I hope you've heard the pleas from Shawn's father and family. He has some real mental/psychological issues. Thunderf00t and other Youtube users that have been battling Shawn (venomfangx) have had in depth conversations with Shawn's father and have agreed not to engage him in debate. Shawn is not rational...more so than most religious people.
Aside from the pure entertainment value of it, why do you guys bother talking to this kid anymore. There is enough evidence to show any objective viewer that hes clueless on the subject of biological evolution, and further, that hes a mean dishonest little twerp.
Its pretty clear that He needs to believe in this for some reason... He'll keep lying and denying because for him, that is better than the alternative.
"kind" is one of those imprecise, ambiguous terms that lets you argue both sides of the discussion, so you can go with the side that seems to be flying.
I didn't know Shawn was still at this. I know I shouldn't feel this way, but I'm kinda glad. I don't want him making bigoted anti-gay vids, BUT I wish he could do something interesting enough to make it back into the WDPLAC series.
Shawn, if lovin' you is wrong I don't wanna be right. (by the way I'm a dude)
if two animals where originally capable of interbreeding they are the same kind as simple as that. I don´t know why evolutionists make such a big deal.
Nothing changed and VenomFangX is as full of shit as ever. So business as usual, the only difference between now and three years ago being the fact that i traded my three martini lunches for a love life and you've gotten better at video making.
Oh, and maybe now he'll hesitate before abusing the DMCA, but seems like a negligible difference.
It's not vaccuous. It's a Polyphylyetic group. There's a word in science for 'kind' as he says it (well kinda). however we can't prove they don't share a common ancestor with science - because that proves we DO share one and are all monophyletc except in artificial groups (like kinds)
Now as a Christian/Believer In God I Do find the story of Noah's ark a hard one to believe at all, here is a thought tho since God is an omnipotent begin and can create everything from nothing, then saving all those animals on the ark is rather pointless because he could just re-create everything afterwards anyways would would make far more logical sense even if the world did flood. Do I believe every animal and insect came from a boat no way that would be silly!
@breakaleg10 It doesn't matter if the word is kind, hullabalulla or lobsterfart. As long as creationists can't define the word, the word is meaningless as a concept...
The worst, most stubborn fanatics are always the religious converts. Venomfangx converted from Orthodox Judaism to Christianity, and this is what he's reduced to.
"Anything that does not share a common ancestor with anything else"? That means there's no such thing as kinds at all, as everything alive will share a common ancestor with its parents.
@greatkeyboardwarrior What ? How do animals move ? Animals do have ways of transporting themselves lmao. They can fly/walk/swim. Just as how they migrate and move across continents in the present day. Thanks for some more laughable atheist 'logic' lmao. Atheist tactic = Just ask a bunch of stupid illogical questions and have no position of your own so you can't be ripped apart lol. Keep trying
@splicedenergy Here we go again. More dumb illogical questions from the atheists. In an attempt to barrage the oppositions position with infinite questions as to hide the weakness of your own position. It's a good thing Christianity assumes the intellectual responsibility of answering questions unlike atheism which is absent of all knowledge and rational. Such is it's delusion. Kind is a type of animal. A type of animal is a dog or a cat ? get it ? pretty simple asstheist.
@splicedenergy What a surprise; another question! But yet the atheist or atheism has no answers about anything. The bible says kinds, so it is kinds of animals not types. Don't know where your getting this 'types' thing from but atheists have a tendency to make stuff up. A kind is only the same thing as a type if you define it so. I'm defining it as 'kind' not type, so any attempt to draw an analogy then attack the definition will be another epic fail on your part. But please, go ahead.
@Pomaori I got "types" directly from you and I quote "I am a Christian I can answer exactly how many of any type of animals noah took on the ark. It's not hard" you were saying? Asking questions is a bad thing to you, got it?
@Pomaori I find it funny you're saying Atheists make things up when that's the basis of religions. It is a book of stories that are told to make people believe in something.
Now then, as for this kinds and type situation I see two answers.
1) The religious one in which you stick to what your bible says and you believe that a tiger in africa isn't related to a tiger in siberia
2) The scientific one in which you know that they are the same kind or type. Feel free to pick a word.
@legionthantos What in gods earth are you talking about ? lmao . . .First off there tigers are not native to Africa you numb skull LOL. Related in what sense ? All tigers have a common ancestor just as all humans share are common ancestor because they are the same kind of animal. Pretty simple. I think even your shit brained excuse for 'logic' can comprehend that.
1) I find it funny you resort to derogative insults to help get your point across.
2) If you are indeed going to insult me please use correct english.
3) Ther fact they're not native makes no odds.
4) If the concept of tigers living in Africa is a problem, then is a lion in Africa the same as a tiger in Siberia? If that proves too difficult then is a Siamese cat the same kind as a Tortoise shell cat?
So rather than defend your point you're going to completely ignore the fact I have raised a valid thing that you cannot answer?
I think you'll find I won that one since you didn't answer the question and in fact yet again resorted to an insult.
Good day.
Oh and tigers did used to live in Africa, many many years ago. So actually that wasn't a fail on my behalf it was yours for not considering the fact that I didn't specify a time frame.
@legionthantos There is nothing to defend against an idiot who believes that tigers live in Africa LMAO. The tense of your sentence was in the present tense. You did not imply in the past therefore you lose once again. Keep failing you are full of it. The modern day tiger has NEVER lived in Africa. So you just keep failing at arguing and at life. I would continue to rip you apart but someone who thinks tigers live in Africa is to say the least a little mentally slow. lmao
1) Fail number one "a tiger in africa" Yes you said a tiger IN africa. Not a tiger the common ancestor of a tiger that used to live in africa millions of years ago you said "a tiger in africa". Pretty self explanatory. You seem to think tigers live in africa as their natural habitat. Once again lmao
2)Fail number two "Oh and tigers did used to live in Africa" Again tigers have never lived in Africa. The ancestors of the tiger lived in africa but again its not a tiger. lmao
1) A is an unprecise letter or word that can be used for many things. There's no time frame in that sentence.
