ellie8969 really?, i didn't know that about him--i admit that changes it a bit, it's sort of the reverse of me...was (basically) an atheist for most of my life, now i'm not but it would take a long time to explain where i'm at; so anyway i feel more comfortable arguing (philosophically) with atheists because it's what i know. i couldn't help noticing your icon, so i had a look at your page...it's something you like to discuss?, matters metaphysical? maybe we can speak more about that
LucyHarcarty 2 weeks ago
@LucyHarcarty Happy to discuss anything you like anytime. Just pm me.
Ellie8969 2 weeks ago
@Ellie8969 Yeah I read his book, I found that pretty hard to believe.
As he says himself he finds it hard to believe but it was that belief that gave him an interest in why people swallow all sorts of nonsense.. His conclusion is that many people are not only 'lacking' information on which to draw a conclusion... but that they draw one anyway in the absence of such information...and often deliberately ignore information that they think would not support their preferred conclusion.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey I can't remember the name (maybe "Messiah"?) but he did a show where he went to America and deliberately set out to convince groups of people that he had special powers regarding whatever it was they believed...alien abduction, psychics etc. One group were Christian evangelicals who virtually saw him as the second coming. It was extraordinary, and I think it was his insight into the mind of a believer that helped him achieve that. It's on 4OD if you're in the UK.
Ellie8969 1 week ago
@LucyHarcarty Those other people are in fact refuted too.
People like Aquinas, Augustine, W. L Craig, Descartes all the way up the intellectual ladder to the math of Bayes and Unwins analysis of it have in fact been addressed. But I could probably count on one hand the amount of people I have met that have even heard of Stephen Unwin.
Meanwhile most of the worlds population can't even conceive of Unwins arguments... let along dissent logically. So where do you draw the intellectual line?
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From God’s Word the Bible: John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
dazll 2 weeks ago
@jesussaves7777 Be happy in your world. There is nothing you can say that doesn't sound like mindless ranting and spewing of Bronze Age prejudices. Your rant is meerly tedious and doesn't even make one think, which I suspect is its object.
As for your 'are you a good man' questions - sheesh! What a load of rubbish! Such leading questions! No human - *NONE* - could say they have never stolen or lied! That we are all fallible has nothing to do with the presence of a God.
Neilhuny 2 weeks ago
@Neilhuny Many would not even consider lying, cheating, stealing or even killing a fallibility to begin with.
In fact lots of people (including Jesussaves777there) would consider a hard line on murder , ie. execution... to be justified
Which sort of begs other questions like why would such people have any value in their opinion of anything ethical if this was a conclusion they draw?
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@McCobra811 religion itself!youre going by your own desires and wants,witch are obvuosly bieng suppressed.if youre a sick person,you will induldge in youre sadistic desires whether you are religios or not!history proves this!
reeceyhiggs 2 weeks ago
@McCobra811 mate seriously?this is childs logic! you are just making enormous huge assumptions (leaps of faith) ,that is not logic!
This nonsense about "desires" i mean,what kind of desires do you think non believers have?most,like me,are normal family men.
Not people running around killing peolple,stealing and having orgys!there are mental ppl on both sides,athiests do what they want without fear of consequence,thiests do it by using thier religion for evil,in some cases,driven to evil by the
reeceyhiggs 2 weeks ago
Good videos on you tube that respond to this video: Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens, Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox, Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson - Collision Of Lives, Wendy takes on Richard Dawkin
jesussaves7777 2 weeks ago
Romans 1 from the Bible
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse
jesussaves7777 2 weeks ago
From God’s Word the Bible: John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
jesussaves7777 2 weeks ago
John 8:24 Jesus said: I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”
Romans 2:10 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them
Psalm 36 There is no fear of God before their eyes. In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect or hate their sin
.
jesussaves7777 2 weeks ago
Please read the following questions carefully, be honest and listen to your conscience. Would you consider yourself to be a good person? The Bible declares, most men will proclaim their own goodness. Let’s see if you qualify as being a good person. Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything, irrespective of its value? Have you ever used God’s name to curse? Jesus said, I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart?
