No where has any scientist ever said that "coincidence brought matter to life". As i've said before its pretty stupid on your part to talk about what happened before time existed. Einstein "believed" in the MYTHICAL figure called jesus. The fact that Einstein believed (wrongly) that jesus was a real person doesn't take away from him great scientific discoveries. It just means that he probably never gave it any serious consideration. There is ZERO evidence to prove that jesus was real.
You didn't have the spine to reply to me, pathologically lying Atheist?
You wrote: "Before time existed"
At what point in time do you believe that time didn't exist?
You're still lying about Einstein. His words speak for themselves. He said he was "enthralled" by the historical figure Jesus. Orthodox Jews are anti-Christ yet Jesus is mentioned in their ancient Talmud.
You've proven that you're totally incapable of rationalizing your Atheist faith, and that it is 100% nonsense.
@lughcious How do you not understand what the big bang is? Did i ever say that time didn't exist? No, i said when time began. You should probably go research the big bang before you go around talking about it.
What point in time do you believe that time began?
Clearly it's you who doesn't understand belief in Big Bang or you could rationalize your faith in it. What allegedly caused it and what do you believe existed prior to creation of the universe?
No, Big Bang is a belief. Evidence including plasma filaments spanning in all directions throughout the visible universe refutes it. What do you believe could have supposedly caused a Big Bang and what do you believe existed prior to creation of the universe?
@lughcious Actually, the current state of the universe matches the predictions made by the Big Bang theory. The expansion of the universe (evidenced by redshift) is only one part of the evidence, but not all there is to it. I have no idea what existed prior to the Big Bang, but then, I'm not an astrophysicist, I'm a game designer with strong intrest in biology, astrophysics and astronomy.
You're hung up in primitive Atheist beliefs. Bolsheviks were Atheist/Darwinists.
The belief in an expanding universe is nearly 100 years old and contradicts the physical law of conservation of mass. Galaxy density would be decreasing compared to the given volume of space, a violation of physics. There are better explanations for redshift than a sudden inexplicable "bang".
Cosmology is evolving away from the old gravitational model to an Electric Universe.
@lughcious I'm the wrong person to ask. As I said, I am not an expert in the field. I honestly haven't studied the big bang nearly as much as I studies supernovae and supernova-remnants, stars themselves, and black holes. But from what I know, the big bang didn't create enery or matter, but space-time. It was after all, and explosion of space-time itself. The distribution of galaxies and their movement confirm this.
That's not what you were asked, Atheist. You were asked what you believe to be the source of energy for your imaginary big "bang"? Do you understand the question now?
You wrote: "The distribution of galaxies and their movement confirm [an explosion of space-time]."
False. Nothing about your faith is confirmed.
How does time or space 'explode' ?
Einstein believed in God and the historical figure Jesus. Do you have faith that you know better than he?
@lughcious "Einstein believed in God and the historical figure Jesus. Do you have faith that you know better than he?" That is a blatant lie.
He himselve debunked this lie. I don't know what the source of the energy released in the big bang is. Simple as that. I don't know. I don't "believe" in anything in this context, I simply don't know.
"False. Nothing about your faith is confirmed."
Atheism is by defintion not a faith, but the lack of faith [in all deities].
Every fundamental Atheist resorts to lying. You have proven that you cannot begin to rationalize your faith in Big Bang theory. Atheism is 100% faith based. You have faith that the universe and life were each created by coincidence rather than intelligence.
Einstein said he "unquestionably" believed in the historical figure Jesus, and he also used the word "God" frequently. I've posted his quotes with their sources here in the past two days.
@lughcious So now my lack of faith is irrational, while your faith in god is rational despite every lack of evidence? Give me a break.
Coincidence? Nope. "Fundamental atheist"? Nigga please. Atheism doesn't have fundamentals. It's simply the notion that no deity exists, and that's all there is to it.
You lied and claimed that an "explosion of space-time itself" has been confirmed.
Do you believe there is an edge of space? How does it expand or 'explode'? How does time expand or 'explode'? What is the source of energy?
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're a typical lying, profoundly ignorant Atheist.
You also lied about Einstein, when in fact he said that he believed in the historical figure Jesus, and in a non-religious, universal "God", his capital G.
@lughcious I have no "belief" in the big bang. I accept the facts that support it. Its not a matter of faith. Time began at the big bang. Science doesn't know what caused it, if there was a cause. How could there be anything "prior" to the beginning of time? How are you not getting this? There is no "before" if time didn't exist "before" it existed. READ A BOOK.
@lughcious If you really believe that Einstein believed in jesus being the son of god, yet he didn't believe in the christian god then you're just delusional.
If we accept your premise that Einstein believed in the fictional character jesus (i don't agree but i accept your premise) then in the area of religion i'm clearly wiser than Einstein. I'm not better at physics, than he was, but his grasp of theoretical physics has no bearing on his religious views, nor on whether god exists or not.
Look at you squirm, Atheist. Einstein wasn't religious, however, he did say he believed "unquestionably" in the historical figure Jesus, and that he was "enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
How does an "explosion" in time work? At what point in time was it that you believe time didn't exist, Atheist?
Your pathological lying is comical. You know what you are. You can't post a single undeniable gassing of anyone in WWII. Zionist pity-myth dispelled, anti-Christ.
@lughcious "Christianity was founded in Rome. Flavius Josephus is one citizen of Rome who wrote about Jesus."
Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus supposedly lived. Consequently, he was not in a position to do anything but retell the myths of Christians. That's as worthless to discover the truth as stating that Jesus lived because Christians talk about him today. As far as the references in the Talmud goes, you can't connect it to the character in the bible without making assumptions.
Who cares............the Jews were just responding to the idea the Christians had of Jesus. They didn't actually record the events in his superposed life. They wrote about him long after is death.
Einstein may have thought Jesus to be based on areal person however he in no way believed him to be divine. Einstein was a pantheist he didn't believe in a god but used god as a metaphor to describe nature.
you desperately need to learn some history. There are many false quotes of Einsteins that are floating around.
He responded to these false quotes while still alive. saying "Of coarse it is a lie what you've heard about my religious convictions a lie which is being systematically repeated, I do not believe in a personal god & have never hid this. if anything in me can be called religious it is my love of nature as revealed through our science"
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." -- Einstein (Towards the Further Shore, Victor Gollancz, London, 1968)
"I want to know how God created this world." -- Einstein (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press)
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." -- Einstein (What Life Means to Einstein, Saturday Evening Post, 26 October 1929)
@lughcious "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.
You have faith that inanimate matter is your creator. Explain the process as you imagine it step by step. 1. What two molecules do you believe bonded, and what do you imagine brought them into contact?
"When the answer is simple, God is speaking." Albert Einstein
"I want to know how God created this world." Albert Einstein
(The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000)
@lughcious Its not faith. My parents are my creators. You are also taking Einstein out of context. I dont need to explain the process of life for me not to believe in the fairy tales of religion or the ridiculous notion of a sky daddy. Nothing you have to say is backed by science or rational thought.
Wrong. I'm refuting lies. Yours, anti-Christ. Atheists aren't evil, they simply reject science and intelligence, usually out of hatred of Christianity. However, lying is nearly always harmful, at least to the liar.
You can't begin to rationalize your Atheist faith that there was no intelligence involved in creation of the universe and life.
@lughcious Wow, I know its been a few months since that last comment was written, but I thought you would want to know how embarrassingly dumb it was. Be careful not to say any of that in public, people will think you're fucking crazy!
After reading you're other comments its obvious you are a delusional bigot. No amount of facts or evidence could possibly change the mind of somebody so enthralled with myth & superstition.
You go ahead & continue to believe that atheists are evil. while taking full advantage of the technology atheists helped create. Every time you turn on a light bulb remember a evil atheist invented it.
@lughcious This is pretty serious, because Christians also back up their myths about disciples dying for their faith by referencing random writings where people with similar names as the people they wanted to die were described as being executed, yet there is a systematic absence of reason to think said writings are talking about the disciples. With regards to Jesus, he had a common name and it's not worth more than a shrug. Self styled prophets were very common.
@lughcious "Einstein said he absolutely believed in the historical figure Jesus, and also in a non-religious. universal God. You believe in neither. You have faith that you're wiser than Einstein, Atheist - Yes, or No?"
Einstein possessed no particular expertise on the question of whether or not gods exist, and he certainly could have no fact based opinion about whether or not the biblical Jesus(the magic one) was a historical creature - there's simply no evidence of that.