2) Tigers have lived in Africa, remains have been found. Sure, not every tiger lived there but the point that some tigers have lived and died in Africa still stands.
3) You have yet to address the newer question and are instead battering an old question. Please keep track of what's going on.
@legionthantos Because you have already been pwned. So, I don't need to continue discourse especially when you don't know trivial information such as a tigers habitat. In response to 1) A is not the important word IN is. It's obvious you were talking in a modern day context quit lying. 2) that is a bald face lie, provide me with empirical scientific evidence of this. Not including tigers that have been brought to Africa by humans. You are now attempting to lie your way out. lmao keep trying
1) Again I find it humorous you are accusing me of lying my way out of this.
2) In again can be used for several formats. Here's some examples:
In 1944.
In a house
In the earth.
In my current state.
The only one that implies a time frame is the last one which is used with the word "current".
3) You're point blank refusing to answer a question that you know will prove you to be wrong. Unless the next response answers the question I have won.
"HAHAHAHAHA. Victory ? OK . . you want answers, here is my answer. You ask for empirical evidence I say, in the words of the inimitable African lion man AKA legionthantos
"As for your evidence, Google it." lmao, wow what an idiot thanks for the lols".
Despite your comment being removed, I still have it.
The answer you want can be googled. The answer I want is directed at you and your beliefs and is as such a personal answer. That cannot be googled.
@legionthantos The only difference is I wrote lion instead of tiger because it is pretty alien to put the word tiger after African. I had to really think about it to write something that stupid. For the quick road to victory all you need to do is type in the following response;
"As for your evidence, Google it."
LMAO, thanks that was absolutely priceless. 'lie all you can, if you get questioned don't provide evidence just tell them to 'goggle it' hahahahaha keep going this is great pwnage
1) Provide me every single point I have lied that cannot be seen as me simply getting something wrong.
2) If you really want your evidence then I'll direct you to the Indiantiger org website and then towards the African Tiger page which tells you that sabre-tooth tiger remains have been found within Africa.
I have provided some evidence you refused to find yourself. Now would you kindly either give me the answer to my Lion and Tiger question or go away. I've already won once.
@legionthantos That's a completely different animal to a tiger lmao. You don't know the difference between a tiger and a sabre tooth cat ? Wow why am I not surprised at this idiocy. They are two, distinct and entirely different animals. Furthermore dumb ass the sabre tooth was NOT a direct ancestor of the modern day tiger. You provided evidence ? LOL evidence for an entirely different animal. This is one continuous epic fail. Just admit you're wrong and I might go a little easier on you.
The tiger did infact descend from the Sabre-tooth. This has been proved by looking at the similarities between the various types of tiger and the Sabre-tooth.
You have not stated my "lies".
They are not entirely different animals. The Sabre-tooth came before many if not all other forms of tiger. Give me evidence that your statement is true.
You haven't answered my questions at all, only failed at refuting what I say.
I'm winning by a large margin and refuse to admit a false defeat
@legionthantos abc.net.au/science/news/ancient/AncientRepublish_1433588.htm. If you want to find the specific scientific journal 'Henry Wellcome Ancient Biomolecules Centre' in the latest journal of 'current biology'. Absolute pwnage, if I don't say so myself. The fact you think you are winning is almost as hilarious as
1) You think tigers live in Africa
2) You think tigers are the same thing as sabre tooth cats
3) You think the sabre tooth cat was a direct ancestor of the tiger
Now answer my original questions which you have failed to do and have scapegoated through everything else by picking out different questions that aren't there.
Also take note sources can be wrong. Your info is 6 years old and new things could have arisen. At the moment you're making yourself look like an arrogant christian by taking the stance that you are.
If your next post is nothing to do with the original question then my response won't be either.
@legionthantos Granted it is sort of old, but judging by the type of research it is i.e. DNA, this type of thing doesn't change. Especially the fact that they managed to establish that it formed a divergent path. That is rather concrete if you ask me. And unless you can show evidence to the contrary then it still stands. It's not a source either it is scientific research. So you finally concede that you have been wrong about everything related to tigers ? Then we may have discourse
@legionthantos And that is an admission of utter defeat and pwnage. I proved you wrong at every single point. Here is the pwnage step by step. Tigers in Africa (wrong) Tigers used to live in Africa (wrong) OK but sabre tooth tiger fossils were found in Africa (wrong, as that's not a tiger a different animal all together) No the sabre tooth is a direct ancestor of the tiger (wrong, ultimate pwnage points) LMAO thanks again for the lols it's been fun pwning hope you had as much fun being pwned.
@Pomaori Also, rather than admit you made a mistake you decided to remove the entire comment. That's a great way to cover your tracks when you're indeed losing an arguement.
So as stated, the answer to the following question (or if we're being pedantic, questions) please:
"Is a lion in Africa the same as a tiger in Siberia? If that proves too difficult then is a Siamese cat the same kind as a Tortoise shell cat?"
Either give me an answer or stop trying to be the very thing you're saying I am.
@legionthantos HAHAHAHAHA. Victory ? OK . . you want answers, here is my answer. You ask for empirical evidence I say, in the words of the inimitable African tiger man AKA legionthantos
"As for your evidence, Google it." lmao, wow what an idiot thanks for the lols
@Pomaori yes animals move but how does a sloth move over oceans and around the other side of the world, considering it only moves a few metres a day?. or a Australian koala bear that only eats a certain type of gumleaf found in certain areas of australia?
or any land based animal on any continent that cant swim across oceans?
and how does a canivore servive after the flood, any time it eats a animal it wipes out a species?
