you know when you have one of those clear and concise moments?when everything becomes clear,and the next thing you say will unite the whole world in peace and harmony, and we will all become one in mind body and spirit? well this aint one of those moments-sorry(lolz)
Well I am just passing through, and thought I'd leave a comment for anyone who believes in evolution versus creation If you just simply read your Bible in the book of Genesis we are created!! by GOD!
@JesusSaves817 I read a book too! It says we are created by a can of soup! I know what you're thinking, "This can't be true, this is preposterous." But you see I know it is true, because the book says it is true. There, problem solved, for everyone!
@SteinUndStahl666 How do I know the bible is true? Simple. 2 Timothy 3:16 says it's true. How do I know 2 Timothy 3:16 is correct you ask? Also easy; it's written in the bible. Airtight logic.
@JesusSaves817 So you are disproving the other commentor's book by saying your book says something else? You do realize the fallacy in that right? What he's trying to get across is that by saying something is true because it was written in a book is not valid argument. I hope you're just trolling because if not, you must have an IQ less than 50.
Theory - the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. Evolution has proven laws that correspond in nature, and evolution is a fact. If you doubt this please, please before you hate me research the following facts. Synthetic cells, proving there is a mathematical order to cellular creation. Chromosome #2, the fused primate cell that evolves humans. And lastly the "missing link" Homo habilis. Irrefutable evidence that evolution is a fact, what you do with that is your choice.
I could shed a tear, that was so beautiful!! why was i raised by religious unthinking (beyond the simple) parents. how far ahead i would be (and i would imagine society as a whole) if we were raised from birth to use reason and logic in their highest forms. Mr. Hitchens is brilliant, i aspire to such eloquent expression. :)
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)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
@Mogley52 the universe is a closed system so the second law of thermodynamics applies perfectly anyway. I totally agree with the point you make though order and chaos are hard to quantify. The second law is referring to unusable energy (entropy) as disorder. The second law is very useful for proving the universe had a beginning. As for abiogenesis we can at least know we have never seen living things come from non-living material nor is there a mechanism that could do this that we know of.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
I think he was half right. I don't think believing in fairies is of any use to us now. I do think, however, that it once was. It was a part of our evolution. As we grew out of our animal instincts, and started hearing voices to guide us, it was only natural to look for an outside source. Also, perhaps the leaders of our past who followed gods and had a written morality did better in controlling the more barbaric of us than someone without would have done.
@skywize no, but that's not what I think. But for you to believe in something stupid and nonsensical because you think there is no alternative is not very logical stance.
@webhutspain You are right. Believing in something from a 2000 year old book with no evidence proving it's validity makes far more sense than understanding actual science. At least it's faster than having to learn stuff.
@webhutspain "Really there isn't."? This is you're argument? Wow. Just an FYI, there is no such thing as 'particle-to-people evolution'. You seem to be joining abiogenisis with evolution. These things are separate. Abiogenisis is how particles eventually became life. Evolution is how that life changed bit by bit to explain... us.
Well at least we agree on something. There is no such thing as particles-to-people evolution.
The separation of biogenesis and evolution is merely an evolutionist attempt to avoid the basic question that if life changes bit by bit as you say, then what was the starting mechanism. Separation has only occurred in the last few years since finding out the complexity the "simple" cell. Prior to this knowledge, abiogensis and evolution went hand in hand. It is still taught so in schools.
@webhutspain Whether or not it's taught in schools that way says nothing. The education system is going down hill, at least in the states. Abiogenesis is an entirely different process than evolution. It is how the original life was formed from non life. Evolution is what happened AFTER this occurred. Cause... and effect... Two different things. Someone with a highschool education would know this.
@skywize Nevertheless it has only been separated since we discovered that the simple cell was not simple after all. Only then was it separated because of the absurdity of the primordial soup producing the digital language and information we see in DNA. When the cell was considered simple, evolution and abiogensis were not separated. This was only a few years ago. Why? Because it blows evolution out of the water if abiogenesis is included as part of it. Anything to keep the lie afloat.
" since we discovered that the simple cell was not simple after all."
- and HOW was that discovered ?
"This was only a few years ago. Why? "
Non sense... they Urey-Miller test for example already was decades ago, Evolution ALWAYS dealt with the diversity of life, not with how life started.... thoughts like panspermea are pretty old but have never ever had anything to do with evolution.
How life started is very interesting, but it's irrelevant wrt to evolution.
@mindwis3 The Urey-Miller? LOL, that's exactly my point. Not only is it laughable as an experiment, but it was done so on the premise that the cell was a simple collection of chemicals. It was the holy grail of evolution to prove that life came about in a primordial soup. Only with the advent of molecular biology and our knowledge of the infinite complexity of the cell has evolution distanced itself from abiogenesis, just like you attempt to do so now.
Oh dear, it was an experiment to see whether amino acids can form in supposed early earth conditions.
Cells are not "infinitely complex", and neither is abiogenesis abandoned by science.
Since this is chemistry regarding IF the building blocks of life could form, it has nothing to do with biological evolution, no matter how much you think this is relevant.
btw, the experiment was a success, not a failure like you.
Oh dear, you obviously don't understand how laughable that experiment was.
Abiogensis was very much part of evolution until molecular biology and information theory developed. For the theory of evolution to continue to exist it HAD to disassociate itself from abiogenesis.
The experiment was nothing short of an own goal. It actually worked against life originating by itself and actually demonstrated the idiocy of the idea.
@PoIsOnDiVx I concur with everything you said except "The problem is how things are and are not." I don't believe thats a problem because I don't believe they matter. I believe that what a individual believes only matters to one being in the universe and thats the individual tha holds that belief.
@BaneOfAzrael it doesn't matter what you or I believe, what I'm saying and continue to say is when some one says anothers beliefs are false but can't prove them false then they can't speak to their position as knowledge. It could be said that the lack of evidence is sufficient criteria...If your kitchen table represents all the knowledge in the Universe, what portion would the accumulation of human knowledge cover? finite versus infinite. I'm saying believe and let believe, live and let live.
@doncourtreporter you're right but only partly so, others may suffer from my sharing of belief in belief but I dont suffer from it. To be more specific, in the terms of personal experience and perspective, what you believe doesn't matter, what matters is how you believe...If you believe something to be true, then as far as you are concerned, it's true.
@RGVNC Of course if you believe something it's true, it is true. But it isn't necessarily so. I try to explain myself better.
If I believe God exists, it does exist. But it's not so. Because reality is what from my point of view I believe is real, but the problem is not reality. The problem is how things are and are not. So, even if God is true, and exist in my reality, he "IS" not.
Faith in the beginning only requires the Christian to "rip the eyes out of Christianity" as Martin Luther said, but later invites greater faith, such as flying planes into buildings. They have the greater
@eserebcin I'm having trouble finding this quote by anybody, least of all Nikola Tesla. Can you provide a source for the quote? I'd love to use it but I refuse to use misquotes or false quotes. Thanks!
@eserebcin Nikola Tesla also said, "The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power."
@eserebcin I have found no evidence anywhere of a quote like that, sadly I'm not even convinced Tesla was an atheist. Where do you have the quote from?
- That statement you made just proves the promises of the Bible. The Bible promises that people like you will be turned over to a reprobate mind.. your prime example of the such.
THIS WHOLE IDEA OF MORALITY STEMMING FROM THE BIBLE IS SUCH BULLSHIT! LIKE MR. HITCHENS SAYS, IT IS INNATE IN US AS PRIMATES, AS ANIMALS. JUST LOOK AT OTHER ANIMALS: MONKEYS, APES, LIONS, TIGERS, DOLPHINS; THEY ALL LOOK OUT FOR THEMSELVES; PROTECT ONE ANOTHER; WHERE DID THEY GET THAT? FROM THE BIBLE? THERE ARE EVEN CASES IN WHICH DOLPHINS HAVE SAVED HUMANS FROM DANGER. WERE THOSE DOLPHINS READING THE BIBLE? LOL!
@peteagassi I agree, and love the dolphin bit. I do think, however, that you might want to keep an eye on the caps lock... Anything over a sentence or two becomes a bit difficult to read.
Hitchens must've become inured to destroying cunt christians like this. What gets me is that, after being UTTERLY destroyed by their own logic, the believers sit with a stupid grin on their faces and then CONTINUE ON AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED! wtf? Address the point! Admit that you and your faith have no answer to it. Don't just "move on". If your faith is so strong it should be able to defend itself fully against these charges - charges that cut to the very heart of your belief system.
