This Guy doesn't know anything about his own religon also islam. Allah is the arabic word for God, like yaweh is to Hebrew! An arabian Christian would call God , Allah and Jesus, Isa also. Therefore i would continue to say that if your statement is tru about the records of the bible, then there should never be so many versions of the bible. the same yaweh is the same allah that the bible speaks about its called the Torah. The Jews, Muslim and so called Christians use it today.
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 THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and 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)
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
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
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 were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DEBATE OVER EVOLUTION IS NOT OVER, contrary to Hitchen's claim. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives and grant money are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my 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 on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NOT NATURE MADE! Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals that make-up an earthworm were scattered and left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to re-organize them into a worm again. It takes an already existing worm to bring about another worm. The worm exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't design or invent the worm! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's 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
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
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!
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 INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
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!
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!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Not all energy on the earth comes from the sun. Radiation from the formation of the earth accounts for about 2% ( I think I'm gonna have to look it up).
I would just like to point out that Lord Hathoor never adequately addressed my core argument: that God is perfect BY DEFINITION, that anything which is perfect must exist with necessity, and that therefore God exists.
Also a sufficient basis for requiring a belief in God is the fact that Jesus gave everything, temporarily, you ought to therefore love Him, and in order to love Him you must believe in Him.
I provide many sufficient bases for belief, and all anyone can say is that I'm stupid.
@wtfnord You mean the argument that some dust devil named "Allah" is perfect by definition too? You agreed with me that Allah, if he existed, would be a demon due to his immoral teaching. Therefore Allah is not perfect by definition. Or was there some other rebuttal that I am forgetting?
@GodlyBillyBobJenkins that was not my argument, and everyone reading these comments that has listened to the audio knows it. I'm not re-hashing the debate with a fucking idiot more than once. you're blocked until you come up with something new.
He votes republican... so that there won't be a contradiction between biblical law and secular law... Something tells me that he's not looking for a change in biblical law, so... he wants secular law to condone stoning non-believers and beating unruly children? I have nothing else to say about that... O.O'
God exists because God exists, and not just any GOD, mind you, but my God... how can you not understand this? Also God is the ultimate author of morals and since his morality exists without his existence he exists... Get it? Also did you catch that he wants old testament law to actually be the law of the land, nut job, says he wants to stone atheists if USA law told him he could.
The two magic words that settled the whole debate before it even started: "literalist" and "King James Bible". That the moment wtfnord should have ended the debate.
One cannot define something into existence. Defining something as existing or having an attribute that requires existence does not actually make the thing exist. You should have asked him where did he get that idea.
I was baffled by his answers and was doubting his sincerity multiple times.
@wtfnord: I meant to put a question mark on the end of that. I was just noting that the level of agitation seemed to be going up in your voice. Not critiquing you, just making an observation.
If anybody claim they're a biblical literalist, you might as well stop the discussion there. NOBODY is a biblical literalist, claiming so would only prove you haven't read the book.
wow what a nutjob. Enjoyed the debate though. Maybe I missed it but when he said he always votes republican to bring our laws in harmony with the bibles you should have asked him if that meant he would be happy for you to be stoned to death if the republicans voted it in. Then if he said yes I would have just called him a scumbag and moved on.
@Brushles83 you're right, I really should have asked if that meant that as soon as he was able, would he have killed me? - I was just too shocked by what he said to think clearly for the next few seconds! haha
@wtfnord I admit I'm biased because I actually WANT you to be wrong, because I don't want to live in a world where people like that exist! :-) Some of the stuff he says is just too nutty to be real. For example - He doesn't wear mixed fibers? How is that even possible in this age? Does he live in a cave and wear self-spun hemp clothing?
I debate with theists a bit, mostly online on PalTalk, and I've met all sorts. He really set of alarms on my satire and irony detectors...
OK, I made it through the whole thing (while working on a document). If this debate was for real, and not a performance piece, then I think you got trolled. No way was this guy for real. I know the whole idea of "Po" is that it's hard to tell sometimes, but I think your opponent was just poking fun at you and your debate. He may even be an atheist himself (I just listened to one of the songs on his channel, "Atheists Know There Is A God", it also seemed satirical).
I think what you should have gotten to was the source of the claim that "God is perfect." He's claiming that God is perfect, and according to him, that claim proves God exists. It's almost like he's saying that, if you can think something up, it automatically becomes real, and that you have to believe it - or else you hate Jesus.
@TheSkepticalAtheist I believe that you are correct, and I did ask him to justify his claim that god is perfect. however, he simply dodged that question. :-(
As I listened to the whole thing, it became obvious that you could never really pin him down on any solid position. And the thing about "the Devil" planting fossils literally came out of a comedy sketch that Bill Hicks did once - only in the comedy sketch, it was God planting the fossils. I mean, the irony was just incredible.