@greatkeyboardwarrior Lmao all of these questions are redundant, stupid and futile questions. If there is a creator who is omniscient, which by definition he must be, then anything is possible. The laws of nature would not apply to the creator. Therefore asking pre-school questions about geographical distribution is absolutely nonsensical. Your argument is one big argument from ignorance, in that your presupposition leads you to a position that is ignorant to the power of an all powerful being.
@Pomaori the more one looks at the noahs ark story with logic, the greater the amount of "faith" is required.
your god is 1 amazing fella,long after noahs ark ended your god made all the carnivals herbivals. and he sprinkled some magic crystals on every living thing so it wasnt effected by a non existent gene pool. also he reached into hes left pocket and threw a handful of freshwater fish back into the non existent eco system. And what proof does a christian have?????????? None!
@greatkeyboardwarrior Like I already have iterated. None of this has any relevance to the question of whether or not a god actually exists. If he did, then the questions you pose are completely redundant. You are asking pre-school explanations of a supernatural being that created the laws on the universe. Geographic distribution or diversifying the gene pool would be like taking a shit, comparatively, for a human. Your queries are completely trivial and doesn't disprove gods existence.
@Pomaori you keep making "claims" of a god and side stepping real questions with answers like "god just made it happen so there" But in the big book god said to noah take two of each animal and put them on a big boat, my unanswered question is how did that physically happen, as god gave noah the job???????
.THERE IS NO WAY THIS CAN PHYSICALLY HAPPEN. this is complete crap filled with so many problems its laughable and easily seen to be written by uneducated bent nose desert dwellers.
@greatkeyboardwarrior Wow, you really can't acknowledge or comprehend the argument against your own. Not a surprise, atheists tend to be single minded. The problem is we are not implying that this happened "naturally" or "physically" you must accept that if a god exists he would, inevitably, be able to suspend the natural laws of the universe. This is why your argument is both trivial and an argument from ignorance. You need grasp the attributes and possibilities of those attributes.
@Pomaori. u dance around logic and reason like a school girl on prom night. with god u dont need logic just blind stupid faith,and the more blind and stupid u r the better the christian u r. the bible is clear of its events and with logic its proven that these events could not of happened as written in the big book! using ur logic all stupid faiths stand up to man because their gods would inevitably, be able to suspend the natural laws of the universe??? what sort of a bullshit answer is that?
@greatkeyboardwarrior You skip and dance around from subject to subject. Lets stay on topic. Again; how does disproving Noah's ark disprove the existence of god ? And furthermore IF a god did exist would it not be possible that he could suspend the laws of nature ? Remember the important word in that last question is IF, let's just say for arguments sake that he does exist then, would you believe Noah's ark to be possible ?
As a Christian you should know that God is the one that asked Noah to build the ark. If the ark was never made then God never existed.
The Ark was made by a vindictive God to kill all the population bar two of each "kind" of animal.
Now here comes the only bit that I may get shot in the foot on.
If God didn't exist, then neither did the Ark. The flood never happened either. There is no real world evidence of a global flooding thus the Ark never existed nor did God.
@Pomaori u use logic to disprove all other religions but when it comes to your own you hide behind a cloud of bullshit, lies and magic! the word "if " only comes into conversation once the whole religion is understood. otherwise what IF the lockness monster could fly and lay green eggs? disproving noah is just one of thousands of ways of disproving the bible, and by this method disproving your god. no "if" or "but"
@greatkeyboardwarrior All you do is ramble on and on. The point is this; if god exists Noah's ark would be a trivial event - easily possible. If he doesn't exist then there is no way Noah's ark could have occurred. Also I am not postulating that Noah's ark was a natural event therefore to define it as such is nonsensical i.e. asking questions about geographical distribution are redundant. The real point of contention is whether or not god exists not whether or no Noah's ark actually happened.
@Pomaori i was raised baptist for 17years and taught to trust and obey for theres no other way! in that 17 years i ask myself lots of questions that made me slowly come to the conclusion that god is mans first attempt at understanding our universe!. not only do we have no idea how we got here but there r thousands of books that go into great detail claiming to know the answer. but every book lacks evidence. and without evidance there just bedtime stories.
@greatkeyboardwarrior If you don't believe in a creator then you must have an appropriate naturalistic explanation for how the universe came into being. Exactly what is that explanation ?
@Pomaori if 1 can believe a god has been there for eternity, then 1 can believe that the universe has been there for eternity, no begining or ending, time is irrelevent. thats just my thoughts, i could be wrong, we will never know.
@Pomaori lol "we will know"u dont know anything, u have faith. faith is only hope. and i must say i havnt talked to such a closed minded moron like yourself in a long time, and ive talked to lots of christians. with all the information around us at a click of a button u still choose to believe in stupid bedtime stories WOW WHAT A DIPSHIT U ARE
@greatkeyboardwarrior Lol your going to hell, faggot enabler. Have fun being burnt for all eternity. I am going to pay you a visit and piss in your pockets and smear butt sweat on your upper lip you heathen cunt hahahahaha I will have the last laugh lmao
@greatkeyboardwarrior It's yawn not yorn you uneducated illegitimate faggot heathen. You can be my child all day long in the afterlife. I'm sure god won't mind if I fuck your mum either.
@Pomaori Pomaori calm down. No points can validly be given when you are angered or cursing up a storm.
@greatkeyboardwarrior Learn to spell and stop using chat speak when trying to have a legitimate conversation. Do not call someone a child if you yourself cannot spell or are too lazy to spell things out.
Neither of you are even on topic anymore so if you have anymore comments for each other or me I invite you to private message me neither of you will be blocked if you speak with civility.
No you don't. What is wrong with the honesty of saying. "I Don't know." Instead of shoving the idea in that cannot be tested or proven.
The only meaning of life is what you give to it. Why must you degrade yourself in being a little bitch to a invisible sky-daddy that will punish you when you're naughty?