The activity of "faith" chiefly involves shutting down the logic centers of your brain such that you can go on believing something in the face of tremendous evidence to the contrary. Holding this activity up as a virtue seems to have been religion's main strategy against secular arguments throughout history.
@Ellie8969 So you say...I'm saying wether God exists or not doesn't matter. If some one believes in their mind she exists then she exists in their mind. I'm pro-science and anti-religion and I believe God exists as a symbol that I can assign whatever meaning and value I want to her to put my experience into context. Theres alot of scientific theories about whats real so again I'll choose what I believe is real even if I'm the only person who believes so...everyone is right, only partly so.
@RGVNC OK, fair enough. So, you're just adapting a word and giving it your own meaning. Think I'll do the same, then. I shall henceforth call the sensation of needing to urinate "God". Thus God exists. Hail God. I know now that God exists because I can literally feel him in my bladder - to me God id true. Have to go now, God is calling......
@RGVNC You suffer belief in "belief." That would make me the most handsome man in the cosmos. Ha. And I believe all humans love me and respect anything I say. Please don't prove me wrong.
@Ellie8969 you can't prove the statement "God exists" then you can't speak to it as knowledge. What I can speak to as knowledge is that man created religion and science to assign meaning to experience
@RGVNC Man created religion to try and explain the unexplainable. We realised that "faith" and "hope" are not good, reliable routes to the truth - hence science was born. Science is the only way we have to try and objectively discover what's real and what's not. Of course, science can't answer everything, and never will - but it stands a much better chance than faith, which is no more than "I believe 'cos I want to".
@Ellie8969 I'm a high school drop out who's not as smart as you but I do understand subjective/objective. Intelligence doesn't mean your right and never makes you better....basic pattern recognition has always been a necessary skill for survival, to bring order from chaos and to assign meaning. If God didn't exists it would be necessary for us to invent her, just as we did with math and time. If you can't prove the statement "God does not exists" then you can't speak to it as knowledge...
@RGVNC What are you going on about? You are massively over complicating this! Does God exist? There are ONLY two possible answers - yes or no. Surely you can see that? What you or I may happen to think, feel or want - the answer to that question will not change. In truth, we don't know, nobody does - but to try and suggest that it can be true for some people and not for others is ridiculous. God either exist or he does not. That's it. I can't believe you even need this pointing out.
@RGVNC "If you can't prove the statement "God does not exists” --> Do you believe in Jimmy the Magical Flying (all-knowing) turtle. According to your logic if you say no you must prove that He does not exist of your position is invalid.
Divine North Korea...Fuck, I will miss you Hitch! Look at the smug look on Haldane's face at the end, clearly disguising his morbid embarrassment on getting verbally deconstructed.
People believe what they want to believe, i.e. "What difference would it make today if tomorrow you found out what you believe wasn't true". If you have no interest in proving what you believe to others or you don't perscribe to mutually agreed reality then you define your own personal truth and reality...just as beauty, sanity is in the eye of the beholder.
@RGVNC Well, yes, people do believe what they want to believe - that agree with. But that does not mean that they are necessarily right to believe whatever it is.
There is a big difference between subjective & objective truth which you appear not to understand.
It is true that a rose us beautiful TO ME, my subjective truth. Whether God exists or not is true/not true to all of us - it's objective.
@TheAutisticGuitarist and Ellie8969..."Truth" must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language. Defining this potency and applicability can be looked upon as "criteria", and the method used to recognize a "truth" is termed a criterion of truth. Since there is no single accepted criterion, they can all be considered "theories"(Wiki)...Many truths are based on confermation bias, Athiest can't disprove the existance of God, so by definition their belief is faith based...cont.
@RGVNC What rot.Either God exists or he does not. There's no alternative - his existence is ether true or it is not. It is impossible for us to determine the truth in this case - but that doesn't mean that there is no true answer. Confirmation bias has nothing to do with it.
Oh please....I reject "faith", which is belief without evidence. I do not believe in God because of a lack of evidence, so how on earth is that "faith"? Do you have faith that the Easter Bunny is not real? How ridiculous.
@RGVNC "Athiest can't disprove the existance of God, so by definition their belief is faith based” --> Its not faith based. If you told me that there is an invisible Gnome in my closet, I would ask for evidence. If you provide none but want me to “take your word for it” I would dismiss it as Bullsh*t. No faith required. Same with God.
(continued).... now I have been called backwards, and a troll, and all kinds of things - but this is irrefutable. Some of you are so rabidly attached to evolution you seriously can't think straight - and what makes it funny is that you accuse ME of being closed minded. My position is: You COULD BE wrong about evolution. Your position is: NO WAY, YOU DOPEY CHRISTIAN - EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY ANSWER!!!!!. Which sounds more closed-minded? Seriously, you guys need help... and I will pray for you.
@ragnarthelibrarian Now, THAT's a great argument! I hadn't considered that before. But, you do have a mountain of evidence to support your conclusion, so you MUST be right. Tks
@19spaceman61 I'm afraid you are wrong. There are aspects of evolution that are hotly debated by scientists - no one is suggesting that the whole picture is entirely, 100% understood - but virtually no relevant scientists doubt that evolution actually happened. The debate about whether or not evolution happens was over about 150 years ago.
" Your position is .. - EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY ANSWER"
That's not what i said , i said that only "evolution" is evidence based.
Again, i'm willing to evaluate anything, but faith based positions are simply not very convincing.
"I will pray for you" thanks, just keep in mind that the apparent failure of more and more people saying they will pray for me is not particularly convincing me prayer actually works, quite the contrary
i'm not suggesting That's evidence prayer does not work
@mindwis3 It depends on your definition of 'works'. God is not a genie in a bottle who grants wished. When I say that prayer 'works', it has been shown in research studies that prayer increases a sense of well-being.
"i'm >>NOT<< suggesting That's evidence prayer does not work
Prayer might in fact increase a sense of well being, yet a bully might bring the same point for bullying people around. it's not evidence for anything but that.
"God is not a genie in a bottle who grants wishes"
I'm going to try this one last time...(what can I say, hope springs eternal.) There is considerable debate - even among NON-CHRISTIAN scientists - about evolution. To say the "debate is over" is not scientific - it is ideological. As a Christian, I BELIEVE in creation. You can BELIEVE as you wish, and you may feel that the evidence well supports your BELIEF. You can even think I am foolish for my belief. But, you should recognize that evolution IS a BELIEF - not scientific fact.
@19spaceman61 evolution only states that creatures change over time to become better suited to their environment, and this is more than observable. even if creationism was true (its not by the way) evolution would still be true if the environment that god made started to change over time and animals had to adapt to it or risk extinction. before you make uneducated statements like that I suggest you do some research and look through the mountains of evidence behind evolution.
@TheAutisticGuitarist Yes - species evolve. If that's what this is about, then, of course, species make adaptations. I assumed this was the 'all life/primordial ooze', debate.
"There is considerable debate - even among NON-CHRISTIAN scientists"
You are confusing a debate over:
"the best type landing gear" with "whether airplanes can fly"
"You can BELIEVE as you wish"
perhaps you can, it sure seems like it, but no: i can not believe as i wish, i often have to accept to be true that which i do not wish to be true at all.
Because Hitchens says we evolved doesn't make it true him saying its over doesn't prove anything. Light exists and we were given eyes to seek it in response. God exists and so we are given an inane need to seek him and know him. The same with morality, laws of physics, math, etc.
@ShawnSwander This video proves nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. Your claim also adds nothing and proves nothing. You're required to prove your claims and slimply stating that your chosen god exists is pointless.
@dilt4 I never asserted God exists here you forced that assertion on me. I would assert that there is evidence that can be interpreted to support the existence of a God. I could prove that.
@dilt4 Do you want historical evidence, ontological evidence, cosmological evidence, teleological evidence? Historically you could look up non-biblical refrences from Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Chapter 18 of Antiquities, and hundreds more. The writings of the apostles who died for professing Jesus is Lord and gained nothing for it. You could watch?v=2AT_bMuFBfs he cites his sources. Look of the other evidences I listed too its pretty overwhelming.
@dilt4 You should take everyone seriously if they are extending you the same courtesy. Are you appealing to my credentials? Would a career as a nuclear propulsion engineer or as a physicist change the validity of what I say? I would hope not because If I had those credentials I could still tell you bad information. The truth is I care about helping people find a bigger picture, a deeper meaning, and a more solid foundation than the lies we build off of today.
