@DeimosMk2 "Can you provide proof that the theories" If an impact with earth really happened where is the evidence for it? Dont you think that if something as big as the moon hits the earth is not going to leave a depression on the planet?
@boagshoags Wheres the evidence that a meteorite hit earth? You atheist are all the same. You hear a theory that supports your religious beliefs and immediately assume its a fact with no evidence to support it. The fact is that theory and all others regarding the moon have been proven false. All you have is your self delusion.
@jouc12 So your explanation is that an invisible man in the sky put it there? At least scientists try to explain things and are willing to say that some things are unknown. The invisible man in the sky option is fucking RIDICULOUS. And "all theories regarding the moon have been proved false"?!! Ughhhh... What does that even mean??! People like you don't do the religious movement any favours. And for fuck's sake, ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION.
@jouc12 It's my opinion that it's ridiculous. How can you prove something is ridiculous? That's ridiculous. And dude, Atheism is a religion in exactly the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism has no dogma, no rites, no holy books, no places of worship and no clergy of any description. It offers no moral guidance, no political opinions and no world view. It is not a religion.
@boagshoags "no places of worship" Obviously you are confused. Organized religion is not the only type of religion. Organization is not a requirement for a religion.
"How can you prove something is ridiculous?" How can you assert it is? You must have a basis.
"not a religion" You would say that religion is based on faith, belief without evidence. Atheists believe more things on faith than any theistic religion on the planet. Atheism is the grandest of all religions.
@circleofconfusion9 Evolution is not science, its a part of the atheist religion. Science is based on facts. Evolution is based on half truths, deception and keeping the public ignorant. Ask Eugenie Scott.
"why cant the universe or matter have always existed?" Because its a known fact is not possible. Science has proven that. The same physical impossibilities for an eternal universe dont apply to God because he is not made out of physical matter.
@circeofconfuson9 "Now give me one bit of evidence" You havent given any yet.
"fossil records" Be more specific. I can also say fossil record as evidence for God.
"96%" Actual 93% which means nothing. You share 50% of your genes with a banana. What does that prove?
"Italian wall lizards" Paliarmo italiano. Thats a good example of how easily people get fooled by evolutionist. Wheres the evidence that any change occurred do to a mutation? or is this evidence pure assumption.
@jouc12 the evidence is the fossil. what more do you need? also please tell me how fossils supports evidence of God? okay 93%. that proves our genes are 43% different than a banana haha but only 7% different than an ape. pull your fingers out of your ears you want evidence go to that island off of croatia? the lizards are still there? there internal organs have shifted, and there heads have expanded? How is that no evidence? I'm still waiting for one bit of evidence to support God?
@circleofconfusion9 Bananas dont have hearts nor longs so you would expect a chimp to be closer. But just as 50% doesnt make you half banana 93% doesnt make you 93% ape.
"the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God.
"internal organs have shifted" You completely missed the point. Wheres the evidence that evolution caused it? take your fingers out of your eyes and read.
@circleofconfusion9 "internal organs have shifted" Why would that make it evolution? If evolution was defined as shifting organs then I would agree. What you need though is a mutation that caused it. Either provide evidence of the mutation or drop the claim. This is a perfect example of how atheism is a religion. You insist to give credit to evolution on something without evidence. Its pure faith.
"Lizards don't go to heaven or hell" Again more assertions without evidence.
@circleofconfusion9 "Evidence for mutation" I see your problem now. You think that change = mutation. This is a result of evolutionary brainwashing. Learn about genetic recombination, thats what really happened.
I'll give you good evidence for God. Are you aware that many people die and are resurrected? They say that they were conscious, could see, hear and think even though they were dead. How is that possible in your materialistic world view?
please educate me, what else does it do? and while your at it ,explain to me how its not linked to evolution,and how those lizards changed from genetic recombination, and how it ties in with God?
And sure atheist can be just as deluded as any religious person
@circleofconfusion9 How is it that people dont look exactly like their siblings? Or have the same size, voice, personality ext. The genomic differences between any two siblings are tremendous, and with rare exception all of those genetic distinctions were specifically created by recombination.