"Our Noodly Creator then placed fossils, hidden under the earth's surface, knowing that they would later be found—thus, seemingly proving that these creatures existed some time ago.Dinosaur bones, for example, were placed so well and in such numbers that it's widely believed dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago."
You guys are sick and twisted maybe you guys can join up with those Westboro freaks and become one inbred super church,lol.
RICHARD720 3 months ago
lol you people are dumb,Landover and Billy Bob are a parody of Christians.
they are the best trolls in the world.
DietrichLuke 4 months ago
@DietrichLuke i love Landover, best satire ever, its exactly my type of humour
vaultkeeper2 4 months ago
This guy doesnt know what he's speaking about! this was the right Christian to have this Debate.
sugars01 4 months ago
This Guy doesn't know anything about his own religon also islam. Allah is the arabic word for God, like yaweh is to Hebrew! An arabian Christian would call God , Allah and Jesus, Isa also. Therefore i would continue to say that if your statement is tru about the records of the bible, then there should never be so many versions of the bible. the same yaweh is the same allah that the bible speaks about its called the Torah. The Jews, Muslim and so called Christians use it today.
sugars01 4 months 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and 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 5 months 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 5 months ago
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 5 months ago
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 were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DEBATE OVER EVOLUTION IS NOT OVER, contrary to Hitchen's claim. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives and grant money are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months 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 on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT NATURE MADE! Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals that make-up an earthworm were scattered and left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to re-organize them into a worm again. It takes an already existing worm to bring about another worm. The worm exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't design or invent the worm! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months 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 5 months 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 5 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 5 months 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@ 28:20
Not all energy on the earth comes from the sun. Radiation from the formation of the earth accounts for about 2% ( I think I'm gonna have to look it up).
MakinH2O 5 months ago
"Thats's why I vote rep. to change the law" so atheists can be stoned to death. what a fucktard.
MakinH2O 5 months ago
Billy-Bob is a Godly man.True.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 6 months ago
"bigfoot probably sodomises other animals in the wild" hahahhaa this is comedy gold
vaultkeeper2 6 months ago
please google "Landover Baptist Church", its a parody and Billy Bob is fake, he write songs for that forum
vaultkeeper2 6 months ago
I would just like to point out that Lord Hathoor never adequately addressed my core argument: that God is perfect BY DEFINITION, that anything which is perfect must exist with necessity, and that therefore God exists.
Also a sufficient basis for requiring a belief in God is the fact that Jesus gave everything, temporarily, you ought to therefore love Him, and in order to love Him you must believe in Him.
I provide many sufficient bases for belief, and all anyone can say is that I'm stupid.
GodlyBillyBobJenkins 6 months ago
@GodlyBillyBobJenkins I'll let the rebuttal of that same argument that was used and refuted in the video, stand.
wtfnord 6 months ago
@wtfnord You mean the argument that some dust devil named "Allah" is perfect by definition too? You agreed with me that Allah, if he existed, would be a demon due to his immoral teaching. Therefore Allah is not perfect by definition. Or was there some other rebuttal that I am forgetting?
GodlyBillyBobJenkins 6 months ago
@GodlyBillyBobJenkins that was not my argument, and everyone reading these comments that has listened to the audio knows it. I'm not re-hashing the debate with a fucking idiot more than once. you're blocked until you come up with something new.
wtfnord 6 months ago
Oh wow! The stupid... it burns... my head is in actual, physical pain after listening to this guy.
And this guy can vote for the leaders of our country. He can actually influence on some level who gets to make decisions in this country. ;_;
ARPerson9 6 months ago
He votes republican... so that there won't be a contradiction between biblical law and secular law... Something tells me that he's not looking for a change in biblical law, so... he wants secular law to condone stoning non-believers and beating unruly children? I have nothing else to say about that... O.O'
AnemosThrowback 6 months ago
God exists because God exists, and not just any GOD, mind you, but my God... how can you not understand this? Also God is the ultimate author of morals and since his morality exists without his existence he exists... Get it? Also did you catch that he wants old testament law to actually be the law of the land, nut job, says he wants to stone atheists if USA law told him he could.
kintarocrab 6 months ago
"I believe he's a demon by definition"
My face: O.O
Petrivolve 6 months ago
why the new channel?
HRRyan2 6 months ago
This guys a POE just look at his page and some of his 'songs.' . Trololololo
johnnyphoenix74 6 months ago
The two magic words that settled the whole debate before it even started: "literalist" and "King James Bible". That the moment wtfnord should have ended the debate.
Achenar12 6 months ago
goo [dot] gl/xGkba proof of legitimacy?
wtfnord 6 months ago
One cannot define something into existence. Defining something as existing or having an attribute that requires existence does not actually make the thing exist. You should have asked him where did he get that idea.
I was baffled by his answers and was doubting his sincerity multiple times.
slipcurve 6 months ago
You get a bit to upset there LH.