jesussaves7777 2 weeks ago
@jesussaves7777 Lying is okay as long as it's justified and doesn't hurt anyone. Using God's name to curse, in my case, is either just a habit or for deliberate irony. Sex between consenting adults is only bad if it's hurting someone. To look at someone in lust is human nature, in the same way that other animals pursue the chance for procreation. If you're going to sit there and tell me these things, which are unharmful to humans, should be forbidden, then you sir are off your fucking gourd.
j0hnjp 2 weeks ago
Have you ever looked at someone with lust? The Bible says that if someone hates another person they are a murderer (I John 3:15). Have you ever hated anyone? If you have answered, Yes, to the previous questions, then you have admitted that you are a liar, a thief, a blasphemer, an adulterer and a murderer and we’ve only looked at 4 of the 10 Commandments. If God were to judge you by this standard would you be innocent or guilty? You know you are guilty and deserving of an eternity in Hell.
jesussaves7777 2 weeks ago
Jesus Christ came to earth and died a criminal’s death not because He had broken the Law, but because we had. God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. What should you do? Repent, turn from your sins & put your complete faith in Jesus Christ as your Savoir and Lord. You may die today, in your sin. Is there any reason why you would not accept God’s gift? More info at living waters website with true & false conversion audio sermon. God Bless!
jesussaves7777 2 weeks ago
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I'm guessing English isn't your first language? If I've understood you right , though, you are saying the universe is a big and splendid thing and therefore it must be created? If so, I can only agree that indeed the universe is big and splendid, but there is still no evidence it was created. I'm afraid the Quran is of no use at all in explaining it ( nor is the Bible, nor are a hundred other religious texts ).
daverowbotham 2 weeks ago
@McCobra811,find a dictionary and look up logic.then get back to me,and then use it to defend religion.not a creator,RELIGION!
reeceyhiggs 2 weeks ago
@reeceyhiggs Ou , religion ! Thats the problem isn't it , A creator created us and left us run on automatic , don't you think that if there is a creator who created us , he will send guidance to his creation ? Have you seen any thing made without a purpose ? There is a creator and he made us for no purpose , what a creator ! This idea is liked by the ones who don't want to be held accountable for what they do , thats the reason many people even reject God cos of accountability
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@reeceyhiggs Islam is the religion of logic , sent by the creator to guide human kind , from Adam to the last man !
People don't like it cos it doesn't suit people's desires , but the truth is not what you like !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 The religion of logic you say? Islam, the religion of logic? The same Islam that says that salt water doesn't mix with regular water? Logic you say? The same Islam that scratched pieces out of their Koran because they did not like it and claimed that Mohammed was taking advice from Satan instead of Allah, in those verses? Logic you say? That a woman should be punished for seducing a man, even if that man i practically performed rape? Logic, yes, indeed, that logical Islam
cueballB 2 weeks ago
@cueballB Yes the same Islam , who says salt water and regular water don't mix in the SEA , your hero dawkins twisted that because he got hammered by that fact ! HALOCLINE !
Watch : watch?v=d7laxNgKwR4 ! Next time try to read the whole verse of the Quran 25:53 : And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition.
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 I can't possibly believe that anyone would believe that verse was explaining halocline. You must be joking. Halocline has to do with different levels of salinity in salt water oceans. Your verse clearly states TWO types of water. One fresh and sweet and one salty. Even with halocline, salinity mixes, due to suface waters evaporating and being stronger in salinity, leading to mixing. Even if the verse ment what you want it to mean, you would still be wrong.
cueballB 2 weeks ago
@cueballB Did you watch this ? watch?v=d7laxNgKwR4
Why doesn't the ocean mix with the amazon river on the meeting point ?
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 It is a misrepresentation. Let me put it this way: it was very easy at the time of the conception of the Quran to observe that snow does not fall it the desert. They could have written in the Quran that Allah placed a barrier of fire between the clouds and the horizon, so to prevent snow from falling. It would have kind of made sense now, yet it would not be correct. Neither is the verse, and the natural occurence is explained due to natural effects, not through devinity
cueballB 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Having watched the video about the two seas meeting and not mixing I fail to see what your point is. This is a very normal situation governed by the ordinary, everyday laws of physics - nothing special. Mildly interesting, but not a revalation about the truth of the Quran and God. Perhaps the extent of the separation has seen to be much greater because scientific instruments are getting better and scientists are starting to study the oceans a little more thoroughly.