@ShawnSwander How exactly have you managed to ignore the mounds of easily found evidence available to the public. You obviously have no grasp of what evolution even is.
@dilt4 because every example of "evidence" I have looked at, considered seriously, found problems with and ultimately rejected it as evidence that helps evolution. In fact, most of it destroys the evolution argument from a universal common ancestor.
@ShawnSwander Evolution is demonstrable, it doesn't really matter if you have decided that it doesn't meet the standards of your limited understanding.
@dilt4 You are saying evolution is demonstrable implying that I disagree that parts of evolution are true. You can't combine truth and lies and then pass the entire thing as true. There is ZERO evidence of a universal common ancestor. NOTHING has been demonstrated to support that claim. You trying to change what I said is just proof of the dishonest agenda I've been pointing out.
@ShawnSwander There is no dishonest agenda. The entire idea of this conspiracy within the scientific community is complete insanity and only serves as an excuse to ignore evidence and stick with your faith.
@dilt4 You knew that I was referring to large scale evolution and you cited observable evolution like dogs having different breeds of dogs. How is this not dishonest?
@ShawnSwander You're denying evidence and then claiming that other people are dishonest when you're being dishonest with yourself. This entire conversation is pointless if you're going to side step everything I say so that you can attempt to discredit myself and the scientific community. It's blatantly obvious and it's not going to work. You still obviously have no grasp of evolution and I don't trust that you have looked into anything.
@dilt4 You are tying to change my position again. How have I attempted to discredit you? By pointing out how you are intentionally deceiving people? What have I side stepped? I just won't let you get away with intentionally misrepresenting my position or deceit. I have't attempted to discredit the scientific community I only liars.
If I didn't understand evolution why would I engage in saying there is no evidence of people evolving from a universal common ancestor. I checked it out first.
@dilt4 People like that are laughable. When they are ill they use science. They use science up until it starts clashing with their religion and then suddenly... oh science is a conspiracy. They're idiots and should be ignored. If science is a conspiracy then why don't they go without it?
Not only that, but scientists all try to disprove each other's theories, because doing so would lead to fame in the scientific community. There's tons of scientists trying to disprove evolution. The fact that none of them can is a testament to the theory.
@ShawnSwander Doesn't the fact that DNA is found in all living entities constitute evidence for a common ancestor? If all things were created seperately why would everything contain the same coding?
@TheReegar Doesn't the fact that DNA is found in all living entities constitute evidence for a common DESIGNER? If all things were created seperately by the same designer wouldn't everything contain the same coding?
If an abiological cause created life there should be more than one possible coding system due to multiple mechanisms that could create life if it happened by accident why didn't it happen more than once?
@ShawnSwander We were given an overdeveloped tendency towards agent detection which you mistake for a desire to find god. If you don't know what that is, look it up. I don't care if you believe me.
@Kaizerworks I know what it is and you basically just broadened the definition of God. It doesn't change that people detect morality, truth, and scientific fact, therefore these things exist and everything that exists in the universe that is affected by time had a cause. This alone proves a prime mover.
@ShawnSwander Thing is it's possible to say the bible was misread to were the roles of god and evil were gotten wrong,
Also there are 3 gods, Yahweh and the Satan are both gods, and Jesus is god but separate some how which makes him the third one.
There are a lot of weird things that can be pointed out in Christianity, now you can hope there might be a god and afterlife but to believe both or one are real is just crazy. if that last bit is off to you I can explain better.
Because God is infallible and he breathed holy scripture out upon the prophets there is no possible way the bible in its original context was misread or misunderstood by the prophets. These are God's chosen people he chose the best people for the job or else your God is limited.
"Also there are 3 gods, "
You have your scripture confused. There is a Godhead which is God in 3 parts in 1 entity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Satan is not a God.
@TheSolitaryTraveller I've heard everything people think is weird about Christianity and 99% of the time its due to misunderstanding scripture. Because you said Satan is a God in Christianity you have some misunderstandings which is normal. Satan isn't omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient. He is a spiritual entity who deceives people.
@ShawnSwander Thing is you can define Satan as a god, also the acts of god are vastly more evil then Satan, also the argument that the bible is similar to north korea on how all opposing views thus Satan are evil and wrong when it's possible they aren't. Well giving praise to everything there side does no matter how evil. And god matches with the definition of evil, way better then the devil does.
@TheSolitaryTraveller Thing is you can define Satan as a god. No you can't. The hebreew word for Satan means enemy of God. Also he doesn't meet the qualifications of God in that culture. Omnipotence and so on. So if you consider Satan God you are just redefining God for the purposes of your argument.
@TheSolitaryTraveller "He matches more along the term god when compared to the greek and roman gods." Don't just make things up and type them. He doesn't match Greek.Roman Gods in any way.
The Christian God is a single God. Greece is polytheistic delegating tasks to Gods.
He is omnipotent so no delegation is needed. Omniscient, Omnipresent, immaterial, Not created, timeless. Greek "gods" don't share any of these characteristics. Hope you find the truth soon, you should do more research.
@ShawnSwander Also god made man without free will and the devil gave use free will, by tricking us into eating from the tree of good and evil, because without knowing right and wrong your ability to say no or decide for yourself is pretty much shit, since i could tell you kill a new born in front of it's mother and you would just go, OK. Because you don't see it as wrong or even good, thus controlling you is pretty easy. So in turn thank Satan for your "freewill" not god.
@ShawnSwander Also on good being the supreme evil and the devil being the lesser evil, why does god judge you and not forgive you, and thus will deny you heaven, when he is pure good. Well the devil will never turn you away and will lets all into hell, sounds why more forgiving. Also Jesus is god but isn't yet separate so Jesus forgave you but god didn't in some weird way, Also if gods choices are kiss ass or eternal pain, is that really free will or just a mob boss.
@ShawnSwander why do people think eternal life would be good, it would be torutre you could never stop. imagine doing everything and all the excitement in existence is now lost so everything is bland and boring and dead to you now, and it will be stuck life that for ever. Only the beginning is good in eternal life, when you can still get excitement out of "living".
Also Jesus died for your sins, which in turn pretty much means he's forgiving you, which is ok since he is a god.
@TheSolitaryTraveller My life gets more amazing and wonderful and interesting every day. Even the suffering I occasionally experience passes and gives way to new opportunities. This world is huge and it is troubling that I will only see and experience the smallest portion of it. In other words, I do not understand how you can feel the way you do.
@Tupster Listen over a short period of time life works, but over an infinite period that joy of life will run dry. Imagine doing everything and knowing everything so there is nothing left thats a point you would reach with eternal life how long it would take you to reach that would vary but you would reach it at some point.
Life is great because it ends, which allows you do explore and expand but no without limit, that limit means you can't run dry when living.
@TheSolitaryTraveller You haven't read the bible or even thought it out. You wouldn't live as you do now mortally within the constrains of this world such as time and laws of nature. Clearly you are just trolling though. You should tread lightly when spreading blasphemy as a joke its a costly joke.
@mindwis3 Why then do you, in the same comment, link to a "testimony from a former atheist".It does constitute evidence because:
He is a former editor for the Chicago Tribune who 1) cites his sources in the video, 2) has long standing credibility in his research, 3) is peer reviewed and published author, 4)Did years and years of research that he shares. Hitchens just shares his opinion and cites no sources, research, and shows extreme biases. If you think evolution happened you didn't research
@ShawnSwander Here ladies and gentlemen is another loon who won't believe any evidence thrown his way.
If you don't believe evolution happened then you don't deserve to be on this Earth - because you'd still be a monkey.
Various story books (e.g the bible) cannot further our understand of the world...you cannot read a book again and gain more knowledge. Science is the way forward for the whole planet, and that includes leaving your so called Gods behind, since there is no evidence whatsoever
@Roksonixx Nice ad hominem rebuttal. You can't defeat my actual position so you attack me instead. From 1990 and before what percentage of time have textbooks contained misconceptions or misinformation? 100%. Proven fact we have always had incorrect information in textbooks before that point. Why would today be any different. Did we suddenly have an epiphany and stop making mistakes?
@Roksonixx there is historical evidence of God, cosmological evidence, teleological evidence, and ontological evidence. It takes more faith NOT to believe in God than to believe in him.