@lughcious Of course, I'm not the one you directed that question at, but I would be very surprised if I couldn't destroy Einstein in a number of intellectual areas. He was a smart physicist - sure - but it's quite laughable to try to push people to say "I'm 'wiser' than Einstein". What does that even mean? Are you suggesting Einstein had evidence of a god, yet somehow failed to communicate this to the scientific community? Or did Einstein have unfounded opinions and you call them "wise"?
I find it a joke that it is even necessary to prove that ID=creationism. Surely all you should have to demonstrate, to get a book forwarding ID/creationism banned from schools, is that it's not true (which has been done again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again....)
All that your book has brought, is fear, ignorants and war. And the biggest issue with it of all, its ability to brainwash a regular critically thinking person into thinking that there is man living in the sky that watches over us. It really takes a loon to actually believe this, despite of overwhelming evidence against it.
You are deluded, Abiogenesis has been confirmed, look it up. Am I irrational, I think assuming we are created is irrational. Science actually can prove it's theory's, your religion cannot, it's based on assumption and superstition. Science is not believe, it yields factual data, unlike your religion.
@lughcious: Your lamen demeanor looks terrible on your credibility. You obviously do not know anything about Science. In fact, in the Scientific community, there isn't a debate, its really only no-nothing isolationists like yourself in which debate perpetuates. Abiogensis HAS been confirmed, we still do not know the conditions that originally started, but.. that does not give your "Sky Daddy" nonsense any merit, its still a stupid bronzeage myth that is void of evidence and critical thinking
I'm not religious. You lie, Atheist, and claim "Abiogenesis HAS been confirmed"
Abiogenesis is the belief that chemicals once came to life billions of years ago, nothing more. Life is not particulate.
How do you imagine the original molecules of RNA (acid) or whatever you believe originally bonded, found each other while suspended in an ocean of water molecules?
@lughcious You can mindlessly bash real Science all you want, but it has taken us from ignorant nomadic people to the think tank we are today. Youtube, Computers, Telescopes, Vacines, Cars, Skyscrapers, Televisions, MIcrowaves and even took a man to the moon. You can bash that all you want, but every invention that Science has been responsible for, is based at the core on the same Scientific principles that has brought us the Theory of Evolution, Molecular Science, Physics, the list goes on.
"Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money." George Carlin
@lughcious I don't have any beliefs about what was around before the big bang. In fact trying to talk about something that happened "before" time existed is kinda pointless.
Also Einstein did NOT believe in the christian god or in jesus.
Einstein most certainly did write about the historical figure Jesus, and reverently. He also said it made him angry when you Atheists misrepresent his words to support your beliefs. You are partially correct, he wasn't religious, but he did believe in God and capitalized the G.
Do you believe you're smarter than he?
On what specifically is your faith in Big Bang based?
@lughcious Einstein may have commented on a literary figure called jesus. He certainly did not believe him to be the son of god. Einstein was a deist. I suggest you go look that word up. Also he is quoted as saying that he gets angry when THEISTS misquote him.
Do a little research before you go running around talking about things you don't understand.
Being smarter (or in your case dumber) than someone has nothing to do with the truth or false hood of their religious beliefs.
Not "may have", and not "a literary figure called jesus", you pathologically deceitful Atheist. What chutzpah for someone content in their abject ignorance to tell others to do research.
Question to Albert Einstein: "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
Answer: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." -- Albert Einstein, 'What Life Means to Einstein'
@lughcious Wow... Way to just obviously misquote someone. The quote is this. "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God." He is clearly talking about a deistic god, not "God" the father of jesus. Einstein was a deist . Do you know what that means?
Einstein has said before that he doesn't like people quoting him on religion is because he was a physicist, not a theologists or philosopher.
Einstein said, as quoted for you, that he "unquestionably" believed in the historical figure Jesus. Not only did Einstein believe in the historical Jesus, he said he was "enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene”
What mechanism do you believe initiated the creation of the universe, and from what?
There's no scientific evidence for your Atheist faith that coincidence brought matter to life, once, billions of years ago.
God is a word for supreme intelligence. It's not religious.
The intellegent design people got their asses kicked in court. Some committed perjur. They got caught ling for god . It should be called unintelligent design.
We'd have to keep Jesus out of all schools anyway. Jesus whipped people (John 2:15). That fact alone makes him unsuitable as a role-model for anyone, though they try to massage the story and claim someone can commit sadomasochistic acts out of good motives...
@Dracopol Jesus didn't use a whip. He used a scourge to drive the money changers out of the temple who sold animals to be used in Judaic ritual blood sacrifices. It was the only time he used forced. That's according to the Bible. I'm not religious.
Did you know that abiogenesis has been discredited? Atheists are without a theory for the origin of life.
@lughcious Jesus offered violence to his fellow-man. So he's ruled out as any role-model.
Scientists don't have to know everything, if the religious don't know ANYTHING. Science is responsible for proving EVERY invisible thing that we know of: planets past Saturn, X-rays, the electron. Often that involves a new way of seeing. By contrast, the religious have NOT given evidence for any invisible thing in such a way as to make it common and plain to all.
You seem to have a firm believe in Jesus, but Jesus hadn't "offered violence" to anyone. He chased the money changers out of the temple who sold animals which the rabbis used in Judaic ritual blood sacrifices, according to the Bible.
Regarding your Atheistical beliefs; Chemicals have never come alive. Not by coincidence, and not by intent. How many times do you believe they did?
Maybe if we make these retarded fuckers actually think that we're trying to destroy their beliefs and religion they will freak-out and become religious zealots... I mean, more so than they already are... maybe enough to get arrested, or at least taken somewhere they can't hurt anybody, or themselves for that matter.
Think? Can you think enough to recite the Atheist supposition for the very first steps to life in your belief that you're a soulless consequence of chemical coincidence? I doubt you will feel comfortable posting them.
@lughcious If humans are void of purpose without God, what purpose does God have without a God? Is he purposeless, or does he serve a higher power? If not, then why must we? Logic must lead you here eventually, how do you answer this? What sort of hoops do you jump through to still give God such purpose in you life?
I define my life, I give it purpose. So far, the only people that have had a problem with that are not me (talking about you here), so why should care?
Don't have any religious beliefs to give you. I disbelieve that we are created from chemical coincidence which leaves an intelligence beyond our comprehension. I humbly submit that there is much I can't comprehend. We are all ignorant hypocrites in denial.
You are evading my initiating question because as predicted, you are not comfortable with your beliefs enough to post them.
@todocambiara2 Disregard that last bit of retardation on my part, I just like to troll by strawmanning abiogenesis with my ignorant creationist rambling of 'chemical coincidence' while I actually understand the work that Szostak did with micelles and its ramifications to the origin of life.
Yes, you are a Zionist Atheist who can't rationalize your Bolshevik approved belief in Coincidental Chemical Creationism, and so resorted to impersonating me at videos all over youtube with a forged account. When will you evolve?
@lughcious See there we go, I'm so retarded by the creationism steeped into my brain that I can't even recognize someone employing eugenics is not an argument against evolution.
@Iughcious Have you noticed how you use personal incredulity as an argument? You can't see how it can happen naturally so it must be a tribal desert god from the bronze age! You then go and attack science as an 'irrational belief' as though your own belief that a magic cosmic daddy magicked everything into existence is somehow more rational than chemicals forming molecules; that kind of crazy thing NEVER HAPPENS! LOL. Keep up the great work!
Some guy is stocking this poor creationist, in a very distasteful fashion too. There is "Iughcious" and then there's "lughcious". I didn't know you could have two accounts of the same handle, but there you have it. The lughcious I am having a discussion with has a little girl for a background, the other lughcious' page is blank.
@todocambiara2 So you are talking to two different people but they are the same person? Wow, you need to take a reality check and so does lughcious!!!!
You were replying to TheScienceFoundation who is impersonating me with the account he forged. He's an obsessed psycho-Atheist.
The belief that chemicals came to life by coincidence is what I call an irrational belief. It is not based on science. It has never been observed in nature. You launched a brick from your glass house with "personal incredulity". We are all ignorant hypocrites in denial
@lughcious If someone has taken over your account then you need to let YouTube know so they can do something about it.
I know that chemicals can't form life, God would never have created a world where life creates itself and all cells we have today come only from other cells and do not use non living chemicals. Even if it was observed in the lab it just means that it takes intelligence to create life under special lab conditions!
You are responding in another account you forged. Only the religious pretend to know the mind of the intelligence behind our creation, and your religion is Atheism, so you don't believe in God.
You forged the account of 5tonyvvvv, by changing his four 'v' s into two 'w' s
You forged my account by changing the first letter of my name to a capital 'I' (india), and stalked me all around youtube for four days, including to the comments here, up until yesterday.