"just as deluded" Big problem, an atheist has not reason to. Why would an atheist that doesnt want to believe in life after death delude themselves into it. That makes no sense at all.
@circleofconfusion9 "connection?" Its an intelligent process. Evolution is a dumb luck process and thats what you need if theres no God. With recombination that escape route does not exist.
"probably hallucinated?" Answer this.. how can someone hallucinate without a brain? When a person is dead the brain is not working anymore. Hallucinations are impossible without a brain.
@jouc12 What exactly is your argument? That God exists because God exists? That's not a particularly good argument. And that is not what a scientist would call "evidence" for the existence of God. If you want to read about evidence for evolution try Dawkins's "The Greatest Show on Earth". But I know you won't. And it's possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time. You won't go to hell for it.
@boagshoags "its possible believe God and evolution" You're right about the not going to hell for it but it is not possible to believe both if its the God of the Bible. Theistic evolutionists have never made any sense of it cause they can't.
And I never claimed God is its own evidence. You say the moon hit this planet I asked wheres the big hole from the impact. Thats evidence not belief. Of course you were never able to answer it cause it never happened. You're the one with faith.
@jouc12 You said that fossils are evidence for god, because he put them there. That's very much like saying God is evidence for God. I could say that the flying spaghetti monster put them there with as much certainty. A scientist would say fossils are the remains evidence of an organism that lived in the past. They can then use carbon dating to find out roughly how long ago that organism lived. Then, by comparing phylogeny (amongst other things) they can use this evidence to support evolution.
@boagshoags "use carbon dating to find out roughly how long ago that organism lived" Carbon dating only works on thousands not millions. So it would be useless for most fossils assuming your fantasy dates are correct.
"You said that fossils are evidence for god" Can you quote me saying that? or are you just making stuff up to convince yourself you have an argument? I know I never said that. Also, just because a statement is not followed by the evidence doesnt mean its not there.
@jouc12 ""the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God."
You said it on page 3.
Stratigraphy and radio-isotope dating (of something like uranium, with a half life of 700 million years) can also be used to date rocks near the fossil.
@boagshoags "You said it on page 3" No I did not. It was circleofconfusion9 who made that statement, look again. Notice that the message you quoted me with, has a quotation mark in between because of me quoting him. His original message where he said it is still there. Had you paid attention to what you were reading you would have noticed that my message had quotations, meaning someone else said it not me. No wonder you believe evolution you readily believe what you want to believe.
@boagshoags "you said it" So you're a liar. Its good to know what I'm dealing with. Not a surprise since your video has false claims and you believe evolution. You fit the stereotype nicely. You dare to say theres no quotation marks even though your post itself shows one of my quotation marks in it providing the proof. Anyone can see that it was circleofconfusion9 comment. My post had quotation marks and you wont find any of my comments saying that.
Please don't call me a liar. I've created an image to clear this up. Go to imgur dot com and add Gb9vs after the backslash (youtube won't let me post links).
This is all beside the point anyway. Obviously, because you deny saying it, you don't believe that fossils are proof of God. So, I'm asking you, what are fossils proof of? Simple answer please. No ranting. Let's try to make this a civilised debate.
/"the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God\
As I said before, the comment "the evidence is the fossil" was made by circleofconfusion9 not me. The image you provided has the quotation marks which you denied were there and yet you say don't call me a liar. Notice my question "How does a fossil proves evolution?"
@boagshoags By the question, I clearly dont believe thats a sound argument. Then I followed up with sarcasm (not a statement) That just as him assuming evolution made it, I can as well assume God made it and with (sarcasm) that would be evidence for God. Anyone but you would easily understand what I meant.
What happened here is that someone made a flawed claim, I pointed that to him and used sarcasm to let him know of his error.
@boagshoags For people that know anything about true geology a world flood. Evolution doesnt stand a chance. The geological column is one of the most devastating facts against evolution.