@ShawnSwander Wow....no wonder there are so many bible bashers. There isn't one shred of EVIDENCE (as you seem to not understand the word EVIDENCE) that proves god exists. If you think it takes more faith not to believe in a god then you are a clearly deluded individual. Where is this so called cosmological evidence? Because the planets align? Because there are so many rocks in this universe? Please... leave society alone and go back to your cave - one day people like you will die out thank fuck
@Roksonixx The cosmological argument in a nutshell (because you didn't take to time to look for yourself) Everything that moves requires something that was moving before it to set the second object in motion. Nothing bound by time and nature has moved without a cause, therefore an initial first cause is required outside of time and above the laws of nature. So no its not astrology like you suggest out of willful ignorance.
@ShawnSwander You think this is evidence of a god? LOL. Your complete lack of understanding of science just proves to me that you're a dumb redneck who'll never understand. Even when confronted with reason and logic you will still choose your so called "god" because your tiny little mind cannot fathom anything else. Good day.
@Roksonixx Ad hominems doesn't change the fact I gave you two types of evidence and proposed four. You are willfully ignorant of the evidence and that my friend is your own choice.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: ROM 1:20
@ShawnSwander Yeah sure throw some more bible bullshit at me. Out of the many thousands of religions what makes you think yours (if any) is the RIGHT religion? Your choice of belief is almost directly correlated with which part of the world you were born and raised in, don't you think that's already proof enough that it's all based on baseless beliefs? The fact that there's thousands of religions makes you wonder why they all claim to be true, when it's quite obvious they can't all be
@Roksonixx "almost directly correlated with which part of the world you were born and raised in"
Way to spout off Dawkin's logical fallacies. Its ignoring a common cause geography has nothing to do with religion. Religion is 100% based on personal experience.
I'm a former skeptic so I love the which religion is right trap. I compared them all based on their scriptures and evidence. It requires more faith NOT to believe in Christ than to believe in him based on historical evidence alone.
@Roksonixx What part of the geography specifically are you crediting to religion. The heat, humidity? No you are attributing it to upbringing. Therefore you are blaming the popularity of religion for its popularity. Its circular logic. A Logical fallacy as I said before.
"If you think evolution happened you didn't research "
Believe that too dude, it could not care less what you think i did or did not do, in fact i'll top that and "confess" i believe evolution is still happening today and will happen tomorrow too if life is still here ;)
As for Hitchens not quoting sources, that's a lie.. i have a book right here and it is referencing sources.
@mindwis3 You realize I was assking a question because some people do believe that. Saying abiogenesis and evolution from a universal ancestor aren't related is just a cop-out. Many theories of evolution include a simple organism evolving from a repeating RNA strand that came from random chemical reactions. I believe in the observable portion of evolution which is survivable limited mutations pass on. This doesn't prove a common universal ancestor.
@mindwis3 Evolution as I am refuting it does believe in common ancestry this was Darwin's theory. If you don't believe in common ancestry we really have no reason to argue.
An intelligent creator would be life from life.
DNA based life supports a single common CREATOR.
Shouldn't different forms of life sprang up in early Earth before competition set in. Why was there only one code . Chemicals react in billions of ways if life is just a chemical reaction there should be more ways.
how is that life from life ? sounds more like life from magic ...
and where did that creator come from if THAT was Biogenesis ?
" DNA based life supports a single common CREATOR." that's basically the same thing as saying common descent... you just imagine a creator where i don't ..
" there should be more ways" see my "new life" remark in prev. post... already answered that ..
@mindwis3 "how is that life from life ?" how is it not.
"sounds more like life from magic"
Magic would be abiogenesis the religion many evolutionists subscribe to.
" where did that creator come from "
why would an eternal being outside of time require a cause. Cause effect applies to beings bound by time.
" already answered that" Not really. Life could spring up in one part of the world a million years before it spreads across the globe a billion years before resource competition sets in.
The one good thing about the state of the world today is Atheism's fast growing rate.
SteinUndStahl666 3 hours ago
you know when you have one of those clear and concise moments?when everything becomes clear,and the next thing you say will unite the whole world in peace and harmony, and we will all become one in mind body and spirit? well this aint one of those moments-sorry(lolz)
oldskoolraver1974 10 hours ago
wow...
TheJamShot 13 hours ago
Well I am just passing through, and thought I'd leave a comment for anyone who believes in evolution versus creation If you just simply read your Bible in the book of Genesis we are created!! by GOD!
JesusSaves817 13 hours ago
@JesusSaves817 I read a book too! It says we are created by a can of soup! I know what you're thinking, "This can't be true, this is preposterous." But you see I know it is true, because the book says it is true. There, problem solved, for everyone!
16min5k 11 hours ago
@16min5k A can of soup? really? thats STUPID!
Genesis 1:27 KJV
So God created man in his own image,in the image of GOD created he him: male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:7 KJV
And the LORD GOD formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:21-22
21.And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh
JesusSaves817 9 hours ago
@JesusSaves817
Well, if it's in a book of mythology, it must be true.
SteinUndStahl666 3 hours ago
@SteinUndStahl666 How do I know the bible is true? Simple. 2 Timothy 3:16 says it's true. How do I know 2 Timothy 3:16 is correct you ask? Also easy; it's written in the bible. Airtight logic.
titans091052 2 hours ago
@titans091052 Epic trolling
98shot 39 minutes ago
@16min5k
22. And the rib which the Lord God took from Adam, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man
Oh yeah and my favorite verse
from Jesus him self when talking to Thomas
Jesus says "I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE no MAN comes to the FATHER but by ME. John 14:6
JesusSaves817 9 hours ago
@JesusSaves817 So you are disproving the other commentor's book by saying your book says something else? You do realize the fallacy in that right? What he's trying to get across is that by saying something is true because it was written in a book is not valid argument. I hope you're just trolling because if not, you must have an IQ less than 50.
Ki1roywashere 3 hours ago
reminds me so much of robert downey JR <3
sirtomtom1 19 hours ago
Please thumbs up the comment below so anyone arguing can look for themselves, thank you peace and love to all!
landonggg 19 hours ago
Theory - the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. Evolution has proven laws that correspond in nature, and evolution is a fact. If you doubt this please, please before you hate me research the following facts. Synthetic cells, proving there is a mathematical order to cellular creation. Chromosome #2, the fused primate cell that evolves humans. And lastly the "missing link" Homo habilis. Irrefutable evidence that evolution is a fact, what you do with that is your choice.
landonggg 19 hours ago 10
@landonggg Just out of curiosity not because I disagree, what laws in nature has Darwinian evolution led to the founding of?
Knucklehead281 7 hours ago
I could shed a tear, that was so beautiful!! why was i raised by religious unthinking (beyond the simple) parents. how far ahead i would be (and i would imagine society as a whole) if we were raised from birth to use reason and logic in their highest forms. Mr. Hitchens is brilliant, i aspire to such eloquent expression. :)
Percy4D 1 day ago
"A divine North Korea," well put!
Impalamark64 1 day ago
...celestial Dear Leader....*laffs*
MadTarnsman 1 day ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 day ago
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 1 day ago
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 day ago
@Mogley52 the universe is a closed system so the second law of thermodynamics applies perfectly anyway. I totally agree with the point you make though order and chaos are hard to quantify. The second law is referring to unusable energy (entropy) as disorder. The second law is very useful for proving the universe had a beginning. As for abiogenesis we can at least know we have never seen living things come from non-living material nor is there a mechanism that could do this that we know of.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 day 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 did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 day ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 day ago
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 1 day ago
I think he was half right. I don't think believing in fairies is of any use to us now. I do think, however, that it once was. It was a part of our evolution. As we grew out of our animal instincts, and started hearing voices to guide us, it was only natural to look for an outside source. Also, perhaps the leaders of our past who followed gods and had a written morality did better in controlling the more barbaric of us than someone without would have done.
skywize 2 days ago
particles-to-people evolution is a fraud
webhutspain 2 days ago
@webhutspain It's much more believable to think an invisible evil djinn in the sky who knows everything poofed us into existence...
skywize 2 days ago
@skywize no, but that's not what I think. But for you to believe in something stupid and nonsensical because you think there is no alternative is not very logical stance.
webhutspain 1 day ago
@webhutspain You are right. Believing in something from a 2000 year old book with no evidence proving it's validity makes far more sense than understanding actual science. At least it's faster than having to learn stuff.
skywize 1 day ago
@skywize that's where you make the mistake. There is no science in particle-to-people evolution. Really there isn't.
webhutspain 1 day ago
@webhutspain "Really there isn't."? This is you're argument? Wow. Just an FYI, there is no such thing as 'particle-to-people evolution'. You seem to be joining abiogenisis with evolution. These things are separate. Abiogenisis is how particles eventually became life. Evolution is how that life changed bit by bit to explain... us.
skywize 1 day ago
@skywize
Well at least we agree on something. There is no such thing as particles-to-people evolution.