Neilhuny 2 weeks ago
@Neilhuny Laws of physics , Lmao ! Did you think that God uses a magic stick to seperate the seas ? God seperates them by the laws of physics which he created ! My friend , thats just one of many proves from the Quran ! How did quran know 1400 years ago that every human has unique fingerprints ? Universe has a begining and will end and descibes how it will end ! watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Well first fingerprints are not in fact unique... and oddly humans aren't the only creatures to have fingerprints either.
"Does man think that WE Cannot assemble his bones? Nay, WE are able to put Together in perfect order The very tips of his fingers."
That also doesn't mention fingerprints...and certainly not that they are unique (which would be wrong anyway) it mentions the tips of fingers... its YOU that's interpreting this means fingerprints.
But it doesn't mention them...
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey You are trying in any way to refute something so clear , why ? What is so special from the tips of the fingers ? He is pointing out that every one has unique fingerprints and he is able to do them , he is telling you to reflect that he is capable of resurrecting you !
Fingerprints are not unique , really? the science must be wrong then ? You don't want to accept the fact that there is a creator because you don't want to be held accountable for your actions
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 No... I am saying that the quran does not mention fingerprints... anywhere... not once...
Fingerprints are not unique... there is no math that would allow this to be so... and its not in the quran anyway... so your argument against it is pointless.
And no, there is no creator... because there is no evidence of one... the very same reason you don't think there are any leprechauns in the world.
I couldn't care less what you think of my actions......
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Tips of fingers is not fingerprints its the tips of fingers. If the verse had read 'to the balls of their eyes'... would you be insisting that the Quran predicted retinal uniqueness... just for mentioning eyes! This is absolutely nonsense...moreover you know its nonsense!
By the same logic we could assume Aristotle predicted the arab spring risings of 2011 in 300bc... he did after all state that 'Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.'
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey You are trying to find exiuses like the Guy who loved alcohol and when you tell him alcohol is forbiden in Islam ,he says : where is it writen in the Quran that heineken is forbiden ? This is called playing hide and seek with yourself !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Nothing wrong with alcohol.... well obviously drinking yourself stupid whilst ignoring your responsibilities is wrong. But its the ignoring responsibilities that's wrong there. There's also nothing wrong with driving, unless you drive over random pedestrians whilst in a hurry.
The guy was right, only wine is forbidden in the Quran, you should read it some time! Plus alcohol was not always forbidden in Islam, that's relatively recent.
Maybe you don't know what moral values are?
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MrCobra811 Plus a little odd that you insist the Quran mentions the uniqueness (rarity) of two fingerprints... because in those 1400 years it seems not a single reader of the Quran put that to any use...
How many criminalswere identified by this discovery during all that time? Have a guess? I'll give you a hint, its lower than one!
But lets test that ... if there really are discoveries made in the Quran before other civilizations made them then that holds true right now, agreed?
CONT.
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811
CONT.
So t should be pretty obvious there is information in the Quran that we currently do not posses right now. Scientific information we have yet to discover ... yes?
Okay... name one. Something we haven't discovered yet... just one. Lets not wait for science to discover it... lets look in the Quran..
So off you go, tell us something we currently DO NOT know that is already in the Quran.
Should be pretty easy ehh?
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey Ou yeah , Few years ago , I can even show you the text of some people who were mocking Quran for saying ants talk , to their nightmare scientists found out that ants talk by sound with each other !
Second : Quran talks about 7 heavens , talks about worlds , plural !
If there is any other worlds out there Quran has it already here writen in it but we haven't discover it yet !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 But if the Quran was perfect, you would be able to read it and understand everything it says and all of its meanings in every language, and you wouldn't have all this shit about "YOU CAN'T COMMENT U NO SPEAK ARAB"
gotsda 2 weeks ago
@gotsda You can understand the Quran in its translation , but the original language is the mirale itself , study to discover it !