MorphicStates 6 months ago
@MorphicStates do I? I think I become a bit incredulous, but I don't think I get really upset. It's an enjoyable debate all around.
wtfnord 6 months ago
Comment removed
MorphicStates 6 months ago
@wtfnord: I meant to put a question mark on the end of that. I was just noting that the level of agitation seemed to be going up in your voice. Not critiquing you, just making an observation.
MorphicStates 6 months ago
Sorry, but you got trolled, royally.
lonelygreenteagirlie 6 months ago
I do not believe this man is a true believer. You may be convinced, I am not.
mathmexican4234 6 months ago
Comment removed
johnnyphoenix74 6 months ago
If anybody claim they're a biblical literalist, you might as well stop the discussion there. NOBODY is a biblical literalist, claiming so would only prove you haven't read the book.
M3t4lManiac 6 months ago
Comment removed
JoFreddieFSM 6 months ago
with god even eating babys is ok
MaxikingNimero 6 months ago
My faith in humanity just committed seppuku.
SAsgarters 6 months ago
Shakes Head... well again religion is shown to have nothing that much to offer. But hope.. false hope really.
masticina 6 months ago
Tell me this guy is a troll..... please....
steviemgallacher 6 months ago
@steviemgallacher Sorry, I talked with him for quite some time before & after. He's for real. :-(
wtfnord 6 months ago
wow what a nutjob. Enjoyed the debate though. Maybe I missed it but when he said he always votes republican to bring our laws in harmony with the bibles you should have asked him if that meant he would be happy for you to be stoned to death if the republicans voted it in. Then if he said yes I would have just called him a scumbag and moved on.
Brushles83 6 months ago
@Brushles83 you're right, I really should have asked if that meant that as soon as he was able, would he have killed me? - I was just too shocked by what he said to think clearly for the next few seconds! haha
wtfnord 6 months ago
Sounds like a troll to me.
Nomiss9 6 months ago
@Nomiss9 Sorry, I talked with him for quite some time before & after. He's for real. :-(
wtfnord 6 months ago
@wtfnord Well, I guess I'll just go find a nice rope then.
Nomiss9 6 months ago
@wtfnord There's no way someone who writes a song with the line "they snort the weed and shoot the coke and often choose to be gay" is being serious.
thumbsdownman 6 months ago
@wtfnord I admit I'm biased because I actually WANT you to be wrong, because I don't want to live in a world where people like that exist! :-) Some of the stuff he says is just too nutty to be real. For example - He doesn't wear mixed fibers? How is that even possible in this age? Does he live in a cave and wear self-spun hemp clothing?
I debate with theists a bit, mostly online on PalTalk, and I've met all sorts. He really set of alarms on my satire and irony detectors...
skevosmavros 6 months ago
Trolled softly.
thumbsdownman 6 months ago
OK, I made it through the whole thing (while working on a document). If this debate was for real, and not a performance piece, then I think you got trolled. No way was this guy for real. I know the whole idea of "Po" is that it's hard to tell sometimes, but I think your opponent was just poking fun at you and your debate. He may even be an atheist himself (I just listened to one of the songs on his channel, "Atheists Know There Is A God", it also seemed satirical).
I guess BillyBob won...
skevosmavros 6 months ago
Wait - BillyBob is satire, right? Took me almost 20 minutes to realise this.
skevosmavros 6 months ago
This guy is scary... I'd hate to be alone on a desert island with this guy...
jaywolfe82 6 months ago
C'mon. This is parody, right?
TheSkepticalAtheist 6 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist I swear to the flying spaghetti monster this is all real, and happened just a few hours ago today.
wtfnord 6 months ago
@wtfnord
I think what you should have gotten to was the source of the claim that "God is perfect." He's claiming that God is perfect, and according to him, that claim proves God exists. It's almost like he's saying that, if you can think something up, it automatically becomes real, and that you have to believe it - or else you hate Jesus.
TheSkepticalAtheist 6 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist I believe that you are correct, and I did ask him to justify his claim that god is perfect. however, he simply dodged that question. :-(
wtfnord 6 months ago
@wtfnord
As I listened to the whole thing, it became obvious that you could never really pin him down on any solid position. And the thing about "the Devil" planting fossils literally came out of a comedy sketch that Bill Hicks did once - only in the comedy sketch, it was God planting the fossils. I mean, the irony was just incredible.
TheSkepticalAtheist 6 months ago
Comment removed
JoFreddieFSM 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticalAtheist Our Lord Noodle planted the fossils!
The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster
A Condensed History of the World
"Our Noodly Creator then placed fossils, hidden under the earth's surface, knowing that they would later be found—thus, seemingly proving that these creatures existed some time ago.Dinosaur bones, for example, were placed so well and in such numbers that it's widely believed dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago."
JoFreddieFSM 6 months ago