@Exile1a Yes by definition you must have a naturalistic response. If you are agnostic then that is applicable to the god question also. You can't posit that you don't know the answer but you know it's not answer A because you have no knowledge to the answer. Especially when the proposition is binary;it's either design or naturalistic cause. If you don't believe it was by design then you believe it occurred naturally. To have no knowledge how it occurred naturally you are taking it on faith
I always enjoy seeing some dislikes. Assuming they're not from voter bots (which is probably not a good idea) it would mean some people who actually believe in the bible thingies actually have viewed something that goes against their belief. And that's step one.
Ok so here's why it's absolutely pointless to even talk about Noah's Ark. Israeli archeologists themselves tried to find traces of it. They could not and they publicly announced it! It is a hoax. Furthermore, the people at that era could not have built such a massive vessel.
The Bible says the ark held ravens, a modern genus. So no definition of kind can be higher than a modern genus without contradicting the original myth.
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)
@Mogley52 Science doesn't point to a supernatural. It's the weak-minded people that point to that.
Besides, even if you postulate some being that created everything, another question arises. What created that being? And what created the being that created the being? I can go on infinitely. Saying there's something "supernatural" is like saying nothing at all.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system 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.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’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 and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
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!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
>"Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof."
If you use the words "random, chance or accident" to explain evolution, then you don't understand what evolution is about. It is a deterministic process. Mutation has an element of randomness, but natural selection is purely deterministic.
One you understand that, you'll stop making a fool out of yourself.
>"why do people jump into an argument without knowing that which they argue...."
Because they've been convinced by charlatans that their "immortal soul" is at stake if their cults position is refuted by facts.
Which raises an uncomfortable question: Why -- if their god is real -- would he create a universe that appears to be governed by naturalistic forces....and then punish people for noticing that obvious fact?
Christians don't believe people are punished by God for being scientific. What a strawman! Creationists like VFX may hold onto their pseudoscience with quite the religious fervor, but I don't think even he would say that God would condemn a Christian for being scientific/being an evolutionist.
>"Christians don't believe people are punished by God for being scientific."
Some are.
>"...but I don't think even he would say that God would condemn a Christian for being scientific/being an evolutionist."
I wouldn't amaze me if VFX had obliquely implied that in the past; Some Christians actually HAVE said, explicitly and openly, that belief in "science" is "of the Devil" and therefore, by default, is anti-God.
But now your position is made clear: whereas before your comment seemed to be expanding to all Christians (or even all Creationists) we see now that what you really meant was "some." As long as we're clear on that.
Thunderf00t just walks away, lol.
carrboygirl 1 day ago
Go AronRa!!!
qickimart 1 day ago
I hope you've heard the pleas from Shawn's father and family. He has some real mental/psychological issues. Thunderf00t and other Youtube users that have been battling Shawn (venomfangx) have had in depth conversations with Shawn's father and have agreed not to engage him in debate. Shawn is not rational...more so than most religious people.
Jimk0756 3 weeks ago
"common ancestor"?
Did venomfangx just admit that evolution is true???
MrSelidor7 4 weeks ago
Aside from the pure entertainment value of it, why do you guys bother talking to this kid anymore. There is enough evidence to show any objective viewer that hes clueless on the subject of biological evolution, and further, that hes a mean dishonest little twerp.
Its pretty clear that He needs to believe in this for some reason... He'll keep lying and denying because for him, that is better than the alternative.
bassbole 4 weeks ago
1+1= somewhere between one number and another number.
paramattic70 1 month ago
"kind" is one of those imprecise, ambiguous terms that lets you argue both sides of the discussion, so you can go with the side that seems to be flying.
berenjervin 1 month ago
Four. 4 cats. Because God told Noah two pairs (2 males & 2 females). XD
argent2020 1 month ago
needlessly risky up the shorts shot of Thunderf00t @0:59
neverfearchrisishere 1 month ago
@neverfearchrisishere its a visual representation of vfx argument which is bollocks
choonz84 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
Comment removed
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
Comment removed
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emaildoctor So the fact something is confusing nonsense makes it clear. I assume you are a very funny Poe.
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
Comment removed
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
This arguement is redundant-if the word species is not being used and kind is instead used you are literally debating with nothinf vs nothing.
MrYoshi010101 1 month ago
I didn't know Shawn was still at this. I know I shouldn't feel this way, but I'm kinda glad. I don't want him making bigoted anti-gay vids, BUT I wish he could do something interesting enough to make it back into the WDPLAC series.
Shawn, if lovin' you is wrong I don't wanna be right. (by the way I'm a dude)
HellRehab 2 months ago
Haha, it's the same dudes... duking it out. :D
jemborg 3 months ago
Thanks for posting a video that illustrates your debates.
crayonplane 3 months ago in playlist Flagging/Votebotting/'Feature abuse' subject matter/other
@LoopQuantum
No, I never said that kind = species, I said that if two animals where capable of interbreeding ORIGINALY they are the same kind.
Answerquestions1 3 months ago
I get animated just like Aron when I argue Creationists.
MathPhysChemSkyNerd 3 months ago 2
if two animals where originally capable of interbreeding they are the same kind as simple as that. I don´t know why evolutionists make such a big deal.
Answerquestions1 3 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Have you ever heard of INBREEDING?
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
"somewhere between one number and another".... hmmm, you think VFX ever used that in math class?
Videogamehistorian00 3 months ago in playlist More videos from dprjones
Little known fact: AronRa can explode people's brains over Skype.
jlowe424 3 months ago 18
@jlowe424 yeah but no danger for VenomFangX there :D
Aanthanur 4 weeks ago
@jlowe424 I'm jealous. I can only make a person's head expode if I'm in the same room. Well that what my Organic Chemistry students say :)
MisterTutor2010 2 days ago
Nothing changed and VenomFangX is as full of shit as ever. So business as usual, the only difference between now and three years ago being the fact that i traded my three martini lunches for a love life and you've gotten better at video making.
Oh, and maybe now he'll hesitate before abusing the DMCA, but seems like a negligible difference.