Arabic is a rich language and many words cannot be translated in other languages
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 So what you are saying is that Allah is actually pretty shit at communication...and only manages to pass such communications on to a minority of peple who understand 7th or 8th century arabic...
Not exactly the best start in a debate regarding the accuracy of a book is it? Admitting the communicator of the message is a fucking dimwit that can't compete with Google translate!
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey Allah chose the perfect language for people , you don't need Arabic to know God exists , you can understand the message even from the translation ! Arabic is for those who are really interested in Allah and miracle of Quran , If you need something you have to work for it and will appreciate it more ! Allah could have just made everything ready for us but this life is a test , and for us to appreciate things by working !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Yeah those people spoke Arabic before the Quran came about... a long time before..The vast majority of them couldn't read and write then, and by 1980 it had only reached 50% thanks to educational programs by the UN, not Allah!...
Why a god would consider a book a good method of communication when only one person in 30 were literate is absurd.
So a book? in a written language few could understand? Not the sharpest tool in the box is he?
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MrCobra811
"Arabic is a rich language and many words cannot be translated in other languages"
nonsense... all concepts capable of being understood by humans and many that are NOT capable of being understood by humans can be conveyed in other languages...or using modal logic, or math etc....
This claim just states that the you think the creator of the universe is shit at communication.
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
In fact any word in any languge can be conveyed as a concept in any other... and where a word is lacking one is created to explain it... for example the japanese have a word for a person who dies from overworking themselves... its a unique word ...but well understood.. 'Karōshi'
In english this translates as 'death by over excertion or death by overwork'
We could easily make up a new word... lets call if 'workdeath'... that matches the former perfectly.
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Anyway, tell you what I speak 4 languages...english, spanish, french and german, 5 if you count Gaelic.
So tell you what, I was going to learn mandarin...and still will. But from what I see arabic with only 100k words and only 10k spoken on average by native Arabic speakers its simplistic.
So, I'll learn written and spoken arabic then I'll read the Quran and we can discuss it...yes? Give me a month.
From what I see Arabic is easier than any basic programming language syntax.
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
هل ترغب في رؤية غير المؤمنين تتكلم العربية؟
هذا هو ما كنت يوحي؟
لها القيام به بسهولة!
By the way, think I'll do this anyway, it'll open up a whole new world of erm... spreading VALID information for me!
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey Give me a month to learn arabic hahahah! Are you kiddng me ?
I am trying to learn Tajweed , which is only learning how to read and its taking Ages for me , let alone to learn the meaning !
What ? when I try to tell a joke in english from my language the joke looses its power to make you laugh ,its a fact !
You can never find the exact word of something , you only go close but never exact !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Nope I'm not kidding....
Some of us are just slightly brighter than others... in my case its more of a curse.
Anyway one month, in fact in one months time (you can time me) I'll make a video in arabic,.. explaining how since western atheists can't generally speak arabic its a good Idea that they do!
I'll be sure to give you credit for coming up with that idea of non believers learning arabic too! I't the least I can do for you explaining why I should!
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MrCobra811 BTW.. thats classical Arabic, not Modern Standard Arabic... since the Quran is written in classical Arabic... I'm sure the modern Arabic will be easier after that.
Y'know what, I also know rather a lot of people (all atheists) who would probably be able to do the same... it might start a trend.
I'm sure other Muslims would be absolutely delighted with you for setting a horde of atheists all learning classical arabic? yes?
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MrCobra811 Ants do not talk... they communicate using chemical messages and vibrations... this is an automated process, they don't 'think' about it, anymore than you think about breathing. they also don't understand language for many reasons...not least of which is the size of their brain (100k neurons) and also because they do no possesses a language interpretation center in their brain....(brocas area)
You may as well tell me that could communicate with plants by raining on them.
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey Ants comunicate by sound , its proven ! They don't speak english obviously but their own language !