The separation of biogenesis and evolution is merely an evolutionist attempt to avoid the basic question that if life changes bit by bit as you say, then what was the starting mechanism. Separation has only occurred in the last few years since finding out the complexity the "simple" cell. Prior to this knowledge, abiogensis and evolution went hand in hand. It is still taught so in schools.
webhutspain 1 day ago
@webhutspain Whether or not it's taught in schools that way says nothing. The education system is going down hill, at least in the states. Abiogenesis is an entirely different process than evolution. It is how the original life was formed from non life. Evolution is what happened AFTER this occurred. Cause... and effect... Two different things. Someone with a highschool education would know this.
skywize 1 day ago
@skywize Nevertheless it has only been separated since we discovered that the simple cell was not simple after all. Only then was it separated because of the absurdity of the primordial soup producing the digital language and information we see in DNA. When the cell was considered simple, evolution and abiogensis were not separated. This was only a few years ago. Why? Because it blows evolution out of the water if abiogenesis is included as part of it. Anything to keep the lie afloat.
webhutspain 1 day ago
@webhutspain
" since we discovered that the simple cell was not simple after all."
- and HOW was that discovered ?
"This was only a few years ago. Why? "
Non sense... they Urey-Miller test for example already was decades ago, Evolution ALWAYS dealt with the diversity of life, not with how life started.... thoughts like panspermea are pretty old but have never ever had anything to do with evolution.
How life started is very interesting, but it's irrelevant wrt to evolution.
mindwis3 15 hours ago
@mindwis3 The Urey-Miller? LOL, that's exactly my point. Not only is it laughable as an experiment, but it was done so on the premise that the cell was a simple collection of chemicals. It was the holy grail of evolution to prove that life came about in a primordial soup. Only with the advent of molecular biology and our knowledge of the infinite complexity of the cell has evolution distanced itself from abiogenesis, just like you attempt to do so now.
webhutspain 13 hours ago
@webhutspain
Oh dear, it was an experiment to see whether amino acids can form in supposed early earth conditions.
Cells are not "infinitely complex", and neither is abiogenesis abandoned by science.
Since this is chemistry regarding IF the building blocks of life could form, it has nothing to do with biological evolution, no matter how much you think this is relevant.
btw, the experiment was a success, not a failure like you.
mindwis3 11 hours ago
@mindwis3
Sooo many errors
Oh dear, you obviously don't understand how laughable that experiment was.
Abiogensis was very much part of evolution until molecular biology and information theory developed. For the theory of evolution to continue to exist it HAD to disassociate itself from abiogenesis.
The experiment was nothing short of an own goal. It actually worked against life originating by itself and actually demonstrated the idiocy of the idea.
webhutspain 11 hours ago
Well said.
SirLokiChuffingtom 2 days ago
Hitchens always did know how to knock it out of the park. RIP
Raptor302 3 days ago
@PoIsOnDiVx I concur with everything you said except "The problem is how things are and are not." I don't believe thats a problem because I don't believe they matter. I believe that what a individual believes only matters to one being in the universe and thats the individual tha holds that belief.
RGVNC 3 days ago
@BaneOfAzrael it doesn't matter what you or I believe, what I'm saying and continue to say is when some one says anothers beliefs are false but can't prove them false then they can't speak to their position as knowledge. It could be said that the lack of evidence is sufficient criteria...If your kitchen table represents all the knowledge in the Universe, what portion would the accumulation of human knowledge cover? finite versus infinite. I'm saying believe and let believe, live and let live.
RGVNC 3 days ago
@doncourtreporter you're right but only partly so, others may suffer from my sharing of belief in belief but I dont suffer from it. To be more specific, in the terms of personal experience and perspective, what you believe doesn't matter, what matters is how you believe...If you believe something to be true, then as far as you are concerned, it's true.
RGVNC 3 days ago
@RGVNC Of course if you believe something it's true, it is true. But it isn't necessarily so. I try to explain myself better.
If I believe God exists, it does exist. But it's not so. Because reality is what from my point of view I believe is real, but the problem is not reality. The problem is how things are and are not. So, even if God is true, and exist in my reality, he "IS" not.
PoIsOnDiVx 3 days ago
I'm pretty sure the creationist debate ended a couple of hundred years ago.
gahzeyboe 3 days ago
Faith in the beginning only requires the Christian to "rip the eyes out of Christianity" as Martin Luther said, but later invites greater faith, such as flying planes into buildings. They have the greater
"faith."
doncourtreporter 3 days ago
Nikola Tesla summed it up:
People who read the bible and don't understand it become religious and people who read it and understand it become atheists.
eserebcin 4 days ago 70
@eserebcin I'm having trouble finding this quote by anybody, least of all Nikola Tesla. Can you provide a source for the quote? I'd love to use it but I refuse to use misquotes or false quotes. Thanks!
TheDarxide23 3 days ago
@eserebcin Atheist are delusional
kg6120 3 days ago
Hello @kg6120 you claim that Atheists are delusional, do you have a justification for this claim?
BaneOfAzrael 3 days ago
@eserebcin Nikola Tesla also said, "The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power."
frogman360 3 days ago
@eserebcin I have found no evidence anywhere of a quote like that, sadly I'm not even convinced Tesla was an atheist. Where do you have the quote from?
themissingn 1 day ago
@eserebcin
- That statement you made just proves the promises of the Bible. The Bible promises that people like you will be turned over to a reprobate mind.. your prime example of the such.
JonneytheKidd 1 day ago
THIS WHOLE IDEA OF MORALITY STEMMING FROM THE BIBLE IS SUCH BULLSHIT! LIKE MR. HITCHENS SAYS, IT IS INNATE IN US AS PRIMATES, AS ANIMALS. JUST LOOK AT OTHER ANIMALS: MONKEYS, APES, LIONS, TIGERS, DOLPHINS; THEY ALL LOOK OUT FOR THEMSELVES; PROTECT ONE ANOTHER; WHERE DID THEY GET THAT? FROM THE BIBLE? THERE ARE EVEN CASES IN WHICH DOLPHINS HAVE SAVED HUMANS FROM DANGER. WERE THOSE DOLPHINS READING THE BIBLE? LOL!
peteagassi 4 days ago
@peteagassi I agree, and love the dolphin bit. I do think, however, that you might want to keep an eye on the caps lock... Anything over a sentence or two becomes a bit difficult to read.
skywize 2 days ago
Hitchens must've become inured to destroying cunt christians like this. What gets me is that, after being UTTERLY destroyed by their own logic, the believers sit with a stupid grin on their faces and then CONTINUE ON AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED! wtf? Address the point! Admit that you and your faith have no answer to it. Don't just "move on". If your faith is so strong it should be able to defend itself fully against these charges - charges that cut to the very heart of your belief system.
timchilli 4 days ago 4
@timchilli
The activity of "faith" chiefly involves shutting down the logic centers of your brain such that you can go on believing something in the face of tremendous evidence to the contrary. Holding this activity up as a virtue seems to have been religion's main strategy against secular arguments throughout history.
Oleander410 4 days ago 19
@Ellie8969 So you say...I'm saying wether God exists or not doesn't matter. If some one believes in their mind she exists then she exists in their mind. I'm pro-science and anti-religion and I believe God exists as a symbol that I can assign whatever meaning and value I want to her to put my experience into context. Theres alot of scientific theories about whats real so again I'll choose what I believe is real even if I'm the only person who believes so...everyone is right, only partly so.
RGVNC 5 days ago
@RGVNC OK, fair enough. So, you're just adapting a word and giving it your own meaning. Think I'll do the same, then. I shall henceforth call the sensation of needing to urinate "God". Thus God exists. Hail God. I know now that God exists because I can literally feel him in my bladder - to me God id true. Have to go now, God is calling......
Ellie8969 4 days ago 2
@RGVNC You suffer belief in "belief." That would make me the most handsome man in the cosmos. Ha. And I believe all humans love me and respect anything I say. Please don't prove me wrong.
doncourtreporter 3 days ago
@Ellie8969 you can't prove the statement "God exists" then you can't speak to it as knowledge. What I can speak to as knowledge is that man created religion and science to assign meaning to experience
RGVNC 5 days ago
@RGVNC Man created religion to try and explain the unexplainable. We realised that "faith" and "hope" are not good, reliable routes to the truth - hence science was born. Science is the only way we have to try and objectively discover what's real and what's not. Of course, science can't answer everything, and never will - but it stands a much better chance than faith, which is no more than "I believe 'cos I want to".