You are an Atheist stalker who can't back up your assertion that amino acid molecules attracted each other in a sea of water molecules.
As you well know, psycho-stalker Atheist, mass murdering Atheist Bolsheviks and Communist godfather Karl Marx were admirers of Darwin's outdated and dehumanizing fantasy that we are soulless, short lived, consuming, excreting, pointless matter that share common ancestors with maggots.
@lughcious I'm on your side, doofus. The evil, murdering, maggot atheists who copy accounts will realize in the end that they will burn in hell for their moronic stupidity but then it will be too late. We'll be rejoicing in heaven while their sorry asses burn, roast and bake in the lake of fire.
You are mocking religious beliefs but your irrational beliefs in Bolshevik approved Darwinism and Coincidental Chemical Creation should be your concern.
Instead of playing psychotic games, you'd be backing up your claims, if you could. But you can't even admit you can't.
@lughcious You deal your intellect a HUGE blow when you speak in this manner. Here I thought I was speaking with someone at least partially competent, though I find you are hysterically dim. Do you not realize I've answered all of your questions to an adequate logical conclusion only to be batted down by your OPINION! You are a fool, I must say again.
You are not even close to the same level of creationist I've spoken to before, you are childlike. The sad part is, I was rooting for you mate.
Look at you, typing in caps. You are hysterical and hyper-sensitive about the irrational beliefs you follow, but which you don't understand and are incapable of reciting.
It is not surprising that you're also incapable of understanding the usefulness to mass murders such as the Bolsheviks in the belief that humans are soulless accidents of nature and that starving and slaughtering them by the tens of millions is acceptable in the name of Atheism.
You can't even be honest about your beliefs. You believe there is no God, but you can't admit you're an Atheist. You know chemicals can't be made to come to life in laboratory, and have never been observed to come to life in nature, but you pretend scientists "prove" otherwise. I don't care what you claim to be. You're a liar.
@lughcious "You believe there is no God" --When did I say that?
"you can't admit you're an Atheist." --No, you can't admit that you're an atheist. HAHA, your posts are so easily refuted.
"You know chemicals can't be made to come to life in laboratory" --I don't know that, and neither do you. You believe you know, but still have given no reason, no rational response as to why it cannot happen. Many people believe it can, and have reason to do so.
@todocambiara2 And you know something else that's funny?
It seems to me that you disbelieve the idea of "chemicals coming to life" in the same manner that many atheists disbelieve God. It's the exact same logic, it is in you and you don't even see it. Here, I'll show you.
"Chemicals can't come to life because you've given no reason to believe they can" -Something you might say.
"God can't exist because you've given no reason to believe he does" -Something an atheist might say.
@lughcious I posted to myself so that when you click "ALL COMMENTS", the comments I've typed end up in the order I submit them. You assume far too much.
@lughcious I mean, really, why respond this way? You avoid my points by making arbitrary points of your own. Are you ever going to address my points are are you too stunted to realize I've made any?
@lughcious "but you pretend scientists "prove" otherwise."
No, I know they haven't proven it. I'm not a moron. I believe they have good reason to believe it can, and if you really want to understand why, take it up with one of them, or learn something about it without already being decided in the manner. That's how one is objective, but I think you lack that capability.
By the way. Although I don't consider we humans to be animals, I don't eat animals.
You wrote: " . . . thinking one has a divine right to kill others" Isn't it true that you believe human animals have a right to kill and eat other animals?
@lughcious I absolutely do not believe we have that right. I think we grant it to ourselves to appease our appetites and that there's not much animals can do about it. The same way many other animals do in the wild, though that's more survival of the fittest, part of a natural order that has propelled evolution. Is it sick? It can be, and often is.
As far as being a veggie, I saw that on your profile and was quite pleased, though I do eat meat on occasion, I often abstain.
edit: . . . . the usefulness [in the belief in Darwinism is] to mass murderers such as the Bolsheviks
You lied and said that chemicals coming to life is "natural". Chemicals have never come to life in history, Atheist. Not by chance or intent. It's a supposition from imagination, like supposing life came from quartz crystals or aliens.
Your words reveal your arrogance. This isn't a contest, Atheist. We are all ignorant hypocrites in denial. Some of us in more denial than others.
@lughcious Why didn't you address the other question in that comment? If you really expect me to prattle on with you when you're not even really discussing anything with me then you're misinformed. You are hardly worth the time I thought you were based on the responses you've given me.
Click "View all comments" below and read through our discussion. Refute or at least respond to the points I've made, as I have yours, or I will not continue.
Your question was responded to. Only the gullible would believe life came from quartz crystals.
You wrote 2 days ago: "I can prove to you as observable above god it's cause and effect. It's truth is no doubt known across the universe, . . . and that's more than I can say about an "Intelligence". >
Your resentment to the idea of a universal creator is clear.
How exactly does "cause and affect" "prove" that you are the consequence of Coincidental Chemical Creation?
@lughcious "Your words reveal your arrogance." --I can be arrogant in such company. And again, I've never said I was an atheist, you assume so.
You believe it's either this way or that, intent or coincidence, theist or atheist.
You claim to be humble, but it seems like you think you have more figured out than others. Well, if you think you're humble, you are wrong, and I'm here to tell you, you know nothing. The universe is so unknown, how can you claim anything?
@lughcious "mass murdering Atheist Bolsheviks and Communist godfather Karl Marx were admirers of Darwin's outdated and dehumanizing fantasy"
I don't care if this doesn't address me, you're an idiot. I could simply say, "How many people have killed in the name of God or an "INTELLIGENCE" beyond comprehension?" You would be forced to say it's more than evolution. You are the one who is unjustified, you are the one not backing up your claims.
You have been stalking and impersonating me for three days in videos all over youtube. You even stalked me to the comments of a Beatles video. You are psychotic. You have obsessive disorder, and I believe you are irritating your fellow Atheist with your unflattering representation of them.
@lughcious I'm not evading anything, I just did not know you were asking for my beliefs, if so you did it ina very cryptic fashion. But even still, I don't know what you are asking my beliefs on. An atheist supposition for the first steps of life? Ask me in clear terms what you want answered as far as my beliefs go and I will be happy to oblige.
"...which leaves an intelligence beyond our comprehension." I disagree that ruling out "chemical coicidence" leads to an intelligence.
@todocambiara2 On top of that, how do you rule out "chemical coincidence". First, who's to say it's coincidence? The chemical reaction that occurs happens because chemicals react to each other. Just like hydrogen peroxide fizzes on a cut, or when gelatin powder is added to water. These chemical reactions, whatever begot them (who can claim to know?) react to each other in a specific way. This occurs naturally though, no divine intervention.
@todocambiara2 I thought it would be hard to parse my point from my last post. Here it is.
You say "chemical coicidence". I don't think it's a coincidence that TNT explodes, or germs make you sick. TNT explodes because the elements fused together split with high energy when shocked with something. Some germs make you sick by reproducing inside your cells and inhibiting certain bodily functions.
You are talking about ultimately though, aren't you? Ultimately... I don't know.
@lughcious The only thing that has said that life lives is life itself. We see ourselves separate from the mud, but we are the mud. We are the dirt, the rocks, the water, the dust. All of it is in us. We are not separate from the universe, we are part of it.
Chemicals came to "life" because they reacted to each other in a specific way, not in a coincidental way. But it's not intelligence that makes MEK thin paint, even if intelligence was the reason MEK thins paint, it's not an explanation.
I meant, validate your belief in chemicals coming to life by chance (coincidence). Atheists hold the belief that the correct molecules (there are two types) of amino acids bumped into each other out of coincidence over-and-over in an ocean of water molecules, bonded against enormous odds, survived for millions of years in the universal solvent (water) without dissolving or disassociating., and came to life in a miracle that has never been observed since, other than Pinocchio.
@todocambiara2 But you see, at least this is conceivable, even rather possible and more plausible than some designer without design. I've not invented anything by saying "perhaps these chemicals reacted naturally as we can observe them doing" but something inducted is added when you attribute a creator without purpose or design. If it is exempt then we may be also, there is no reason to assume otherwise and any thought of it is invented.
And as I've said before; You assume there are only the two choices: chance or intent. I disagree that these are the only two choices. Life sprang from chemicals as a reaction, just as evolution is a reaction. If there is one force I can prove to you as observable above god it's cause and effect. It's truth is no doubt known across the universe, and you don't need to believe it. It is apparent, and that's more than I can say about an "Intelligence".
@todocambiara2: "Life sprang from chemicals as a reaction"
No. Life has never sprung from chemicals. Not once. It can't even be made to happen on purpose with today's technology. And you can't begin to explain how it happened on its own by accident, chance or coincidence.