Watch this : watch?v=WpVkZEok6tM
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCobra811 "They don't speak english obviously but their own language !"
sound vibrations that act as a stimulus for an ant to carry out a reaction is NOT a language...
Plus you are missing the entire point... the messages outlined in the Quran that these ants are supposed to have sent to and from one another is not possible... Ants can't communicate using language...and because they can't use language they certainly cannot transmit complicated concepts as outlined in the quran.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey Ooops....looks like you've upset someone - "flagged as spam"! I've thumbs-upped you. So annoying when people do that - wish they'd grow the fuck up.
Ellie8969 1 week ago
@MrCobra811 You also point blank missed the opportunity (which I have to say is entirely fair) to point out something in the quran we do not yet know...
That was the entire point I made, you ignored it completely.
Something that is IN the Quran right now...that the rest of us have not discovered... its a short book, this should be easy. We know we haven't discovered it yet.... I told you that, no point in repeating my own words back to me...
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 I think you'll find the idea of both other worlds and life on other worlds has been a hot topic of debate since before the greeks, even the chinese philosophers got in on the act...
Pointing out that threes a single mention of it in the quran when there are books that predate that mention by 2k years is rather silly don't you think...
Would you like a list of those books or are you okay to go find them yourself?
try again.
BTW we have indeed found over 1500 exoplanets...
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey Buddy , Islam is the only logical religion which makes sense in every aspect !
Islam was on earth since the first man Adam , Islam is not a new religion , its the religion of Moses , Jesus and thousands of prophets before until Adam !
Those ancient greeks and others took stuff from Islam of that time and mixed them with their own fantasy to suit their desires !
There were loads of genereations before us more advanced then Us , its in the Quran !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 troll.
ulf5 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Its certainly not logical. People do not travel to the moon, split the moon in two, reproduce a full population from two breeding people, converse in their head with invisible beings, these are not premises that are in any way part of a logical argument...they are illogical.
I'd suggest you go look up the concept of logic.
start with the basics of logic, for example the law of identity and work your way through the basics of logic, then apply that to the quran!
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Its certainly not logical. People do not travel to the moon, split the moon in two, reproduce a full population from two breeding people, converse in their head with invisible beings, these are not premises that are in any way part of a logical argument...they are illogical.
I'd suggest you go look up the concept of logic.
start with the basics of logic, for example the law of identity and work your way through the basics of logic, then apply that to the quran!
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Then ancient Greek culture spans from around 400bc to about 580 ad or so... it died out some time before Mohammad was born!
So that's that nonsense out of the way... unless you think Aristotle rose from the dead to read the Quran?
Now, older civilizations, less technology and knowledge, modern civilizations more technology and knowledge... that's the way it is... unless you think the city of Ur was powered by a nuclear reactor? So clearly the Quran is wrong there.
wtf?
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey Sorry to butt in.......superb take down, just superb.
And made me laugh too :-)
Ellie8969 2 weeks ago
@Ellie8969 Y'know the funny thing is not one Islamic or creationist or other fundamental weirdo actually realised I'm ripping the piss out of them...
Yet they would laugh their head off if someone done this to someone else who insisted they bred leprechauns for their little green coats!
But when it comes to their own fictional world they refuse to believe someone is sitting on the other side typing and laughing their nuts off!
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MumblingMickey An atheist talking about the concept of logic pfahah! The word atheism in itself means illogic! How ? I tell you how!
Logic is based on our surrounding environment and experience , if a car is build by a mechanic and that is logical , if a building is build by a builder and that is logical , now based on this logic how on earth you say the universe designed itself and call it logical?
you have a contradiction of logic in the atheistic point of view , oopss
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811
"Logic is based on our surrounding environment .."
Logic is not based on your surrounding or environment, or experience Its based on axiomatic premises that result in a conclusion.
Law of identity, law of noncontradiction, law of excluded middle. Aristotle? Plato? maybe Russell, or Gootlieb?
You don't know what I'm talking about do you?
I know that because you explained in that sentence above how you have no clue what logic is? Are you for fucking real? How old are you?