Ellie8969 5 days ago
@Ellie8969 I'm a high school drop out who's not as smart as you but I do understand subjective/objective. Intelligence doesn't mean your right and never makes you better....basic pattern recognition has always been a necessary skill for survival, to bring order from chaos and to assign meaning. If God didn't exists it would be necessary for us to invent her, just as we did with math and time. If you can't prove the statement "God does not exists" then you can't speak to it as knowledge...
RGVNC 5 days ago
@RGVNC What are you going on about? You are massively over complicating this! Does God exist? There are ONLY two possible answers - yes or no. Surely you can see that? What you or I may happen to think, feel or want - the answer to that question will not change. In truth, we don't know, nobody does - but to try and suggest that it can be true for some people and not for others is ridiculous. God either exist or he does not. That's it. I can't believe you even need this pointing out.
Ellie8969 5 days ago
@RGVNC "If you can't prove the statement "God does not exists” --> Do you believe in Jimmy the Magical Flying (all-knowing) turtle. According to your logic if you say no you must prove that He does not exist of your position is invalid.
BaneOfAzrael 3 days ago
Divine North Korea...Fuck, I will miss you Hitch! Look at the smug look on Haldane's face at the end, clearly disguising his morbid embarrassment on getting verbally deconstructed.
BrannonMcConkey 5 days ago
People believe what they want to believe, i.e. "What difference would it make today if tomorrow you found out what you believe wasn't true". If you have no interest in proving what you believe to others or you don't perscribe to mutually agreed reality then you define your own personal truth and reality...just as beauty, sanity is in the eye of the beholder.
RGVNC 5 days ago
@RGVNC Well, yes, people do believe what they want to believe - that agree with. But that does not mean that they are necessarily right to believe whatever it is.
There is a big difference between subjective & objective truth which you appear not to understand.
It is true that a rose us beautiful TO ME, my subjective truth. Whether God exists or not is true/not true to all of us - it's objective.
Do you see? Doubt it.
Ellie8969 5 days ago
@TheAutisticGuitarist and Ellie8969..."Truth" must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language. Defining this potency and applicability can be looked upon as "criteria", and the method used to recognize a "truth" is termed a criterion of truth. Since there is no single accepted criterion, they can all be considered "theories"(Wiki)...Many truths are based on confermation bias, Athiest can't disprove the existance of God, so by definition their belief is faith based...cont.
RGVNC 5 days ago
@RGVNC What rot.Either God exists or he does not. There's no alternative - his existence is ether true or it is not. It is impossible for us to determine the truth in this case - but that doesn't mean that there is no true answer. Confirmation bias has nothing to do with it.
Oh please....I reject "faith", which is belief without evidence. I do not believe in God because of a lack of evidence, so how on earth is that "faith"? Do you have faith that the Easter Bunny is not real? How ridiculous.
Ellie8969 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RGVNC "Athiest can't disprove the existance of God, so by definition their belief is faith based” --> Its not faith based. If you told me that there is an invisible Gnome in my closet, I would ask for evidence. If you provide none but want me to “take your word for it” I would dismiss it as Bullsh*t. No faith required. Same with God.
BaneOfAzrael 3 days ago
"Divine dear leader" (i.e. Kim Jong Il) lol, I love Hitchens.
rusman74x 5 days ago
Ah, the love... thank you all for your comments.
19spaceman61 5 days ago
(continued).... now I have been called backwards, and a troll, and all kinds of things - but this is irrefutable. Some of you are so rabidly attached to evolution you seriously can't think straight - and what makes it funny is that you accuse ME of being closed minded. My position is: You COULD BE wrong about evolution. Your position is: NO WAY, YOU DOPEY CHRISTIAN - EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY ANSWER!!!!!. Which sounds more closed-minded? Seriously, you guys need help... and I will pray for you.
19spaceman61 5 days ago
@19spaceman61 Wow you are an idiot.
ragnarthelibrarian 5 days ago
@ragnarthelibrarian Now, THAT's a great argument! I hadn't considered that before. But, you do have a mountain of evidence to support your conclusion, so you MUST be right. Tks
19spaceman61 5 days ago
@19spaceman61 I'm afraid you are wrong. There are aspects of evolution that are hotly debated by scientists - no one is suggesting that the whole picture is entirely, 100% understood - but virtually no relevant scientists doubt that evolution actually happened. The debate about whether or not evolution happens was over about 150 years ago.
Ellie8969 5 days ago
@19spaceman61
" Your position is .. - EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY ANSWER"
That's not what i said , i said that only "evolution" is evidence based.
Again, i'm willing to evaluate anything, but faith based positions are simply not very convincing.
"I will pray for you" thanks, just keep in mind that the apparent failure of more and more people saying they will pray for me is not particularly convincing me prayer actually works, quite the contrary
i'm not suggesting That's evidence prayer does not work
mindwis3 5 days ago
@mindwis3 It depends on your definition of 'works'. God is not a genie in a bottle who grants wished. When I say that prayer 'works', it has been shown in research studies that prayer increases a sense of well-being.
19spaceman61 5 days ago
@19spaceman61
i'll emphasize the important part of my comment:
"i'm >>NOT<< suggesting That's evidence prayer does not work
Prayer might in fact increase a sense of well being, yet a bully might bring the same point for bullying people around. it's not evidence for anything but that.
"God is not a genie in a bottle who grants wishes"
well, according to i.e: Matt 21:22
"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer"
That said, i'll leave theology to you.
Kr,
mindwis3 5 days ago
I'm going to try this one last time...(what can I say, hope springs eternal.) There is considerable debate - even among NON-CHRISTIAN scientists - about evolution. To say the "debate is over" is not scientific - it is ideological. As a Christian, I BELIEVE in creation. You can BELIEVE as you wish, and you may feel that the evidence well supports your BELIEF. You can even think I am foolish for my belief. But, you should recognize that evolution IS a BELIEF - not scientific fact.
19spaceman61 5 days ago
@19spaceman61 evolution only states that creatures change over time to become better suited to their environment, and this is more than observable. even if creationism was true (its not by the way) evolution would still be true if the environment that god made started to change over time and animals had to adapt to it or risk extinction. before you make uneducated statements like that I suggest you do some research and look through the mountains of evidence behind evolution.
TheAutisticGuitarist 5 days ago
@TheAutisticGuitarist Yes - species evolve. If that's what this is about, then, of course, species make adaptations. I assumed this was the 'all life/primordial ooze', debate.
19spaceman61 5 days ago
@19spaceman61
"There is considerable debate - even among NON-CHRISTIAN scientists"
You are confusing a debate over:
"the best type landing gear" with "whether airplanes can fly"
"You can BELIEVE as you wish"
perhaps you can, it sure seems like it, but no: i can not believe as i wish, i often have to accept to be true that which i do not wish to be true at all.
kr,
mindwis3 5 days ago
penis
Treefingrs 5 days ago
If you believe something to be true then as far as you are concerned it's true.
RGVNC 6 days ago
@RGVNC That makes the whole concept of the word "true" completely meaningless, then. Sorry but something is either objectively true or it is not.
Ellie8969 6 days ago
@RGVNC if you believe something to be true and the evidence supports your belief it is true.
TheAutisticGuitarist 5 days ago
Because Hitchens says we evolved doesn't make it true him saying its over doesn't prove anything. Light exists and we were given eyes to seek it in response. God exists and so we are given an inane need to seek him and know him. The same with morality, laws of physics, math, etc.
Watch this testimony from a former atheist
watch?v=2AT_bMuFBfs
ShawnSwander 6 days ago
@ShawnSwander I think you meant innate, not inane - but I'm with you.
19spaceman61 6 days ago
@ShawnSwander This video proves nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. Your claim also adds nothing and proves nothing. You're required to prove your claims and slimply stating that your chosen god exists is pointless.
dilt4 6 days ago
@dilt4 I never asserted God exists here you forced that assertion on me. I would assert that there is evidence that can be interpreted to support the existence of a God. I could prove that.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander I would love to see this evidence.
dilt4 5 days ago
@dilt4 Do you want historical evidence, ontological evidence, cosmological evidence, teleological evidence? Historically you could look up non-biblical refrences from Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Chapter 18 of Antiquities, and hundreds more. The writings of the apostles who died for professing Jesus is Lord and gained nothing for it. You could watch?v=2AT_bMuFBfs he cites his sources. Look of the other evidences I listed too its pretty overwhelming.