FrostbittenWolf 4 months ago
How can we expect creationists to understand science, when they do not even nearly understand their own fairy tales?!
IreapsI 4 months ago
@IreapsI Well there is a creationist named Gregor Mendel.
Think before you speak, smart ass.
INYO121277 4 months ago
It's not vaccuous. It's a Polyphylyetic group. There's a word in science for 'kind' as he says it (well kinda). however we can't prove they don't share a common ancestor with science - because that proves we DO share one and are all monophyletc except in artificial groups (like kinds)
unassumption 4 months ago in playlist More videos from dprjones
There is no god, there is no hell and unless you are a rock, there is no eternity.. You are just maggot food with a short shelf life.
TheRuffio 4 months ago
If you can NOT show it, you do Not know it. That's my favorite quote from Aronra
MaggotKing9 4 months ago
Now as a Christian/Believer In God I Do find the story of Noah's ark a hard one to believe at all, here is a thought tho since God is an omnipotent begin and can create everything from nothing, then saving all those animals on the ark is rather pointless because he could just re-create everything afterwards anyways would would make far more logical sense even if the world did flood. Do I believe every animal and insect came from a boat no way that would be silly!
TheRatzor 4 months ago
@TheRatzor Keep thinking like that and questioning. You're almost there,
alienlifeform11 4 months ago
Like an atheist lynch mob here, hate hate hate.
LionPebsX 4 months ago
Those who translated the bible, did they get it right when translating the original word into "kind"? Maybe it should be another word altogether?
breakaleg10 4 months ago
@breakaleg10 It doesn't matter if the word is kind, hullabalulla or lobsterfart. As long as creationists can't define the word, the word is meaningless as a concept...
HKragh 4 months ago
I admire your patience with creationists.
Titania1 4 months ago
is the full episode available anywhere?
tmcthree 4 months ago
@tmcthree oh I see it
tmcthree 4 months ago
Is that a caracay?
Orthrus 4 months ago
That is a beautiful kitty.
Orthrus 4 months ago
I love the casual sparking of the cigarette at 1:20, it's like "dear fuck I need this."
armondikov 4 months ago
I am honestly still confused on the definition of a kind.
JJPHILLYLG 4 months ago
@JJPHILLYLG That's because there is none!
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
Comment removed
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
Comment removed
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
Comment removed
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
Comment removed
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
I always wanted you to make a cute kitty vid!!!
ImmortalMojo 4 months ago
The worst, most stubborn fanatics are always the religious converts. Venomfangx converted from Orthodox Judaism to Christianity, and this is what he's reduced to.
"Anything that does not share a common ancestor with anything else"? That means there's no such thing as kinds at all, as everything alive will share a common ancestor with its parents.
VENOMFANG, LEARN TO BLOODY THINK, WILL YOU?
havstormer 4 months ago
Hoo boy, remind me never to piss off Aron.
ReclusiarchGrimaldus 4 months ago
I am a Christian I can answer exactly how many of any type of animals noah took on the ark. It's not hard
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori but how do answer: How the animals crossed the continents?
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior What ? How do animals move ? Animals do have ways of transporting themselves lmao. They can fly/walk/swim. Just as how they migrate and move across continents in the present day. Thanks for some more laughable atheist 'logic' lmao. Atheist tactic = Just ask a bunch of stupid illogical questions and have no position of your own so you can't be ripped apart lol. Keep trying
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori What is the meaning of "type"? Is this another word for "kinds"? WTF are kinds?
splicedenergy 4 months ago in playlist More videos from dprjones
@splicedenergy Here we go again. More dumb illogical questions from the atheists. In an attempt to barrage the oppositions position with infinite questions as to hide the weakness of your own position. It's a good thing Christianity assumes the intellectual responsibility of answering questions unlike atheism which is absent of all knowledge and rational. Such is it's delusion. Kind is a type of animal. A type of animal is a dog or a cat ? get it ? pretty simple asstheist.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori Okay so are "kinds" and "types" have the same meaning to you?
splicedenergy 4 months ago
@splicedenergy so do*
splicedenergy 4 months ago
@splicedenergy What a surprise; another question! But yet the atheist or atheism has no answers about anything. The bible says kinds, so it is kinds of animals not types. Don't know where your getting this 'types' thing from but atheists have a tendency to make stuff up. A kind is only the same thing as a type if you define it so. I'm defining it as 'kind' not type, so any attempt to draw an analogy then attack the definition will be another epic fail on your part. But please, go ahead.
Pomaori 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pomaori I got "types" directly from you and I quote "I am a Christian I can answer exactly how many of any type of animals noah took on the ark. It's not hard" you were saying? Asking questions is a bad thing to you, got it?
splicedenergy 4 months ago
@Pomaori I find it funny you're saying Atheists make things up when that's the basis of religions. It is a book of stories that are told to make people believe in something.
Now then, as for this kinds and type situation I see two answers.
1) The religious one in which you stick to what your bible says and you believe that a tiger in africa isn't related to a tiger in siberia
2) The scientific one in which you know that they are the same kind or type. Feel free to pick a word.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos What in gods earth are you talking about ? lmao . . .First off there tigers are not native to Africa you numb skull LOL. Related in what sense ? All tigers have a common ancestor just as all humans share are common ancestor because they are the same kind of animal. Pretty simple. I think even your shit brained excuse for 'logic' can comprehend that.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
1) I find it funny you resort to derogative insults to help get your point across.
2) If you are indeed going to insult me please use correct english.
3) Ther fact they're not native makes no odds.
4) If the concept of tigers living in Africa is a problem, then is a lion in Africa the same as a tiger in Siberia? If that proves too difficult then is a Siamese cat the same kind as a Tortoise shell cat?
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos LOL. I'm sorry you lost me at the point where you thought tigers lived in Africa. No come back from that epic fail. lmao
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
So rather than defend your point you're going to completely ignore the fact I have raised a valid thing that you cannot answer?