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MumblingMickey You cannot have the logic contradicting itself , sorry ! If universe creating itself is logical , then this logic must be applied to our world we living too !
Logic doesn't change 2+2=4 , it will never become 5, This scientific example of maths we found during our experience of our surroundings , and a car designed by a mechanic is part of this logic , of our surroundings ! If you gonna say the universe designed itself the you are saying 2+2=5, logic change
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MumblingMickey Since you have no clue of Quran , then let me explain you! Quran is the last revelation from God, thousands of prophets and revelations with the same message were sent from the time of Adam to the last one Quran ! The gospel of Jesus and the Torah of Moses were part of this chain , "Older civilization less tech" are you kidding me ? there were generations before us more advanced then us , you don't know this , just look at the south american old buildings !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 I read the Quran, the bibles, read the bhagavad gita, and in fact a lot of new and old religions and scriptural dogma and religious philosophy.
Old buildings in south america are were constructed with LESS technology and are LESS advanced than modern ones. Less, not more. Why don't you look at those Mayan pyramids...and compare them to say the sky park in singapore? Is the Mayan pyramid MORE advanced or LESS advanced?
Fuck its giving me a headache to think down to this level..
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MrCobra811 Maybe you could compare anything you like from antiquity with say the international space station... is the space station more advanced or less advanced?
The main question here is why do I even have to point this out.
I get the feeling you are mentally ill or something
Anyway, as I said I'll be giving you credit for persuading me to learn Arabic where I will make a point of pulling the Quran apart sura by sura in Arabic at every turn. As far a s I see its a new audience.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey How do you compare something from antiquity with today ? there were civilization more advanced then us before we started recording our history you dummy , Antiquity doesn't start 10 thousands years ago when history we know started to record ! There were civilisation which were desroyed who left pictures of space crafts and tech , where did they get those pictures from !
MrCobra811 1 week ago
@Neilhuny
watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@cueballB If you brought verses from the Quran , I will debate with you ! But if you go by emotions and wishfull thinking then sorry ! No a women shouldn't be punished for seducing a man , she should shag him and make some bastards and destroy the society same as its being destroyed , If you are ok that your sister or mother can seduce a man than welcome to animalism cos you have nothing in common with humans !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 First of all, do not delude yourself in thinking that seducing a man, as a woman, is a bad thing. Men are notoriously bad in wooing women. (Hence all the crummy pickup lines) Someone has to do it. Animalism has nothing to do with it. In the animal kingdom, most are ruled by alpha males. They fight for the right to mate with women, not the other way around. You my friend, so willing to take away basic rights of women, to get a man they fancy, are much closer to animalism.
cueballB 2 weeks ago
@cueballB Man they fancy , If you like the girl you go and ask her parents to meet with her for marriage not for anything else ! Women are not for play ground , just for squizing your hormones and dump them in bin when you are bored ! You get married with the girl and if things don't work , you divorce her and she takes half of your property , thats how it works ! You would think twice to divorce her for stupid reasons cos you loose your house !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 You are misrepresenting what i said. (Strawman, as they say) You clearly have no wish to respect how women feel about the person they are going to marry. It is not because you let women enjoy the right to choose their own spouse, that they are treated as a play ground. (reductio ad absurdum) you are a walking logical fallacy canon.
cueballB 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811
"Women are not for play ground"
Women are not your property, you don't get to decide jack fucking shit what they are for... They can decide that for themselves... and if you don't like it,....well thats just tough shit!
Your ideas of what women are may as well be scrawled on a cave wall 30 thousand years ago, you are a fucking neanderthal!
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MrCobra811
Why has a woman doing the very same as a man any impact on you? Now you claim your moral values aren't just yours...they should be adhered to by others that don't share them ?
What I do note, .ironically, is that you get these moral dictates from a book which was written by of all people a fucking pedophile! Do you really think a child molester will give you good moral values? Your prophet fucked children, don't pretend to use his moral values to tell others how to behave!