That's what you have been challenged to do - support your beliefs. You are not "of sound mind" when you can't explain the fundamentals of the beliefs that you claim are "conceivable" to you.
I am of quite a sound mind, you have no idea. I'm afraid it can be shown that it is you who have misunderstood my point in all my responses. I've already answered this question twice, even though it's not the answer you want, I see no reason I should give you the satisfaction when I don't see sense in your answers. You "humbly submit" that there is stuff you don't know about, yet claim that you can conclude an inconceivable intelligence (which is ironic...) based on what? 1/2
@todocambiara2 2/2- Based on what? What you think is lacking chance? I think you're being dishonest with yourself, and I think you insult your own intelligence when you make arguments like this. It may go beyond what you understand as an intelligence or a God. You've not justified an intelligence to me, so I'd say you'd better get on that. Tell me why I'm wrong? Tell me why these naturally occurring proteins had to be structured into life by an intelligence, but this intelligence is exempt?
@lughcious "No. Life has never sprung from chemicals. Not once."
There is no benefit for you in saying this. It demonstrates nothing, and while I explain why... again... I hope you think of something better. Saying "because it hasn't happened" does not equal "because it could not happen". Even you make this distinction because you know what it means.
If this "intelligence" is exempt from creation, then it's possible for us to be. How do you justify this?
If you say that the intelligence is inconceivable... well, how is this any different than my version of the truth? It seems pretty inconceivable to you, and yet you still defend your idea, which you say is inconceivable yet find no conflict. The irony is off the charts! It wasn't chance, it wasn't an uncreated creator, and I'd consider myself more delusional than you if I claimed to know.
Scientific: To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. -
Empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.
You have (re)proven that there is nothing Scientific or Empirical about your belief that life is a consequence of chemical coincidence.
@lughcious No, entropy doesn't apply since the earth is not closed system. Not to mention deterioration is simply a chemical reaction. We define is as decay, but what is actually happening is natural creation. Like rust on iron. The iron is decaying but rust is being created.
I don't care who has taken biology courses, I have taken plenty. The question is not biological, it's philosophical, and that's where we diverge.
You are still impersonating me for the fourth day in a row. You've stalked me all over youtube four 4 days straight. You are a credit to Atheism. Apparently you believe the Sun nullifies entropy as a variable.
You've stalked me for 4 days, queer Atheist (see below). Because you can't back up the initial steps of your belief, same as every other Atheist. Don't you know any smart Atheists that can help you? I'm operating on an average intellect and good old fashioned commonsense. The best you can do is impersonate my account and stalk me.
The history of your four day stalking of me is in the comments here and all over youtube. You impersonated my account four days ago because you are an Atheist who can't answer the most fundamental questions of your beliefs such as: How did amino acid molecules attract each other in an ocean of water molecules, as per your claim?
@lughcious I (and anyone with eyes) see you talking to yourself while also replying to me in a conversation I wasn't even part of. Not sure what you think you're seeing.
I told you I'm not answering your questions as long as you dodge mine.
You stalked me for 4 days in a row in the account you forged to impersonate me with, and you lie pathologically. You stalked me here in the account in which you replaced the first letter in my name with a capital I (India).
You can't explain the fundamental details of your belief in Bolshevik endorsed Darwinism. If you could, you would instead of parading your psychosis.
a creationist book that "evolved" from a previous one? FANTASTIC!!!
eugeniobb 5 months ago
Atheists often pretend their faith is based on science, and the fundamental Atheists will go out of their way to lie about it.
lughcious 5 months ago
No where has any scientist ever said that "coincidence brought matter to life". As i've said before its pretty stupid on your part to talk about what happened before time existed. Einstein "believed" in the MYTHICAL figure called jesus. The fact that Einstein believed (wrongly) that jesus was a real person doesn't take away from him great scientific discoveries. It just means that he probably never gave it any serious consideration. There is ZERO evidence to prove that jesus was real.
jib1000 5 months ago
@jib1000
You didn't have the spine to reply to me, pathologically lying Atheist?
You wrote: "Before time existed"
At what point in time do you believe that time didn't exist?
You're still lying about Einstein. His words speak for themselves. He said he was "enthralled" by the historical figure Jesus. Orthodox Jews are anti-Christ yet Jesus is mentioned in their ancient Talmud.
You've proven that you're totally incapable of rationalizing your Atheist faith, and that it is 100% nonsense.
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious How do you not understand what the big bang is? Did i ever say that time didn't exist? No, i said when time began. You should probably go research the big bang before you go around talking about it.
jib1000 5 months ago
@jib1000
What point in time do you believe that time began?
Clearly it's you who doesn't understand belief in Big Bang or you could rationalize your faith in it. What allegedly caused it and what do you believe existed prior to creation of the universe?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious The Big Bang is supported by evidence, it is thus by definition not faith-based.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129
No, Big Bang is a belief. Evidence including plasma filaments spanning in all directions throughout the visible universe refutes it. What do you believe could have supposedly caused a Big Bang and what do you believe existed prior to creation of the universe?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious Actually, the current state of the universe matches the predictions made by the Big Bang theory. The expansion of the universe (evidenced by redshift) is only one part of the evidence, but not all there is to it. I have no idea what existed prior to the Big Bang, but then, I'm not an astrophysicist, I'm a game designer with strong intrest in biology, astrophysics and astronomy.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129
You're hung up in primitive Atheist beliefs. Bolsheviks were Atheist/Darwinists.
The belief in an expanding universe is nearly 100 years old and contradicts the physical law of conservation of mass. Galaxy density would be decreasing compared to the given volume of space, a violation of physics. There are better explanations for redshift than a sudden inexplicable "bang".
Cosmology is evolving away from the old gravitational model to an Electric Universe.
Plasma Cosmology.
lughcious 5 months ago
@Helge129
You claim a "strong interest" in astrophysics. What do you believe was the source of energy that would have made the mythical "Big Bang" go bang?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious I'm the wrong person to ask. As I said, I am not an expert in the field. I honestly haven't studied the big bang nearly as much as I studies supernovae and supernova-remnants, stars themselves, and black holes. But from what I know, the big bang didn't create enery or matter, but space-time. It was after all, and explosion of space-time itself. The distribution of galaxies and their movement confirm this.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129
That's not what you were asked, Atheist. You were asked what you believe to be the source of energy for your imaginary big "bang"? Do you understand the question now?
You wrote: "The distribution of galaxies and their movement confirm [an explosion of space-time]."
False. Nothing about your faith is confirmed.
How does time or space 'explode' ?
Einstein believed in God and the historical figure Jesus. Do you have faith that you know better than he?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious "Einstein believed in God and the historical figure Jesus. Do you have faith that you know better than he?" That is a blatant lie.
He himselve debunked this lie. I don't know what the source of the energy released in the big bang is. Simple as that. I don't know. I don't "believe" in anything in this context, I simply don't know.
"False. Nothing about your faith is confirmed."
Atheism is by defintion not a faith, but the lack of faith [in all deities].
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129
Every fundamental Atheist resorts to lying. You have proven that you cannot begin to rationalize your faith in Big Bang theory. Atheism is 100% faith based. You have faith that the universe and life were each created by coincidence rather than intelligence.
Einstein said he "unquestionably" believed in the historical figure Jesus, and he also used the word "God" frequently. I've posted his quotes with their sources here in the past two days.
You're quite the Atheist, liar.
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious So now my lack of faith is irrational, while your faith in god is rational despite every lack of evidence? Give me a break.
Coincidence? Nope. "Fundamental atheist"? Nigga please. Atheism doesn't have fundamentals. It's simply the notion that no deity exists, and that's all there is to it.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129
Your Atheism is 100% faith based. What do you believe created life and the universe, if not intelligence, or coincidence?
lughcious 5 months ago
@Helge129
You lied and claimed that an "explosion of space-time itself" has been confirmed.
Do you believe there is an edge of space? How does it expand or 'explode'? How does time expand or 'explode'? What is the source of energy?
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're a typical lying, profoundly ignorant Atheist.
You also lied about Einstein, when in fact he said that he believed in the historical figure Jesus, and in a non-religious, universal "God", his capital G.
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious The big bang isn't a faith. You are not qualified to rate it as faith, neither am I.
How does spacetime explode? It expands rapidly. How? Dark energy.
Helge129 5 months ago
@lughcious I have no "belief" in the big bang. I accept the facts that support it. Its not a matter of faith. Time began at the big bang. Science doesn't know what caused it, if there was a cause. How could there be anything "prior" to the beginning of time? How are you not getting this? There is no "before" if time didn't exist "before" it existed. READ A BOOK.
jib1000 5 months ago
@jib1000 wrote: "its pretty stupid . . . to talk about what happened before time existed."