ShawnSwander 2 days ago
@ShawnSwander Do you deny evolution?
dilt4 2 days ago
@dilt4 Hydrogen to human, yes. Beneficial mutations being passed on within the limits of the genome, no.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander Why should I take you seriously?
dilt4 1 day ago
@dilt4 You should take everyone seriously if they are extending you the same courtesy. Are you appealing to my credentials? Would a career as a nuclear propulsion engineer or as a physicist change the validity of what I say? I would hope not because If I had those credentials I could still tell you bad information. The truth is I care about helping people find a bigger picture, a deeper meaning, and a more solid foundation than the lies we build off of today.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander The fact that you deny something as solid as evolution makes me doubt anything you say.
dilt4 1 day ago
@dilt4 Solid? Ha! Yeah I deny that people came from hydrogen billions of years ago especially because there is no evidence of it.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander How exactly have you managed to ignore the mounds of easily found evidence available to the public. You obviously have no grasp of what evolution even is.
dilt4 1 day ago
@dilt4 because every example of "evidence" I have looked at, considered seriously, found problems with and ultimately rejected it as evidence that helps evolution. In fact, most of it destroys the evolution argument from a universal common ancestor.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander Evolution is demonstrable, it doesn't really matter if you have decided that it doesn't meet the standards of your limited understanding.
dilt4 1 day ago
@dilt4 You are saying evolution is demonstrable implying that I disagree that parts of evolution are true. You can't combine truth and lies and then pass the entire thing as true. There is ZERO evidence of a universal common ancestor. NOTHING has been demonstrated to support that claim. You trying to change what I said is just proof of the dishonest agenda I've been pointing out.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander There is no dishonest agenda. The entire idea of this conspiracy within the scientific community is complete insanity and only serves as an excuse to ignore evidence and stick with your faith.
dilt4 1 day ago 4
@dilt4 You knew that I was referring to large scale evolution and you cited observable evolution like dogs having different breeds of dogs. How is this not dishonest?
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander You're denying evidence and then claiming that other people are dishonest when you're being dishonest with yourself. This entire conversation is pointless if you're going to side step everything I say so that you can attempt to discredit myself and the scientific community. It's blatantly obvious and it's not going to work. You still obviously have no grasp of evolution and I don't trust that you have looked into anything.
dilt4 1 day ago
@dilt4 You are tying to change my position again. How have I attempted to discredit you? By pointing out how you are intentionally deceiving people? What have I side stepped? I just won't let you get away with intentionally misrepresenting my position or deceit. I have't attempted to discredit the scientific community I only liars.
If I didn't understand evolution why would I engage in saying there is no evidence of people evolving from a universal common ancestor. I checked it out first.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@dilt4 People like that are laughable. When they are ill they use science. They use science up until it starts clashing with their religion and then suddenly... oh science is a conspiracy. They're idiots and should be ignored. If science is a conspiracy then why don't they go without it?
iloveneytiri 1 day ago
@dilt4
Not only that, but scientists all try to disprove each other's theories, because doing so would lead to fame in the scientific community. There's tons of scientists trying to disprove evolution. The fact that none of them can is a testament to the theory.
SteinUndStahl666 3 hours ago
@ShawnSwander Doesn't the fact that DNA is found in all living entities constitute evidence for a common ancestor? If all things were created seperately why would everything contain the same coding?
TheReegar 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheReegar Doesn't the fact that DNA is found in all living entities constitute evidence for a common DESIGNER? If all things were created seperately by the same designer wouldn't everything contain the same coding?
If an abiological cause created life there should be more than one possible coding system due to multiple mechanisms that could create life if it happened by accident why didn't it happen more than once?
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander We were given an overdeveloped tendency towards agent detection which you mistake for a desire to find god. If you don't know what that is, look it up. I don't care if you believe me.
Kaizerworks 6 days ago
@Kaizerworks I just learned that yesterday. @_@
it's not common knowledge, I would think.
Oblivionic 6 days ago
@Kaizerworks I know what it is and you basically just broadened the definition of God. It doesn't change that people detect morality, truth, and scientific fact, therefore these things exist and everything that exists in the universe that is affected by time had a cause. This alone proves a prime mover.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander Thing is it's possible to say the bible was misread to were the roles of god and evil were gotten wrong,
Also there are 3 gods, Yahweh and the Satan are both gods, and Jesus is god but separate some how which makes him the third one.
There are a lot of weird things that can be pointed out in Christianity, now you can hope there might be a god and afterlife but to believe both or one are real is just crazy. if that last bit is off to you I can explain better.
TheSolitaryTraveller 6 days ago
@TheSolitaryTraveller
Because God is infallible and he breathed holy scripture out upon the prophets there is no possible way the bible in its original context was misread or misunderstood by the prophets. These are God's chosen people he chose the best people for the job or else your God is limited.
"Also there are 3 gods, "
You have your scripture confused. There is a Godhead which is God in 3 parts in 1 entity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Satan is not a God.
...
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@TheSolitaryTraveller I've heard everything people think is weird about Christianity and 99% of the time its due to misunderstanding scripture. Because you said Satan is a God in Christianity you have some misunderstandings which is normal. Satan isn't omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient. He is a spiritual entity who deceives people.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander Thing is you can define Satan as a god, also the acts of god are vastly more evil then Satan, also the argument that the bible is similar to north korea on how all opposing views thus Satan are evil and wrong when it's possible they aren't. Well giving praise to everything there side does no matter how evil. And god matches with the definition of evil, way better then the devil does.
TheSolitaryTraveller 5 days ago
@TheSolitaryTraveller Thing is you can define Satan as a god. No you can't. The hebreew word for Satan means enemy of God. Also he doesn't meet the qualifications of God in that culture. Omnipotence and so on. So if you consider Satan God you are just redefining God for the purposes of your argument.
ShawnSwander 2 days ago
@ShawnSwander He matches more along the term god when compared to the greek and roman gods.
There are a few definitions of a god, the first one is the one your uses then you having the later ones i'm using.
TheSolitaryTraveller 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSolitaryTraveller "He matches more along the term god when compared to the greek and roman gods." Don't just make things up and type them. He doesn't match Greek.Roman Gods in any way.
The Christian God is a single God. Greece is polytheistic delegating tasks to Gods.
He is omnipotent so no delegation is needed. Omniscient, Omnipresent, immaterial, Not created, timeless. Greek "gods" don't share any of these characteristics. Hope you find the truth soon, you should do more research.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander Also god made man without free will and the devil gave use free will, by tricking us into eating from the tree of good and evil, because without knowing right and wrong your ability to say no or decide for yourself is pretty much shit, since i could tell you kill a new born in front of it's mother and you would just go, OK. Because you don't see it as wrong or even good, thus controlling you is pretty easy. So in turn thank Satan for your "freewill" not god.
TheSolitaryTraveller 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander Also on good being the supreme evil and the devil being the lesser evil, why does god judge you and not forgive you, and thus will deny you heaven, when he is pure good. Well the devil will never turn you away and will lets all into hell, sounds why more forgiving. Also Jesus is god but isn't yet separate so Jesus forgave you but god didn't in some weird way, Also if gods choices are kiss ass or eternal pain, is that really free will or just a mob boss.
TheSolitaryTraveller 5 days ago
@TheSolitaryTraveller "why does god judge you and not forgive you" My God does forgive me maybe you believe in the wrong God.
You make the assumption you DESERVE eternal life. Why do you DESERVE it?
ShawnSwander 3 days ago
@ShawnSwander why do people think eternal life would be good, it would be torutre you could never stop. imagine doing everything and all the excitement in existence is now lost so everything is bland and boring and dead to you now, and it will be stuck life that for ever. Only the beginning is good in eternal life, when you can still get excitement out of "living".
Also Jesus died for your sins, which in turn pretty much means he's forgiving you, which is ok since he is a god.
TheSolitaryTraveller 3 days ago
@TheSolitaryTraveller My life gets more amazing and wonderful and interesting every day. Even the suffering I occasionally experience passes and gives way to new opportunities. This world is huge and it is troubling that I will only see and experience the smallest portion of it. In other words, I do not understand how you can feel the way you do.
Tupster 3 days ago
@Tupster Listen over a short period of time life works, but over an infinite period that joy of life will run dry. Imagine doing everything and knowing everything so there is nothing left thats a point you would reach with eternal life how long it would take you to reach that would vary but you would reach it at some point.