I think you'll find I won that one since you didn't answer the question and in fact yet again resorted to an insult.
Good day.
Oh and tigers did used to live in Africa, many many years ago. So actually that wasn't a fail on my behalf it was yours for not considering the fact that I didn't specify a time frame.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos There is nothing to defend against an idiot who believes that tigers live in Africa LMAO. The tense of your sentence was in the present tense. You did not imply in the past therefore you lose once again. Keep failing you are full of it. The modern day tiger has NEVER lived in Africa. So you just keep failing at arguing and at life. I would continue to rip you apart but someone who thinks tigers live in Africa is to say the least a little mentally slow. lmao
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
1) Present tense can be used to specify things in multiple time frames.
2) I don't need to imply a time frame if I'm attempting to catch someone out.
3) When you're done slinging insults maybe you'll answer the question.
4) I never said it was the modern day tiger.
5) Keep trolling. I find it fun to see you slip up.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos
1) Fail number one "a tiger in africa" Yes you said a tiger IN africa. Not a tiger the common ancestor of a tiger that used to live in africa millions of years ago you said "a tiger in africa". Pretty self explanatory. You seem to think tigers live in africa as their natural habitat. Once again lmao
2)Fail number two "Oh and tigers did used to live in Africa" Again tigers have never lived in Africa. The ancestors of the tiger lived in africa but again its not a tiger. lmao
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
1) A is an unprecise letter or word that can be used for many things. There's no time frame in that sentence.
2) Tigers have lived in Africa, remains have been found. Sure, not every tiger lived there but the point that some tigers have lived and died in Africa still stands.
3) You have yet to address the newer question and are instead battering an old question. Please keep track of what's going on.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos Because you have already been pwned. So, I don't need to continue discourse especially when you don't know trivial information such as a tigers habitat. In response to 1) A is not the important word IN is. It's obvious you were talking in a modern day context quit lying. 2) that is a bald face lie, provide me with empirical scientific evidence of this. Not including tigers that have been brought to Africa by humans. You are now attempting to lie your way out. lmao keep trying
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
1) Again I find it humorous you are accusing me of lying my way out of this.
2) In again can be used for several formats. Here's some examples:
In 1944.
In a house
In the earth.
In my current state.
The only one that implies a time frame is the last one which is used with the word "current".
3) You're point blank refusing to answer a question that you know will prove you to be wrong. Unless the next response answers the question I have won.
As for your evidence, Google it.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos Shut up tiger man lmao
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori Thank you for solidifying my victory.
You have just proved the point that was raised within the video.
legionthantos 4 months ago
Comment removed
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
"HAHAHAHAHA. Victory ? OK . . you want answers, here is my answer. You ask for empirical evidence I say, in the words of the inimitable African lion man AKA legionthantos
"As for your evidence, Google it." lmao, wow what an idiot thanks for the lols".
Despite your comment being removed, I still have it.
The answer you want can be googled. The answer I want is directed at you and your beliefs and is as such a personal answer. That cannot be googled.
Your turn.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos The only difference is I wrote lion instead of tiger because it is pretty alien to put the word tiger after African. I had to really think about it to write something that stupid. For the quick road to victory all you need to do is type in the following response;
"As for your evidence, Google it."
LMAO, thanks that was absolutely priceless. 'lie all you can, if you get questioned don't provide evidence just tell them to 'goggle it' hahahahaha keep going this is great pwnage
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
1) Provide me every single point I have lied that cannot be seen as me simply getting something wrong.
2) If you really want your evidence then I'll direct you to the Indiantiger org website and then towards the African Tiger page which tells you that sabre-tooth tiger remains have been found within Africa.
I have provided some evidence you refused to find yourself. Now would you kindly either give me the answer to my Lion and Tiger question or go away. I've already won once.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos That's a completely different animal to a tiger lmao. You don't know the difference between a tiger and a sabre tooth cat ? Wow why am I not surprised at this idiocy. They are two, distinct and entirely different animals. Furthermore dumb ass the sabre tooth was NOT a direct ancestor of the modern day tiger. You provided evidence ? LOL evidence for an entirely different animal. This is one continuous epic fail. Just admit you're wrong and I might go a little easier on you.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
The tiger did infact descend from the Sabre-tooth. This has been proved by looking at the similarities between the various types of tiger and the Sabre-tooth.
You have not stated my "lies".
They are not entirely different animals. The Sabre-tooth came before many if not all other forms of tiger. Give me evidence that your statement is true.
You haven't answered my questions at all, only failed at refuting what I say.
I'm winning by a large margin and refuse to admit a false defeat
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos abc.net.au/science/news/ancient/AncientRepublish_1433588.htm. If you want to find the specific scientific journal 'Henry Wellcome Ancient Biomolecules Centre' in the latest journal of 'current biology'. Absolute pwnage, if I don't say so myself. The fact you think you are winning is almost as hilarious as
1) You think tigers live in Africa
2) You think tigers are the same thing as sabre tooth cats
3) You think the sabre tooth cat was a direct ancestor of the tiger
LMAO!
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
Then I'll give you that.
Now answer my original questions which you have failed to do and have scapegoated through everything else by picking out different questions that aren't there.
Also take note sources can be wrong. Your info is 6 years old and new things could have arisen. At the moment you're making yourself look like an arrogant christian by taking the stance that you are.