At what point in time do you believe time began, Atheist?
You wrote: **I have no "belief" in the big bang.**
Yes you do, liar. You believe there was a time when there was no time. What time was that?
You believe time had an "explosion". How does that work, Atheist?
You believe space had an "explosion". What fueled this imaginary explosion?
You need to switch accounts again?
lughcious 5 months ago
@jib1000
As you have been shown with his words, Einstein believed in a universal God and the historical figure Jesus.
Do you believe you're wiser than Einstein, Atheist?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious If you really believe that Einstein believed in jesus being the son of god, yet he didn't believe in the christian god then you're just delusional.
If we accept your premise that Einstein believed in the fictional character jesus (i don't agree but i accept your premise) then in the area of religion i'm clearly wiser than Einstein. I'm not better at physics, than he was, but his grasp of theoretical physics has no bearing on his religious views, nor on whether god exists or not.
jib1000 5 months ago
@jib1000
Look at you squirm, Atheist. Einstein wasn't religious, however, he did say he believed "unquestionably" in the historical figure Jesus, and that he was "enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
How does an "explosion" in time work? At what point in time was it that you believe time didn't exist, Atheist?
Your pathological lying is comical. You know what you are. You can't post a single undeniable gassing of anyone in WWII. Zionist pity-myth dispelled, anti-Christ.
lughcious 5 months ago
@jib1000
If Jesus were fictional, why did anti-Christ Jews include him in their ancient Talmud?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious Because both are fictional. Why didn't the Romans have any record of him?
jib1000 5 months ago
@jib1000
is your forehead sloped, Atheist?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious That's all you came up with? You can't answer simple questions so you just insult me. Awesome.
jib1000 5 months ago
@lughcious
Christianity was founded in Rome. Flavius Josephus is one citizen of Rome who wrote about Jesus.
You didn't answer the question; Why would anti-Christ Orthodox Jews include Jesus in their ancient Talmud?
Einstein said he absolutely believed in the historical figure Jesus, and also in a non-religious. universal God.
You believe in neither. You have faith that you're wiser than Einstein, Atheist - Yes, or No?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious "Christianity was founded in Rome. Flavius Josephus is one citizen of Rome who wrote about Jesus."
Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus supposedly lived. Consequently, he was not in a position to do anything but retell the myths of Christians. That's as worthless to discover the truth as stating that Jesus lived because Christians talk about him today. As far as the references in the Talmud goes, you can't connect it to the character in the bible without making assumptions.
Gnomefro 5 months ago
@Gnomefro
According to the Orthodox Jews at noahide com, quoting their webpage 'Who Was Jesus?':
<<The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of "Jesus the Nazarene"
<<G-d repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls.
.
Why would anti-Christ Jews include Jesus in their ancient Talmud, if he didn't exist?
Einstein believed in a non-religious God and the historical figure Jesus. Do you believe you're wiser than Einstein?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious
Who cares............the Jews were just responding to the idea the Christians had of Jesus. They didn't actually record the events in his superposed life. They wrote about him long after is death.
Einstein may have thought Jesus to be based on areal person however he in no way believed him to be divine. Einstein was a pantheist he didn't believe in a god but used god as a metaphor to describe nature.
RedlineMMA 4 months ago
@RedlineMMA
Obviously you care, or you wouldn't be posting falsehoods to apologize for anti-Christs.
The pharisee rabbis were responding to Jesus who told them that they were of their father, the devil.
How long after Jesus do you claim the rabbis first wrote him?
Einstein: "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."
Einstein: "I wan to know how God created this world."
Einstein: "I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene"
What does luminous mean to you?
lughcious 4 months ago
@lughcious
you desperately need to learn some history. There are many false quotes of Einsteins that are floating around.
He responded to these false quotes while still alive. saying "Of coarse it is a lie what you've heard about my religious convictions a lie which is being systematically repeated, I do not believe in a personal god & have never hid this. if anything in me can be called religious it is my love of nature as revealed through our science"
You sir are repeating lies
RedlineMMA 4 months ago
@RedlineMMA
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." -- Einstein (Towards the Further Shore, Victor Gollancz, London, 1968)
"I want to know how God created this world." -- Einstein (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press)
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." -- Einstein (What Life Means to Einstein, Saturday Evening Post, 26 October 1929)
lughcious 4 months ago
@lughcious "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.
MrKGatl 2 months ago
@MrKGatl
You have faith that inanimate matter is your creator. Explain the process as you imagine it step by step. 1. What two molecules do you believe bonded, and what do you imagine brought them into contact?
"When the answer is simple, God is speaking." Albert Einstein
"I want to know how God created this world." Albert Einstein
(The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000)
lughcious 2 months ago
@lughcious Its not faith. My parents are my creators. You are also taking Einstein out of context. I dont need to explain the process of life for me not to believe in the fairy tales of religion or the ridiculous notion of a sky daddy. Nothing you have to say is backed by science or rational thought.
MrKGatl 1 month ago
@lughcious
"You have faith that inanimate matter is your creator."
That's not what atheism is.
Kinin4 1 month ago
@RedlineMMA
Wrong. I'm refuting lies. Yours, anti-Christ. Atheists aren't evil, they simply reject science and intelligence, usually out of hatred of Christianity. However, lying is nearly always harmful, at least to the liar.
You can't begin to rationalize your Atheist faith that there was no intelligence involved in creation of the universe and life.
lughcious 4 months ago
@lughcious Wow, I know its been a few months since that last comment was written, but I thought you would want to know how embarrassingly dumb it was. Be careful not to say any of that in public, people will think you're fucking crazy!
MrKGatl 2 months ago
@lughcious
After reading you're other comments its obvious you are a delusional bigot. No amount of facts or evidence could possibly change the mind of somebody so enthralled with myth & superstition.
You go ahead & continue to believe that atheists are evil. while taking full advantage of the technology atheists helped create. Every time you turn on a light bulb remember a evil atheist invented it.
Have fun in fantasy land.
RedlineMMA 4 months ago 3
@RedlineMMA
Correction: How long was it afterwards that you claim the rabbis first wrote about Jesus?
lughcious 4 months ago
@lughcious This is pretty serious, because Christians also back up their myths about disciples dying for their faith by referencing random writings where people with similar names as the people they wanted to die were described as being executed, yet there is a systematic absence of reason to think said writings are talking about the disciples. With regards to Jesus, he had a common name and it's not worth more than a shrug. Self styled prophets were very common.
Gnomefro 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lughcious "Einstein said he absolutely believed in the historical figure Jesus, and also in a non-religious. universal God. You believe in neither. You have faith that you're wiser than Einstein, Atheist - Yes, or No?"
Einstein possessed no particular expertise on the question of whether or not gods exist, and he certainly could have no fact based opinion about whether or not the biblical Jesus(the magic one) was a historical creature - there's simply no evidence of that.
Gnomefro 5 months ago
@lughcious Of course, I'm not the one you directed that question at, but I would be very surprised if I couldn't destroy Einstein in a number of intellectual areas. He was a smart physicist - sure - but it's quite laughable to try to push people to say "I'm 'wiser' than Einstein". What does that even mean? Are you suggesting Einstein had evidence of a god, yet somehow failed to communicate this to the scientific community? Or did Einstein have unfounded opinions and you call them "wise"?
Gnomefro 5 months ago
I find it a joke that it is even necessary to prove that ID=creationism. Surely all you should have to demonstrate, to get a book forwarding ID/creationism banned from schools, is that it's not true (which has been done again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again....)
BoooDave 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Really, think about it.
ThinkOneMoreTime 10 months ago
Whats the difference between a created and non created universe to creationists anyway.
influenztial 10 months ago
All that your book has brought, is fear, ignorants and war. And the biggest issue with it of all, its ability to brainwash a regular critically thinking person into thinking that there is man living in the sky that watches over us. It really takes a loon to actually believe this, despite of overwhelming evidence against it.
Shenkoa360 10 months ago
Comment removed
Shenkoa360 11 months ago
You are deluded, Abiogenesis has been confirmed, look it up. Am I irrational, I think assuming we are created is irrational. Science actually can prove it's theory's, your religion cannot, it's based on assumption and superstition. Science is not believe, it yields factual data, unlike your religion.