@jouc12 do you really believe that a person could first of all, find two of every living species that existed, fit them onto a boat that was only 135 metres long, and then distribute them throughout the entire planet? that. is. ridiculous. i don't know what scares you so much about the truth of evolution but you really need to get on board with the rest of the thinking world. there is an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.
@stevethetree1991 "distribute them throughout the entire planet?" I never said that, they did that on their own.
"absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution" Give the best one and I'll show you how its false. I've heard that claim lots of times, but they always turn out to be laughable.
@jouc12 okay. you have clearly not been looking at the evidence for evolution. you've been taught by a religious person whose version is a misrepresentation. also, last time i checked, marsupials couldn't swim to australia from israel and distribute themselves... they evolved there from geographical isolation. the evidence is in DNA, genetics, fossils, carbon dating. all you have to do is look at the evidence. read an 8th grade biology textbook, the evidence is there. just look at it.
@jouc12 aha! so you admit it! they could no more swim to america from israel than they could to australia. evolution doesn't work on coincidences. it works on NON-random natural selection of random genetic variations among species. by the way, you seem to demand a whole lot of evidence for evolution but where is your evidence for creation or god? all you have is a book, written by men who, by today's standards, knew NOTHING. they thought the earth was flat, and the sun went around us.
@stevethetree1991 "so you admit it" No I turned the table and put you in the spot cause now you have to answer how they got to other continents from Australia and by doing so, you would defeat your own argument.
Sorry to disappoint you but theres no such thing as non random natural selection. All natural selection is subject to dumb luck. Also natural selection could not possibly answer the problem I presented with all the necessary simultaneous mutations needed.
@jouc12 have you heard of pangea? marsupials spread from one super continent to another millions of years ago. the reason you don't find many placental mammals in australia is because the land bridge between continents wasn't there anymore by the time placental mammals had spread that far. that's a real scientific explanation. and again, where is YOUR evidence for creation? all you have is a book written by humans 2000 years ago when people knew nothing.
@stevethetree1991 "real scientific explanation" Good, you answered your own question of how marsupials reached Australia after the flood.
"natural selection is not dumb luck" I'll give you an example of how its dumb luck. A baby zebra is born. Lets fantasize it has one of those miracle mutations atheists everywhere dream about, a real advantage for the species but a lion comes right after the birth and kills the baby eliminating that miracle mutation forever. Was it dumb luck it got killed?
@jouc12 they didn't reach australia AFTER the flood, they reached australia MILLIONS of years ago, not 2000 years ago. your zebra example means nothing... yes, of course some genetic variations which would have been helpful may have gotten unlucky and killed before they could reproduce. that doesn't refute evolution, nor does it prove creation. evolution is a slow, slow process. over MILLIONS of years, the successful variations TENDED to survive and reproduce better than non successful ones.
@jouc12 this is what i mean. you don't understand evolution. natural selection is not dumb luck. it is what happens when one genetic variation (which is random) is (NON-randomly) selected because it is more suited to the environment than another, and that animal passes on its genes. so the most successful variations live on, and unsuccessful ones go extinct.
@jouc12 where does it say the earth was round in the bible? tell me what book, chapter and verse please. even if i grant you that, even if they knew the earth was not flat, that doesn't prove that creation is true or that god exists. where. is. your. evidence. for. creation.
@stevethetree1991 "where does it say earth was round" Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7 even indicates knowledge of gravity.
"plants need the sun to survive" Plants on day 3, sun in day 4. Are you suggesting that plants cannot survive 1 day without sunlight? Alaska has an entire month without sunlight.
The books you mentioned have been criticized heavily because of their argumentative flaws.
"evidence for creation" Its been proven that its impossible for life to come from none life thats convincing.
@jouc12 i can't believe i'm coming back to this argument... isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a circle. not a sphere. circles are two dimensional. job says nothing of gravity... and job 26:10 says "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." they thought that there were boundaries to the ocean, where the sun would drop past and rise each day. it has not been proven that life cannot come from nothing, life started simply as a self-replicating molecule.