If your next post is nothing to do with the original question then my response won't be either.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos Granted it is sort of old, but judging by the type of research it is i.e. DNA, this type of thing doesn't change. Especially the fact that they managed to establish that it formed a divergent path. That is rather concrete if you ask me. And unless you can show evidence to the contrary then it still stands. It's not a source either it is scientific research. So you finally concede that you have been wrong about everything related to tigers ? Then we may have discourse
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
I firmly believe that Jaffa Cakes are indeed Cakes
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos And that is an admission of utter defeat and pwnage. I proved you wrong at every single point. Here is the pwnage step by step. Tigers in Africa (wrong) Tigers used to live in Africa (wrong) OK but sabre tooth tiger fossils were found in Africa (wrong, as that's not a tiger a different animal all together) No the sabre tooth is a direct ancestor of the tiger (wrong, ultimate pwnage points) LMAO thanks again for the lols it's been fun pwning hope you had as much fun being pwned.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori You sir got inadvertantly pwned by me.
As for my next response, a Wizard created the earth by sprinkling sugar onto an open fire.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@legionthantos I'm not taking any sides here, but I think I remember Aron saying something about this in Foundations of Feliforme Families...
Anonie324 4 months ago
@Pomaori Also, rather than admit you made a mistake you decided to remove the entire comment. That's a great way to cover your tracks when you're indeed losing an arguement.
So as stated, the answer to the following question (or if we're being pedantic, questions) please:
"Is a lion in Africa the same as a tiger in Siberia? If that proves too difficult then is a Siamese cat the same kind as a Tortoise shell cat?"
Either give me an answer or stop trying to be the very thing you're saying I am.
legionthantos 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@legionthantos HAHAHAHAHA. Victory ? OK . . you want answers, here is my answer. You ask for empirical evidence I say, in the words of the inimitable African tiger man AKA legionthantos
"As for your evidence, Google it." lmao, wow what an idiot thanks for the lols
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori yes animals move but how does a sloth move over oceans and around the other side of the world, considering it only moves a few metres a day?. or a Australian koala bear that only eats a certain type of gumleaf found in certain areas of australia?
or any land based animal on any continent that cant swim across oceans?
and how does a canivore servive after the flood, any time it eats a animal it wipes out a species?
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior Lmao all of these questions are redundant, stupid and futile questions. If there is a creator who is omniscient, which by definition he must be, then anything is possible. The laws of nature would not apply to the creator. Therefore asking pre-school questions about geographical distribution is absolutely nonsensical. Your argument is one big argument from ignorance, in that your presupposition leads you to a position that is ignorant to the power of an all powerful being.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori the more one looks at the noahs ark story with logic, the greater the amount of "faith" is required.
your god is 1 amazing fella,long after noahs ark ended your god made all the carnivals herbivals. and he sprinkled some magic crystals on every living thing so it wasnt effected by a non existent gene pool. also he reached into hes left pocket and threw a handful of freshwater fish back into the non existent eco system. And what proof does a christian have?????????? None!
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior Like I already have iterated. None of this has any relevance to the question of whether or not a god actually exists. If he did, then the questions you pose are completely redundant. You are asking pre-school explanations of a supernatural being that created the laws on the universe. Geographic distribution or diversifying the gene pool would be like taking a shit, comparatively, for a human. Your queries are completely trivial and doesn't disprove gods existence.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori you keep making "claims" of a god and side stepping real questions with answers like "god just made it happen so there" But in the big book god said to noah take two of each animal and put them on a big boat, my unanswered question is how did that physically happen, as god gave noah the job???????
.THERE IS NO WAY THIS CAN PHYSICALLY HAPPEN. this is complete crap filled with so many problems its laughable and easily seen to be written by uneducated bent nose desert dwellers.
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior Wow, you really can't acknowledge or comprehend the argument against your own. Not a surprise, atheists tend to be single minded. The problem is we are not implying that this happened "naturally" or "physically" you must accept that if a god exists he would, inevitably, be able to suspend the natural laws of the universe. This is why your argument is both trivial and an argument from ignorance. You need grasp the attributes and possibilities of those attributes.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori. u dance around logic and reason like a school girl on prom night. with god u dont need logic just blind stupid faith,and the more blind and stupid u r the better the christian u r. the bible is clear of its events and with logic its proven that these events could not of happened as written in the big book! using ur logic all stupid faiths stand up to man because their gods would inevitably, be able to suspend the natural laws of the universe??? what sort of a bullshit answer is that?
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior You skip and dance around from subject to subject. Lets stay on topic. Again; how does disproving Noah's ark disprove the existence of god ? And furthermore IF a god did exist would it not be possible that he could suspend the laws of nature ? Remember the important word in that last question is IF, let's just say for arguments sake that he does exist then, would you believe Noah's ark to be possible ?
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
As a Christian you should know that God is the one that asked Noah to build the ark. If the ark was never made then God never existed.
The Ark was made by a vindictive God to kill all the population bar two of each "kind" of animal.
Now here comes the only bit that I may get shot in the foot on.
If God didn't exist, then neither did the Ark. The flood never happened either. There is no real world evidence of a global flooding thus the Ark never existed nor did God.
legionthantos 4 months ago
@Pomaori u use logic to disprove all other religions but when it comes to your own you hide behind a cloud of bullshit, lies and magic! the word "if " only comes into conversation once the whole religion is understood. otherwise what IF the lockness monster could fly and lay green eggs? disproving noah is just one of thousands of ways of disproving the bible, and by this method disproving your god. no "if" or "but"
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior All you do is ramble on and on. The point is this; if god exists Noah's ark would be a trivial event - easily possible. If he doesn't exist then there is no way Noah's ark could have occurred. Also I am not postulating that Noah's ark was a natural event therefore to define it as such is nonsensical i.e. asking questions about geographical distribution are redundant. The real point of contention is whether or not god exists not whether or no Noah's ark actually happened.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori ooooook then does god exist?
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior In my opinion ? Yes, in yours ?
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori nope
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior How do you know he doesn't exist ?
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori i was raised baptist for 17years and taught to trust and obey for theres no other way! in that 17 years i ask myself lots of questions that made me slowly come to the conclusion that god is mans first attempt at understanding our universe!. not only do we have no idea how we got here but there r thousands of books that go into great detail claiming to know the answer. but every book lacks evidence. and without evidance there just bedtime stories.