Shenkoa360 11 months ago
@Shenkoa360
What a lying Atheist idiot. If it had been confirmed that chemicals once sprang to life billions of years ago, there would be no debate.
lughcious 10 months ago
@lughcious: Your lamen demeanor looks terrible on your credibility. You obviously do not know anything about Science. In fact, in the Scientific community, there isn't a debate, its really only no-nothing isolationists like yourself in which debate perpetuates. Abiogensis HAS been confirmed, we still do not know the conditions that originally started, but.. that does not give your "Sky Daddy" nonsense any merit, its still a stupid bronzeage myth that is void of evidence and critical thinking
Shenkoa360 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Shenkoa360
I'm not religious. You lie, Atheist, and claim "Abiogenesis HAS been confirmed"
Abiogenesis is the belief that chemicals once came to life billions of years ago, nothing more. Life is not particulate.
How do you imagine the original molecules of RNA (acid) or whatever you believe originally bonded, found each other while suspended in an ocean of water molecules?
lughcious 10 months ago
@lughcious You can mindlessly bash real Science all you want, but it has taken us from ignorant nomadic people to the think tank we are today. Youtube, Computers, Telescopes, Vacines, Cars, Skyscrapers, Televisions, MIcrowaves and even took a man to the moon. You can bash that all you want, but every invention that Science has been responsible for, is based at the core on the same Scientific principles that has brought us the Theory of Evolution, Molecular Science, Physics, the list goes on.
Shenkoa360 10 months ago
"Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money." George Carlin
Shenkoa360 10 months ago 18
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Shenkoa360
Atheism is 100% faith based belief in oxymoronic Unintentional Creation. Atheism is anti-science. What's the point of consciousness, Atheist?
lughcious 10 months ago
@lughcious Are you retarded?
How is atheism (a lack of faith in a creator or god) faith based?
How can something that is a lack of faith be faith?
What is the point of consciousness???? WTF are you serious?
Who says there is a point? What is the point of a circle? What is the point of the sun?
What the fuck kind of question is that?
jib1000 10 months ago 21
@jib1000
What do you believe existed prior to the creation of the universe, and on what do you base your belief, if not faith?
Einstein believe in God, and also in the existence of Jesus. Do you imagine you're wiser than Einstein?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious I don't have any beliefs about what was around before the big bang. In fact trying to talk about something that happened "before" time existed is kinda pointless.
Also Einstein did NOT believe in the christian god or in jesus.
jib1000 5 months ago
@jib1000
Einstein most certainly did write about the historical figure Jesus, and reverently. He also said it made him angry when you Atheists misrepresent his words to support your beliefs. You are partially correct, he wasn't religious, but he did believe in God and capitalized the G.
Do you believe you're smarter than he?
On what specifically is your faith in Big Bang based?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious Einstein may have commented on a literary figure called jesus. He certainly did not believe him to be the son of god. Einstein was a deist. I suggest you go look that word up. Also he is quoted as saying that he gets angry when THEISTS misquote him.
Do a little research before you go running around talking about things you don't understand.
Being smarter (or in your case dumber) than someone has nothing to do with the truth or false hood of their religious beliefs.
jib1000 5 months ago
@jib1000
Not "may have", and not "a literary figure called jesus", you pathologically deceitful Atheist. What chutzpah for someone content in their abject ignorance to tell others to do research.
Question to Albert Einstein: "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
Answer: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." -- Albert Einstein, 'What Life Means to Einstein'
lughcious 5 months ago
@jib1000 lies: "[Einstein] is quoted as saying that he gets angry when THEISTS misquote him."
Einstein: "there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
Why lie, Atheist?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious Wow... Way to just obviously misquote someone. The quote is this. "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God." He is clearly talking about a deistic god, not "God" the father of jesus. Einstein was a deist . Do you know what that means?
Einstein has said before that he doesn't like people quoting him on religion is because he was a physicist, not a theologists or philosopher.
jib1000 5 months ago
@jib1000
Einstein believed in the historical figure Jesus, and in God, not a religious God, simply "God" as evident in the intricate order of nature.
You have repeatedly lied about Einstein, Atheist.
You have no scientific evidence supporting your faith that coincidence once created life out of chemicals. Your Atheism is 100% Faith Based.
Einstein believed in "God" as you've been shown by his own words. Do you believe you're smarter than Einstein? Yes, or No?
lughcious 5 months ago
@lughcious Wow. Talk about ignorant.
There is no historical figure called jesus.
If you think science has no evidence for the big bang i suggest you go do some reading.
Nothing about science involves faith.
Einstein did not believe in God as shown in his own words.
What does being smarter (or in your case dumber) than anyone have to do with god?
Einstein was a physicist. His opinion on religion doesn't affect the truth or falsity of a religious claim.
jib1000 5 months ago
@jib1000
Einstein said, as quoted for you, that he "unquestionably" believed in the historical figure Jesus. Not only did Einstein believe in the historical Jesus, he said he was "enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene”
What mechanism do you believe initiated the creation of the universe, and from what?
There's no scientific evidence for your Atheist faith that coincidence brought matter to life, once, billions of years ago.
God is a word for supreme intelligence. It's not religious.
lughcious 5 months ago
@Shenkoa360 hmmm...how about we become our own gods
MrJfpb 4 months ago
The intellegent design people got their asses kicked in court. Some committed perjur. They got caught ling for god . It should be called unintelligent design.
max2right 11 months ago
We'd have to keep Jesus out of all schools anyway. Jesus whipped people (John 2:15). That fact alone makes him unsuitable as a role-model for anyone, though they try to massage the story and claim someone can commit sadomasochistic acts out of good motives...
Dracopol 1 year ago
@Dracopol Jesus didn't use a whip. He used a scourge to drive the money changers out of the temple who sold animals to be used in Judaic ritual blood sacrifices. It was the only time he used forced. That's according to the Bible. I'm not religious.
Did you know that abiogenesis has been discredited? Atheists are without a theory for the origin of life.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious Jesus offered violence to his fellow-man. So he's ruled out as any role-model.
Scientists don't have to know everything, if the religious don't know ANYTHING. Science is responsible for proving EVERY invisible thing that we know of: planets past Saturn, X-rays, the electron. Often that involves a new way of seeing. By contrast, the religious have NOT given evidence for any invisible thing in such a way as to make it common and plain to all.
Dracopol 1 year ago
@Dracopol
You seem to have a firm believe in Jesus, but Jesus hadn't "offered violence" to anyone. He chased the money changers out of the temple who sold animals which the rabbis used in Judaic ritual blood sacrifices, according to the Bible.
Regarding your Atheistical beliefs; Chemicals have never come alive. Not by coincidence, and not by intent. How many times do you believe they did?
lughcious 1 year ago
She's cute. I'd like to see her in a monkey suit teaching evolution.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
Maybe if we make these retarded fuckers actually think that we're trying to destroy their beliefs and religion they will freak-out and become religious zealots... I mean, more so than they already are... maybe enough to get arrested, or at least taken somewhere they can't hurt anybody, or themselves for that matter.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
Think? Can you think enough to recite the Atheist supposition for the very first steps to life in your belief that you're a soulless consequence of chemical coincidence? I doubt you will feel comfortable posting them.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious If humans are void of purpose without God, what purpose does God have without a God? Is he purposeless, or does he serve a higher power? If not, then why must we? Logic must lead you here eventually, how do you answer this? What sort of hoops do you jump through to still give God such purpose in you life?
I define my life, I give it purpose. So far, the only people that have had a problem with that are not me (talking about you here), so why should care?
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
Don't have any religious beliefs to give you. I disbelieve that we are created from chemical coincidence which leaves an intelligence beyond our comprehension. I humbly submit that there is much I can't comprehend. We are all ignorant hypocrites in denial.
You are evading my initiating question because as predicted, you are not comfortable with your beliefs enough to post them.
lughcious 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 Disregard that last bit of retardation on my part, I just like to troll by strawmanning abiogenesis with my ignorant creationist rambling of 'chemical coincidence' while I actually understand the work that Szostak did with micelles and its ramifications to the origin of life.
Iughcious 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Yes, you are a Zionist Atheist who can't rationalize your Bolshevik approved belief in Coincidental Chemical Creationism, and so resorted to impersonating me at videos all over youtube with a forged account. When will you evolve?
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious See there we go, I'm so retarded by the creationism steeped into my brain that I can't even recognize someone employing eugenics is not an argument against evolution.
Iughcious 1 year ago
@Iughcious Have you noticed how you use personal incredulity as an argument? You can't see how it can happen naturally so it must be a tribal desert god from the bronze age! You then go and attack science as an 'irrational belief' as though your own belief that a magic cosmic daddy magicked everything into existence is somehow more rational than chemicals forming molecules; that kind of crazy thing NEVER HAPPENS! LOL. Keep up the great work!