@stevethetree1991 "job says nothing of gravity" You have to read it first before your conclusion. It says God hangs the earth on nothing. How can you say thats not a reference to gravity? If the earth floats in space is because no gravitational force is pulling it. The idea of something floating was impossible by common knowledge at the time.
"sphere" You cant rely on translation errors, the Bible is filled with them. The original word was Khoog which has more than one meaning.
@stevethetree1991 Other verses require a little thinking on your part, in my experience with atheists I'm not confident you'll understand but I'll try.
Luke 17:34-36 implies a spherical earth. Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
@stevethetree1991 Matthew 12:40 “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” Ask yourself, can a person be in the heart of a flat circle?
@jouc12 and if something as complex as life cannot come from nothing, who created god? a more complex being? who created him? you have an infinite regress of creators.
the plants could not have grown without light. it is a big leap of faith for someone who demands so much evidence believe a text that claims, with no evidence, that plants were put there before the sun even existed. also, read those books i mentioned before criticizing them. i am reading the bible to try to understand your side...
@stevethetree1991 "have grown without light" Do the experiment yourself. plant a seed and see how much it grows with sunlight. One day doesnt make much of a difference.
"an infinite regress of creators" Not at all since the Bible doesnt say anywhere God had a start. To the contrary its says hes eternal.
Heres a video about The god delusion. /watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=endscreen&NR=1
"waters with bounds" Thats a terrible misinterpretation. Never go to an atheist for theology.
@jouc12 the bible also claims that god created plants before he created the sun. plants need the sun to survive so... that make no sense! why are you clinging to this ancient text that makes no sense! look at the evidence for evolution. the real evidence. not what you learned in sunday school, and you will see that it is the best theory as to how we got here.
@jouc12 anyways... i know we're debating pretty hard here, but i need to go. clearly we're not going to agree on this. don't get me wrong, i respect your right to hold your views, so long as you respect my right to hold mine. with all due respect, i'm not going to debate this anymore, every point i would make now, you can look up in scientific journals, textbooks and non-fiction like "the god delusion" or "god is not great" or "the moral landscape" to get my side of the argument. take care.
@jouc12 that's ridiculous. atheism is literally the lack of religion. now i just think you're trolling. atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. there is no dogma in atheism that says that there could never possibly be a god. i am open to the possibility of a god, but you would have to show me reasonable evidence of his existence. the only reason i do not believe in god, or fairies, or the toothfairy is because there is no evidence supporting that idea.
@boagshoags And somehow your reading skills are so poor that you assumed my correction of his error became my error which is absurd. Its unbelievable that I have to explain something that obvious. And to place a cherry on top, I have to hear atheists say to me all the time how much smarter they think they are.
Uranium decay is not the main problem, but the assumed starting point of zero lead.
@boagshoags Your need to be dishonest shows how hopeless you are in this argument. Its embarrassing enough that you claimed I said something because my post contained a comment I quoted from someone else. The least you could do to salvage some dignity was to drop it but no, you lie and your own post proves it shameless.
@boagshoags The uranium test presumes the led to uranium atoms ratio starts with 0 led. The problem is theres no way of proving thats true. If a zircon cools off slowly led atoms will be pushed out since they are a different size from the zircon. Thats where the zero assumption comes from. If the lava cools off quickly the led atoms wont have time to exit and will be trapped inside the zircon providing a wrong misleading age.
@boagshoags Since lava cools off in seconds when in contact with water the led will remain inside providing a false age. Guess what all the locations with the oldest dates are surrounded by, water.
@jouc12 You realize there are hundreds of methods for dating, right? And that many of them are more accurate than carbon dating, and cover a much larger time period?
where do you get your information on evolution? by disillusion creationists?
The truth is I don't believe your stories about people dying and how they claim to have been resurrected?
So to me it doesn't matter if they hallucinated or are trying to get attention?