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey You mumblinmickey are another ignorant that needs to be slaped around logically ! Here comes the slap : You are accusing The prophet for doing something immoral (which is not the case any way), when you believe in the survival of the fittest and macro evolution , is there any moral in the survival of the fittest ? the prophet looks immoral to you,yet you believe you had reptiles as ancestors and that goes well with you without being offended , pfffahaahah
MrCobra811 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey If you believe in survival of the fittest and macro evolution then Islam and the prophet is part of that process, there is no moral in survival of the fittest, anything goes! when you try to call somebody Immoral and you yourself believe in macro evolution then you are a hypocrit! If you attack somebody on moral issues you have to have better foundation morals then him, your foudation is survival of the fittest which is immoral therefore you are attacking yourself
MrCobra811 1 week ago
@McCobra,go and find a dictionary and look up the word "logic/logical" ,apply it,and then i"ll be happy to debate.i cant debate with someone who doesnt understand logic its like debating with a brick wall!
reeceyhiggs 2 weeks ago
@reeceyhiggs I have looked it up , it says a building needs a builder , non in the face of the earth exept atheists believe that something designed itself ! So the logic bites you in the head ! A car is made from a mechanic, is logic! A building is made by a builder , its logic ! By this logic we believe that the universe must be made by someone , you don't apply this logic , why is it ? You apply the illogical aproach , an Universe can design itself whith no logical foundation!
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@McCobra811u are using the typicsl argument of a religious ppl,yes,youre right,i will not allow ancient myths with ZERO evidence to dictate my decisions and actions ,u bring that up because u feel like ur in a prison and totally restricted!thats ur curse,not for me thanks.if god showed even the smallest sign he was real then i would convert instantly,im not living a very restricted life on the promise of cavemen,its the height of stulidity!
reeceyhiggs 2 weeks ago
@reeceyhiggs You will not allow logic to set in your brain , i know! Typical argument of religious people , I should't use logic just because religious people use it ! Wether you like it or not God dictates your decisions , to him you will return , jump up and down there is no escape ! There is plenty of signs but its all about believe , wether you believe the sign or not ! You cannot make decisions on your own, decide not to breath, decide not to go to toilet , decide not to eat?
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 Which god? There are hundreds to choose from.
daverowbotham 2 weeks ago
@daverowbotham The one which makes sense , the eternal one ! Allah
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 I'm sorry, but Thor makes as much sense. After all, he did promise to rid the world of ice giants, and I don't see many ice giants around, do you? As for me, I don't beleive in any gods , the whole idea of it is just silly to my mind.
daverowbotham 2 weeks ago
@McCobra811,seriously bud,read up on the scientific theorys before assuming anything,there are two proposals,a creator and no creator,no one knows for SURE witch is the answer,that includes acient desert ppl.my argument is that relgion is total BS.logic can go either way on a creator,logic dectates that religion is BS!
reeceyhiggs 2 weeks ago
@reeceyhiggs I know why religion is BS cos it tells you to change yourself , and you are not willing to give up your desires , thats the problem ! The reason you don't accept that God exists is because you know you will have to have responsibilities and restrict yourself from desires , therefore you play hide and seek with your own self , without knowing that you are only putting your own self in danger
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@McCobra811 "the universe organised itself" that statement alone proves youre not familiar with the scientific processes that went into it "organising itself" ! You mock a complex scientific process by simplefying it like that,so if thats the ignorant game you want to play then i believe in scientific procesess and not myths of acient desert ppl!:-)
reeceyhiggs 2 weeks ago
@reeceyhiggs If universe didn't organise itself than someone did it ? one or the other , we are not stupid are we , you don't want to accept it cos you know it leads to a designer logically ! Why doesn't any scientific process like nuclear plant work itself here on earth , from disorder comes order without intervention , but only in the universe cos in our world that is not the case , why are they doing this ? logic of this world is connected , everything is connected logically
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
@MrCobra811 wow! i wouldnt even know where too start with your flawed logic and @TheRichardHinckley i would give up mate,u cant reason with the unreasonable!or have an intelligent debate with someone who isnt intelligent! lol
reeceyhiggs 2 weeks ago
@reeceyhiggs My logic is flawed I believe in God rather than universe organising itself , which has no logical base in our wold of understanding how things work !