5tonyww 1 year ago
@5tonyww You replied to the wrong "Iughcious".
Some guy is stocking this poor creationist, in a very distasteful fashion too. There is "Iughcious" and then there's "lughcious". I didn't know you could have two accounts of the same handle, but there you have it. The lughcious I am having a discussion with has a little girl for a background, the other lughcious' page is blank.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 If you didn't, that's my mistake. Sorry.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 So you are talking to two different people but they are the same person? Wow, you need to take a reality check and so does lughcious!!!!
5tonyww 1 year ago
@5tonyww No, lol. I'm talking to a creationist named lughcious, but there is another guy of the same name harassing him.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 How can two people have the same name?
5tonyww 1 year ago
@5tonyww I think the fake lughcious used the line key above "enter" for the L.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 Or he used a command (ctrl+something) to make a name exactly like lughcious, but it's read differently in code, allowing two names.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@5tonyww You don't have to believe me, just click on the lughcious that is insulting himself.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@5tonyww
You were replying to TheScienceFoundation who is impersonating me with the account he forged. He's an obsessed psycho-Atheist.
The belief that chemicals came to life by coincidence is what I call an irrational belief. It is not based on science. It has never been observed in nature. You launched a brick from your glass house with "personal incredulity". We are all ignorant hypocrites in denial
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious If someone has taken over your account then you need to let YouTube know so they can do something about it.
I know that chemicals can't form life, God would never have created a world where life creates itself and all cells we have today come only from other cells and do not use non living chemicals. Even if it was observed in the lab it just means that it takes intelligence to create life under special lab conditions!
5tonyww 1 year ago
Comment removed
lughcious 1 year ago
@5tonyww Had to edit.
You are responding in another account you forged. Only the religious pretend to know the mind of the intelligence behind our creation, and your religion is Atheism, so you don't believe in God.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious I have forged no accounts so you are wrong on many levels.
5tonyww 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You forged the account of 5tonyvvvv, by changing his four 'v' s into two 'w' s
You forged my account by changing the first letter of my name to a capital 'I' (india), and stalked me all around youtube for four days, including to the comments here, up until yesterday.
You are an Atheist stalker who can't back up your assertion that amino acid molecules attracted each other in a sea of water molecules.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious Everyone knows that amino acids don't magically self assemble in salty sea water.
5tonyww 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation aka 5tonyw w
As you well know, psycho-stalker Atheist, mass murdering Atheist Bolsheviks and Communist godfather Karl Marx were admirers of Darwin's outdated and dehumanizing fantasy that we are soulless, short lived, consuming, excreting, pointless matter that share common ancestors with maggots.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious I'm on your side, doofus. The evil, murdering, maggot atheists who copy accounts will realize in the end that they will burn in hell for their moronic stupidity but then it will be too late. We'll be rejoicing in heaven while their sorry asses burn, roast and bake in the lake of fire.
5tonyww 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation aka 5tonyw
You are mocking religious beliefs but your irrational beliefs in Bolshevik approved Darwinism and Coincidental Chemical Creation should be your concern.
Instead of playing psychotic games, you'd be backing up your claims, if you could. But you can't even admit you can't.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious You deal your intellect a HUGE blow when you speak in this manner. Here I thought I was speaking with someone at least partially competent, though I find you are hysterically dim. Do you not realize I've answered all of your questions to an adequate logical conclusion only to be batted down by your OPINION! You are a fool, I must say again.
You are not even close to the same level of creationist I've spoken to before, you are childlike. The sad part is, I was rooting for you mate.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
Look at you, typing in caps. You are hysterical and hyper-sensitive about the irrational beliefs you follow, but which you don't understand and are incapable of reciting.
It is not surprising that you're also incapable of understanding the usefulness to mass murders such as the Bolsheviks in the belief that humans are soulless accidents of nature and that starving and slaughtering them by the tens of millions is acceptable in the name of Atheism.
I'm not your "mate", Atheist
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious "but which you don't understand"
If I'm sure of one thing, it's that you can't tell me what I understand.
"... in the belief that humans are soulless accidents of nature..."
As apposed to thinking one has a divine right to kill others? Idiot, again.
You don't know what I believe, and I'm sorry you have such a narrow view of atheists. In fact, I never said I was one. You assume far too much.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
You can't even be honest about your beliefs. You believe there is no God, but you can't admit you're an Atheist. You know chemicals can't be made to come to life in laboratory, and have never been observed to come to life in nature, but you pretend scientists "prove" otherwise. I don't care what you claim to be. You're a liar.
lughcious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lughcious "You believe there is no God" --When did I say that?
"you can't admit you're an Atheist." --No, you can't admit that you're an atheist. HAHA, your posts are so easily refuted.
"You know chemicals can't be made to come to life in laboratory" --I don't know that, and neither do you. You believe you know, but still have given no reason, no rational response as to why it cannot happen. Many people believe it can, and have reason to do so.
1/2
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 And you know something else that's funny?
It seems to me that you disbelieve the idea of "chemicals coming to life" in the same manner that many atheists disbelieve God. It's the exact same logic, it is in you and you don't even see it. Here, I'll show you.
"Chemicals can't come to life because you've given no reason to believe they can" -Something you might say.
"God can't exist because you've given no reason to believe he does" -Something an atheist might say.
IJIOT
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
Who are you quoting? Yourself. And you posted to yourself because you are a coward.
Why can't you admit you're an Atheist, anymore?
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious I posted to myself so that when you click "ALL COMMENTS", the comments I've typed end up in the order I submit them. You assume far too much.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@lughcious And apparently you can't read, because after the quotes I put who I expected to say them.
You're simply avoiding the discussion entirely.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@lughcious I mean, really, why respond this way? You avoid my points by making arbitrary points of your own. Are you ever going to address my points are are you too stunted to realize I've made any?
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@lughcious "but you pretend scientists "prove" otherwise."
No, I know they haven't proven it. I'm not a moron. I believe they have good reason to believe it can, and if you really want to understand why, take it up with one of them, or learn something about it without already being decided in the manner. That's how one is objective, but I think you lack that capability.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
By the way. Although I don't consider we humans to be animals, I don't eat animals.
You wrote: " . . . thinking one has a divine right to kill others" Isn't it true that you believe human animals have a right to kill and eat other animals?
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious I absolutely do not believe we have that right. I think we grant it to ourselves to appease our appetites and that there's not much animals can do about it. The same way many other animals do in the wild, though that's more survival of the fittest, part of a natural order that has propelled evolution. Is it sick? It can be, and often is.
As far as being a veggie, I saw that on your profile and was quite pleased, though I do eat meat on occasion, I often abstain.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todo
edit: . . . . the usefulness [in the belief in Darwinism is] to mass murderers such as the Bolsheviks
You lied and said that chemicals coming to life is "natural". Chemicals have never come to life in history, Atheist. Not by chance or intent. It's a supposition from imagination, like supposing life came from quartz crystals or aliens.
Your words reveal your arrogance. This isn't a contest, Atheist. We are all ignorant hypocrites in denial. Some of us in more denial than others.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious "It's a supposition from imagination, like supposing life came from quartz crystals or aliens."
What about believing aliens created life is different than an "intelligence" creating life? You must be confused.
And why would anyone have reason to believe life could come from quartz?
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
Ewe asked: "why would anyone have reason to believe life could come from quartz?"
You are gullible enough to believe chemicals came to life by coincidence. How many times?
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious Why didn't you address the other question in that comment? If you really expect me to prattle on with you when you're not even really discussing anything with me then you're misinformed. You are hardly worth the time I thought you were based on the responses you've given me.
Click "View all comments" below and read through our discussion. Refute or at least respond to the points I've made, as I have yours, or I will not continue.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
Your question was responded to. Only the gullible would believe life came from quartz crystals.
You wrote 2 days ago: "I can prove to you as observable above god it's cause and effect. It's truth is no doubt known across the universe, . . . and that's more than I can say about an "Intelligence". >
Your resentment to the idea of a universal creator is clear.
How exactly does "cause and affect" "prove" that you are the consequence of Coincidental Chemical Creation?
lughcious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lughcious "How exactly does "cause and affect" "prove" that you are the consequence of Coincidental Chemical Creation?"
And you still dare to ask me more questions when you've not responded to a host of mine. You are such a stubborn fool.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@lughcious "Your words reveal your arrogance." --I can be arrogant in such company. And again, I've never said I was an atheist, you assume so.
You believe it's either this way or that, intent or coincidence, theist or atheist.