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior If you don't believe in a creator then you must have an appropriate naturalistic explanation for how the universe came into being. Exactly what is that explanation ?
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori if 1 can believe a god has been there for eternity, then 1 can believe that the universe has been there for eternity, no begining or ending, time is irrelevent. thats just my thoughts, i could be wrong, we will never know.
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@greatkeyboardwarrior We will know that your wrong though in the afterlife. See you there
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori lol "we will know"u dont know anything, u have faith. faith is only hope. and i must say i havnt talked to such a closed minded moron like yourself in a long time, and ive talked to lots of christians. with all the information around us at a click of a button u still choose to believe in stupid bedtime stories WOW WHAT A DIPSHIT U ARE
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago 2
@greatkeyboardwarrior Lol your going to hell, faggot enabler. Have fun being burnt for all eternity. I am going to pay you a visit and piss in your pockets and smear butt sweat on your upper lip you heathen cunt hahahahaha I will have the last laugh lmao
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori *yorn* u stupid child
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago 2
@greatkeyboardwarrior It's yawn not yorn you uneducated illegitimate faggot heathen. You can be my child all day long in the afterlife. I'm sure god won't mind if I fuck your mum either.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori Pomaori calm down. No points can validly be given when you are angered or cursing up a storm.
@greatkeyboardwarrior Learn to spell and stop using chat speak when trying to have a legitimate conversation. Do not call someone a child if you yourself cannot spell or are too lazy to spell things out.
Neither of you are even on topic anymore so if you have anymore comments for each other or me I invite you to private message me neither of you will be blocked if you speak with civility.
KittenKitoko 4 months ago
@Pomaori yes my spelling is quite bad, i can live with that, its people like you that i have a hard time with!
greatkeyboardwarrior 4 months ago
@Pomaori
No you don't. What is wrong with the honesty of saying. "I Don't know." Instead of shoving the idea in that cannot be tested or proven.
The only meaning of life is what you give to it. Why must you degrade yourself in being a little bitch to a invisible sky-daddy that will punish you when you're naughty?
Exile1a 4 months ago
@Exile1a Yes by definition you must have a naturalistic response. If you are agnostic then that is applicable to the god question also. You can't posit that you don't know the answer but you know it's not answer A because you have no knowledge to the answer. Especially when the proposition is binary;it's either design or naturalistic cause. If you don't believe it was by design then you believe it occurred naturally. To have no knowledge how it occurred naturally you are taking it on faith
Pomaori 4 months ago
I always enjoy seeing some dislikes. Assuming they're not from voter bots (which is probably not a good idea) it would mean some people who actually believe in the bible thingies actually have viewed something that goes against their belief. And that's step one.
bicsc7 4 months ago
For not being a native Texan, Aron Ra sure does display the barb that I came to know Texans for. Glad he's on the side of reason!
AmericanAviator 4 months ago
Ok so here's why it's absolutely pointless to even talk about Noah's Ark. Israeli archeologists themselves tried to find traces of it. They could not and they publicly announced it! It is a hoax. Furthermore, the people at that era could not have built such a massive vessel.
saiyanmage 4 months ago
Well, I think we always knew that Shawn was challenged.
Neilsama 4 months ago
The Bible says the ark held ravens, a modern genus. So no definition of kind can be higher than a modern genus without contradicting the original myth.
InternetDarkLord 4 months ago
Gotta love Aronra
aaronzvz 4 months ago
creation spam attack!
Iopipimps 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months 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 4 months ago
@Mogley52
lol
shadetail 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Science doesn't point to a supernatural. It's the weak-minded people that point to that.
Besides, even if you postulate some being that created everything, another question arises. What created that being? And what created the being that created the being? I can go on infinitely. Saying there's something "supernatural" is like saying nothing at all.
saiyanmage 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Steven Hawking and CERN both confirmed Einstein was wrong :)
splicedenergy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system 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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’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 and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Scientific research concludes you don't know the research. RNA came before DNA. Surely, this is something you weren't aware of
splicedenergy 4 months ago
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52
>"Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof."
If you use the words "random, chance or accident" to explain evolution, then you don't understand what evolution is about. It is a deterministic process. Mutation has an element of randomness, but natural selection is purely deterministic.
One you understand that, you'll stop making a fool out of yourself.
LordCustos3 4 months ago
@LordCustos3 the only randomness is when a well suited animals dies by accident....slip in mud , tar pit? whatever....
why do people jump into an argument without knowing that which they argue....
azmanabdula 4 months ago
@azmanabdula
>"why do people jump into an argument without knowing that which they argue...."
Because they've been convinced by charlatans that their "immortal soul" is at stake if their cults position is refuted by facts.
Which raises an uncomfortable question: Why -- if their god is real -- would he create a universe that appears to be governed by naturalistic forces....and then punish people for noticing that obvious fact?
LordCustos3 4 months ago 10
@LordCustos3 indeed
azmanabdula 4 months ago
@LordCustos3
Christians don't believe people are punished by God for being scientific. What a strawman! Creationists like VFX may hold onto their pseudoscience with quite the religious fervor, but I don't think even he would say that God would condemn a Christian for being scientific/being an evolutionist.
AgApE010 4 weeks ago
@AgApE010
>"Christians don't believe people are punished by God for being scientific."
Some are.
>"...but I don't think even he would say that God would condemn a Christian for being scientific/being an evolutionist."
I wouldn't amaze me if VFX had obliquely implied that in the past; Some Christians actually HAVE said, explicitly and openly, that belief in "science" is "of the Devil" and therefore, by default, is anti-God.
LordCustos3 4 weeks ago
@LordCustos3
But now your position is made clear: whereas before your comment seemed to be expanding to all Christians (or even all Creationists) we see now that what you really meant was "some." As long as we're clear on that.
AgApE010 4 weeks ago