Life is great because it ends, which allows you do explore and expand but no without limit, that limit means you can't run dry when living.
TheSolitaryTraveller 3 days ago
@TheSolitaryTraveller You haven't read the bible or even thought it out. You wouldn't live as you do now mortally within the constrains of this world such as time and laws of nature. Clearly you are just trolling though. You should tread lightly when spreading blasphemy as a joke its a costly joke.
ShawnSwander 2 days ago
@ShawnSwander
"Because Hitchens says we evolved doesn't make it true"
Indeed, i fully agree ....
And since you seem to know that , Why then do you, in the same comment, link to a "testimony from a former atheist".
As if THAT suddenly does constitute as evidence ;s
However incomplete you may think i.e. the fossil record is, it is still actually there.
For all we know God planted it all, but if so, he then sure succeeded into making it look like Evolution happened and is happening.
Kr,
mindwis3 5 days ago
@mindwis3 Why then do you, in the same comment, link to a "testimony from a former atheist".It does constitute evidence because:
He is a former editor for the Chicago Tribune who 1) cites his sources in the video, 2) has long standing credibility in his research, 3) is peer reviewed and published author, 4)Did years and years of research that he shares. Hitchens just shares his opinion and cites no sources, research, and shows extreme biases. If you think evolution happened you didn't research
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander Here ladies and gentlemen is another loon who won't believe any evidence thrown his way.
If you don't believe evolution happened then you don't deserve to be on this Earth - because you'd still be a monkey.
Various story books (e.g the bible) cannot further our understand of the world...you cannot read a book again and gain more knowledge. Science is the way forward for the whole planet, and that includes leaving your so called Gods behind, since there is no evidence whatsoever
Roksonixx 5 days ago
@Roksonixx Nice ad hominem rebuttal. You can't defeat my actual position so you attack me instead. From 1990 and before what percentage of time have textbooks contained misconceptions or misinformation? 100%. Proven fact we have always had incorrect information in textbooks before that point. Why would today be any different. Did we suddenly have an epiphany and stop making mistakes?
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@Roksonixx there is historical evidence of God, cosmological evidence, teleological evidence, and ontological evidence. It takes more faith NOT to believe in God than to believe in him.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander Wow....no wonder there are so many bible bashers. There isn't one shred of EVIDENCE (as you seem to not understand the word EVIDENCE) that proves god exists. If you think it takes more faith not to believe in a god then you are a clearly deluded individual. Where is this so called cosmological evidence? Because the planets align? Because there are so many rocks in this universe? Please... leave society alone and go back to your cave - one day people like you will die out thank fuck
Roksonixx 1 day ago
@Roksonixx The cosmological argument in a nutshell (because you didn't take to time to look for yourself) Everything that moves requires something that was moving before it to set the second object in motion. Nothing bound by time and nature has moved without a cause, therefore an initial first cause is required outside of time and above the laws of nature. So no its not astrology like you suggest out of willful ignorance.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander You think this is evidence of a god? LOL. Your complete lack of understanding of science just proves to me that you're a dumb redneck who'll never understand. Even when confronted with reason and logic you will still choose your so called "god" because your tiny little mind cannot fathom anything else. Good day.
Roksonixx 1 day ago
@Roksonixx Ad hominems doesn't change the fact I gave you two types of evidence and proposed four. You are willfully ignorant of the evidence and that my friend is your own choice.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: ROM 1:20
ShawnSwander 20 hours ago
@ShawnSwander Yeah sure throw some more bible bullshit at me. Out of the many thousands of religions what makes you think yours (if any) is the RIGHT religion? Your choice of belief is almost directly correlated with which part of the world you were born and raised in, don't you think that's already proof enough that it's all based on baseless beliefs? The fact that there's thousands of religions makes you wonder why they all claim to be true, when it's quite obvious they can't all be
Roksonixx 14 hours ago
@Roksonixx "almost directly correlated with which part of the world you were born and raised in"
Way to spout off Dawkin's logical fallacies. Its ignoring a common cause geography has nothing to do with religion. Religion is 100% based on personal experience.
I'm a former skeptic so I love the which religion is right trap. I compared them all based on their scriptures and evidence. It requires more faith NOT to believe in Christ than to believe in him based on historical evidence alone.
ShawnSwander 13 hours ago
@ShawnSwander Dude if this wasn't true you'd find an equal spread of religion among every country of the world and this is simply not the case.
It requires the mind of a mad man to believe this shit.
Roksonixx 13 hours ago
@Roksonixx What part of the geography specifically are you crediting to religion. The heat, humidity? No you are attributing it to upbringing. Therefore you are blaming the popularity of religion for its popularity. Its circular logic. A Logical fallacy as I said before.
ShawnSwander 13 hours ago
@ShawnSwander
"If you think evolution happened you didn't research "
Believe that too dude, it could not care less what you think i did or did not do, in fact i'll top that and "confess" i believe evolution is still happening today and will happen tomorrow too if life is still here ;)
As for Hitchens not quoting sources, that's a lie.. i have a book right here and it is referencing sources.
Seems ShawnSlander is more appropriate.
mindwis3 5 days ago
@mindwis3 Just to be clear. You believe that people evolved from non-living material over billions of years?
"As for Hitchens not quoting sources, that's a lie.. i have a book right here and it is referencing sources."
I would hope his published works have sources otherwise he's called a plagiarizer. However he doesn't cite anyone in the video.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander
"You believe that people evolved from non-living material".
non-living material does not evolve, so no that's not what i think.
Leave it to creationists to suggest that the theory of evolution makes any claim wrt abiogenesis.
"I would hope his published works have sources "
If that is what you hope, then you obviously didn't know and you should not have claimed:
"Hitchens just shares his opinion and cites no sources"
"he doesn't cite anyone in the video"
omg ...
mindwis3 1 day ago
@mindwis3 You realize I was assking a question because some people do believe that. Saying abiogenesis and evolution from a universal ancestor aren't related is just a cop-out. Many theories of evolution include a simple organism evolving from a repeating RNA strand that came from random chemical reactions. I believe in the observable portion of evolution which is survivable limited mutations pass on. This doesn't prove a common universal ancestor.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander 1
"Saying abiogenesis and evolution from a universal ancestor aren't related is just a cop-out"
Well, obviously life had to start at some place, but since i don't know what started life i simply don't know.
abiogenesis imo does not _need_ to result in common ancestry , why would you say that?
I would say it's likely "new life" can't compete with already evolved life.
Yet, even if life was sparked by a creator, i'd argue it has to have been abiogenesis at some point.
mindwis3 1 day ago
@mindwis3 Evolution as I am refuting it does believe in common ancestry this was Darwin's theory. If you don't believe in common ancestry we really have no reason to argue.
An intelligent creator would be life from life.
DNA based life supports a single common CREATOR.
Shouldn't different forms of life sprang up in early Earth before competition set in. Why was there only one code . Chemicals react in billions of ways if life is just a chemical reaction there should be more ways.
ShawnSwander 1 day ago
@ShawnSwander
"An intelligent creator would be life from life"
how is that life from life ? sounds more like life from magic ...
and where did that creator come from if THAT was Biogenesis ?
" DNA based life supports a single common CREATOR." that's basically the same thing as saying common descent... you just imagine a creator where i don't ..
" there should be more ways" see my "new life" remark in prev. post... already answered that ..
mindwis3 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mindwis3 "how is that life from life ?" how is it not.
"sounds more like life from magic"
Magic would be abiogenesis the religion many evolutionists subscribe to.
" where did that creator come from "
why would an eternal being outside of time require a cause. Cause effect applies to beings bound by time.
" already answered that" Not really. Life could spring up in one part of the world a million years before it spreads across the globe a billion years before resource competition sets in.
ShawnSwander 20 hours ago
@ShawnSwander 2
"Many theories of evolution"
You beat me there, i only know of THE theory of evolution.
Multiple hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Of course they are related but chemistry =/= offspring.
"This doesn't prove a common universal ancestor."
True, but to name a few that are clues for common decent (imo):
All life we know is DNA based, and share many genes, the fossil record.
more clues for i.e. primates is in HERV's,
Or would you say these few are suggesting uncommon descent?
mindwis3 1 day ago
@mindwis3
lol the fossil record. I didn't realize this was a comedy forum.
webhutspain 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@webhutspain
" I didn't realize this was a comedy forum. "
It seems it is now ...
mindwis3 21 hours ago