You claim to be humble, but it seems like you think you have more figured out than others. Well, if you think you're humble, you are wrong, and I'm here to tell you, you know nothing. The universe is so unknown, how can you claim anything?
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@lughcious "mass murdering Atheist Bolsheviks and Communist godfather Karl Marx were admirers of Darwin's outdated and dehumanizing fantasy"
I don't care if this doesn't address me, you're an idiot. I could simply say, "How many people have killed in the name of God or an "INTELLIGENCE" beyond comprehension?" You would be forced to say it's more than evolution. You are the one who is unjustified, you are the one not backing up your claims.
You are a fool, and I am sad for you.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
Courtesy flag.
lughcious 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You have been stalking and impersonating me for three days in videos all over youtube. You even stalked me to the comments of a Beatles video. You are psychotic. You have obsessive disorder, and I believe you are irritating your fellow Atheist with your unflattering representation of them.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious You're still the one talking to yourself.
Iughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious I'm not evading anything, I just did not know you were asking for my beliefs, if so you did it ina very cryptic fashion. But even still, I don't know what you are asking my beliefs on. An atheist supposition for the first steps of life? Ask me in clear terms what you want answered as far as my beliefs go and I will be happy to oblige.
"...which leaves an intelligence beyond our comprehension." I disagree that ruling out "chemical coicidence" leads to an intelligence.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 On top of that, how do you rule out "chemical coincidence". First, who's to say it's coincidence? The chemical reaction that occurs happens because chemicals react to each other. Just like hydrogen peroxide fizzes on a cut, or when gelatin powder is added to water. These chemical reactions, whatever begot them (who can claim to know?) react to each other in a specific way. This occurs naturally though, no divine intervention.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 I thought it would be hard to parse my point from my last post. Here it is.
You say "chemical coicidence". I don't think it's a coincidence that TNT explodes, or germs make you sick. TNT explodes because the elements fused together split with high energy when shocked with something. Some germs make you sick by reproducing inside your cells and inhibiting certain bodily functions.
You are talking about ultimately though, aren't you? Ultimately... I don't know.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
Chemicals either came to life by chance (coincidence) or intent (intelligence).
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious The only thing that has said that life lives is life itself. We see ourselves separate from the mud, but we are the mud. We are the dirt, the rocks, the water, the dust. All of it is in us. We are not separate from the universe, we are part of it.
Chemicals came to "life" because they reacted to each other in a specific way, not in a coincidental way. But it's not intelligence that makes MEK thin paint, even if intelligence was the reason MEK thins paint, it's not an explanation.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
I meant, validate your belief in chemicals coming to life by chance (coincidence). Atheists hold the belief that the correct molecules (there are two types) of amino acids bumped into each other out of coincidence over-and-over in an ocean of water molecules, bonded against enormous odds, survived for millions of years in the universal solvent (water) without dissolving or disassociating., and came to life in a miracle that has never been observed since, other than Pinocchio.
lughcious 1 year ago
Comment removed
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 But you see, at least this is conceivable, even rather possible and more plausible than some designer without design. I've not invented anything by saying "perhaps these chemicals reacted naturally as we can observe them doing" but something inducted is added when you attribute a creator without purpose or design. If it is exempt then we may be also, there is no reason to assume otherwise and any thought of it is invented.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
And as I've said before; You assume there are only the two choices: chance or intent. I disagree that these are the only two choices. Life sprang from chemicals as a reaction, just as evolution is a reaction. If there is one force I can prove to you as observable above god it's cause and effect. It's truth is no doubt known across the universe, and you don't need to believe it. It is apparent, and that's more than I can say about an "Intelligence".
todocambiara2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@todocambiara2: "Life sprang from chemicals as a reaction"
No. Life has never sprung from chemicals. Not once. It can't even be made to happen on purpose with today's technology. And you can't begin to explain how it happened on its own by accident, chance or coincidence.
That's what you have been challenged to do - support your beliefs. You are not "of sound mind" when you can't explain the fundamentals of the beliefs that you claim are "conceivable" to you.
lughcious 1 year ago
I am of quite a sound mind, you have no idea. I'm afraid it can be shown that it is you who have misunderstood my point in all my responses. I've already answered this question twice, even though it's not the answer you want, I see no reason I should give you the satisfaction when I don't see sense in your answers. You "humbly submit" that there is stuff you don't know about, yet claim that you can conclude an inconceivable intelligence (which is ironic...) based on what? 1/2
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2 2/2- Based on what? What you think is lacking chance? I think you're being dishonest with yourself, and I think you insult your own intelligence when you make arguments like this. It may go beyond what you understand as an intelligence or a God. You've not justified an intelligence to me, so I'd say you'd better get on that. Tell me why I'm wrong? Tell me why these naturally occurring proteins had to be structured into life by an intelligence, but this intelligence is exempt?
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@lughcious "No. Life has never sprung from chemicals. Not once."
There is no benefit for you in saying this. It demonstrates nothing, and while I explain why... again... I hope you think of something better. Saying "because it hasn't happened" does not equal "because it could not happen". Even you make this distinction because you know what it means.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
If this "intelligence" is exempt from creation, then it's possible for us to be. How do you justify this?
If you say that the intelligence is inconceivable... well, how is this any different than my version of the truth? It seems pretty inconceivable to you, and yet you still defend your idea, which you say is inconceivable yet find no conflict. The irony is off the charts! It wasn't chance, it wasn't an uncreated creator, and I'd consider myself more delusional than you if I claimed to know.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
Scientific: To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. -
Empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.
You have (re)proven that there is nothing Scientific or Empirical about your belief that life is a consequence of chemical coincidence.
lughcious 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
You wrote: "it is conceivable and quite plausible for it to have formed over time."
That is false. Entropy causes deterioration. Time is the enemy of chance formation.
There are only two possibilities for the origin of life. Cosnult someone who's taken a biology course before you claim there is third, again.
The two possibilities are chance (coincidence) or intent (intelligence)
The concept that there is an intelligence beyond our comprehension troubles you?
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious No, entropy doesn't apply since the earth is not closed system. Not to mention deterioration is simply a chemical reaction. We define is as decay, but what is actually happening is natural creation. Like rust on iron. The iron is decaying but rust is being created.
I don't care who has taken biology courses, I have taken plenty. The question is not biological, it's philosophical, and that's where we diverge.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
You believe the Sun prevents entropy? Where did you hear that?
There is nothing "natural" about chemicals coming to life. It has never happened in nature. It can't even be made to happen in a lab.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious The sun... along with new elements gathered by the atmosphere including gases and meteorites.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@todocambiara2
You are arguing that entropy doesn't occur on Earth?
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious No, it absolutely does, but the earth on the whole is not a closed system, so entropy does not apply all the time.
todocambiara2 1 year ago
@lughcious Disregard that, the earth is an open system, meaning usable energy is added continuously.
Iughcious 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You are still impersonating me for the fourth day in a row. You've stalked me all over youtube four 4 days straight. You are a credit to Atheism. Apparently you believe the Sun nullifies entropy as a variable.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious Are you ever going to stop harassing me? It's becoming disturbing, I really think you need help.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You've stalked me for 4 days, queer Atheist (see below). Because you can't back up the initial steps of your belief, same as every other Atheist. Don't you know any smart Atheists that can help you? I'm operating on an average intellect and good old fashioned commonsense. The best you can do is impersonate my account and stalk me.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious Please tell me you're kidding. It's a tough sell to say I'm stalking *you* when nearly every response on your comment history is to me.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The history of your four day stalking of me is in the comments here and all over youtube. You impersonated my account four days ago because you are an Atheist who can't answer the most fundamental questions of your beliefs such as: How did amino acid molecules attract each other in an ocean of water molecules, as per your claim?
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious I (and anyone with eyes) see you talking to yourself while also replying to me in a conversation I wasn't even part of. Not sure what you think you're seeing.
I told you I'm not answering your questions as long as you dodge mine.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Atheist stalker, this is more of your psychosis. You are lying about your lies.
You can't answer my question. You can't begin to support Darwinism and you had the chutzpah to name yourself 'Science'
lughcious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lughcious You're still dodging.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You stalked me for 4 days in a row in the account you forged to impersonate me with, and you lie pathologically. You stalked me here in the account in which you replaced the first letter in my name with a capital I (India).
You can't explain the fundamental details of your belief in Bolshevik endorsed Darwinism. If you could, you would instead of parading your psychosis.
lughcious 1 year ago
@lughcious So you're denying that you've been talking to yourself while harassing me?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Yes, you impersonated me and then accuse me of talking to myself because you are a petty Atheist loser.
lughcious 1 year ago