MrCobra811 2 weeks ago
Errrrrrr, the interviewer is basing all his opinions on DAVID HUME, a fuckin' 18th century philosopher - gee mate, don't you think philosophy has progressed since the heady days of the 18th century? Don't you think other philosophical ideas, tools and, yes, even science has substantiated philosophy and religion in ways Hume could never have envisaged.
Idiots!
CharlesDilkes 3 weeks ago
I'm really angry that these dullards are given the time of day: these are Derren's 'gut instinct' views, i.e., they're the views of an ignorant man, no more relevant than the views of Joe Average.
Philosophy of religion is a vast and complex discipline - come on, show us the views of Alvin Plantinga, Graham Oppy, Quentin Smith or Richard Swinburne - not this pop psychologist.
Derren: Intelligent Design forms the basis of teleological arguments, it isn't necessarily wedded to biological design.
CharlesDilkes 3 weeks ago
@CharlesDilkes Do you expect Derren to give the interviewer the views of someone else? He know how people can trick themselves and be manipulated by others, which essentially is religion in a nutshell.
Bumblybee256 3 weeks ago
@Bumblybee256 No, it isn't 'religion in a ntushell', it's Brown's baseless, ignorant, gut instinct in a nut shell. He should shut the fuck up if he doesn't know anything about the subject matter.
CharlesDilkes 3 weeks ago
@CharlesDilkes Of course it is. It's a tool to control people. I see they got you good.
Bumblybee256 3 weeks ago
@Bumblybee256 lol, fuck off you mug. If facile bon mots intellectually satisfy you then be my guest and indulge.
CharlesDilkes 3 weeks ago
@CharlesDilkes As intelligent as I expected.
Bumblybee256 3 weeks ago
@Bumblybee256 Sorry, was you expecting a fuckin' essay to your quip? A bon mot engenders a likewise response: sorry it wasn't to your taste.
But then again, someone who writes: 'lol, answer izz question then whoo created God??' - and thinks this an oh so stumbling point in religion deserves nothing but contempt. Go a read a book you moron. I'm sick and tired and spastics like you averring your ignorant opinions.
Look at your channel: full of polemics and diatribes. go figure.
CharlesDilkes 3 weeks ago
@CharlesDilkes You're really very angry aren't you. Isn't the only useful thing about religion supposed to be that it's soothing? You still can't actually seem to answer said 'stumbling block' and have instead decided to stalk and continue to insult me. Way to represent the godheads. Fail.
Bumblybee256 3 weeks ago
@Bumblybee256 Angry? How the fuck would you know? I could be writing this with a beaming smile upon my face - hint, moron, the internet has a veil of anonymity which I utilise to the fullest; the words written don't necessary correspond to emotion. Savvy?
No, God isn't 'utility' you fool, God is TRUTH, a religious believer subscribes to TRUTH, that's why they believe in God. Come on, think about it you simpleton.
CharlesDilkes 3 weeks ago
@CharlesDilkes Probably the aggressive language- who can say? No, they don't necessarily correspond but I think it's safe to assume in you case they do. On the other hand the dissonance might be apt.
Lol, nope, that still sounds like mental illness. If you believed in TRUTH you would not block off paths of enquiry by plonking god in the middle of them. Still no answer.
Bumblybee256 3 weeks ago
@Bumblybee256 Didn't see this bit: you think I haven't addressed the 'stumbling block' - well yes I did you moron, look what I wrote:
"The standard defence of God is as a necessary and causeless Being."
I imagine you're scratching your head over that because, to you, that sentence is meaningless, and yet it has been the standard apologetic defence of God since the inception of Christianity. Trying reading a book, you might learn something.
CharlesDilkes 3 weeks ago
@CharlesDilkes
"The standard defence of God is as a necessary and causeless Being."
That is not an answer. There is no reason for a god to exist. Defining it as necessary and causeless does not make it so. Why can't the universe be 'causeless' thereby eliminating the need for god? Lol I know what you're 'defences' are, but they're crap and have been destroyed a million times.
Bumblybee256 3 weeks ago