I need evidence, I know you live in a world where Santa clause gives you presents and Jesus is your best friend, but frankly I don't give a damn about any of that?
@circleofconfusion9 "I don't believe your stories" They're facts which you challenged but after failing to provide any arguments against my reply's now you say its all false. And thats the only escape you have, denial.
If you want to claim that every person including doctors, neurosurgeon scientists, entire medical staffs and even atheists that dont want to believe in life after death and have no reason to, I would say you're just deluding yourself.
@circleofconfusion9 "connection?" Its an intelligent process. Evolution is a dumb luck process and thats what you need if theres no God. With recombination that escape route does not exist.
"probably hallucinated?" Answer this.. how can someone hallucinate without a brain? When a person is dead the brain is not working anymore. Hallucinations are impossible without a brain.
@jouc12 What exactly is your argument? That God exists because God exists? That's not a particularly good argument. And that is not what a scientist would call "evidence" for the existence of God. If you want to read about evidence for evolution try Dawkins's "The Greatest Show on Earth". But I know you won't. And it's possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time. You won't go to hell for it.
@boagshoags "its possible believe God and evolution" You're right about the not going to hell for it but it is not possible to believe both if its the God of the Bible. Theistic evolutionists have never made any sense of it cause they can't.
And I never claimed God is its own evidence. You say the moon hit this planet I asked wheres the big hole from the impact. Thats evidence not belief. Of course you were never able to answer it cause it never happened. You're the one with faith.
@jouc12 You said that fossils are evidence for god, because he put them there. That's very much like saying God is evidence for God. I could say that the flying spaghetti monster put them there with as much certainty. A scientist would say fossils are the remains evidence of an organism that lived in the past. They can then use carbon dating to find out roughly how long ago that organism lived. Then, by comparing phylogeny (amongst other things) they can use this evidence to support evolution.
@boagshoags "use carbon dating to find out roughly how long ago that organism lived" Carbon dating only works on thousands not millions. So it would be useless for most fossils assuming your fantasy dates are correct.
"You said that fossils are evidence for god" Can you quote me saying that? or are you just making stuff up to convince yourself you have an argument? I know I never said that. Also, just because a statement is not followed by the evidence doesnt mean its not there.
@jouc12 ""the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God."
You said it on page 3.
Stratigraphy and radio-isotope dating (of something like uranium, with a half life of 700 million years) can also be used to date rocks near the fossil.
@boagshoags "You said it on page 3" No I did not. It was circleofconfusion9 who made that statement, look again. Notice that the message you quoted me with, has a quotation mark in between because of me quoting him. His original message where he said it is still there. Had you paid attention to what you were reading you would have noticed that my message had quotations, meaning someone else said it not me. No wonder you believe evolution you readily believe what you want to believe.
@boagshoags "you said it" So you're a liar. Its good to know what I'm dealing with. Not a surprise since your video has false claims and you believe evolution. You fit the stereotype nicely. You dare to say theres no quotation marks even though your post itself shows one of my quotation marks in it providing the proof. Anyone can see that it was circleofconfusion9 comment. My post had quotation marks and you wont find any of my comments saying that.
Please don't call me a liar. I've created an image to clear this up. Go to imgur dot com and add Gb9vs after the backslash (youtube won't let me post links).
This is all beside the point anyway. Obviously, because you deny saying it, you don't believe that fossils are proof of God. So, I'm asking you, what are fossils proof of? Simple answer please. No ranting. Let's try to make this a civilised debate.
/"the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God\
As I said before, the comment "the evidence is the fossil" was made by circleofconfusion9 not me. The image you provided has the quotation marks which you denied were there and yet you say don't call me a liar. Notice my question "How does a fossil proves evolution?"
@boagshoags By the question, I clearly dont believe thats a sound argument. Then I followed up with sarcasm (not a statement) That just as him assuming evolution made it, I can as well assume God made it and with (sarcasm) that would be evidence for God. Anyone but you would easily understand what I meant.
What happened here is that someone made a flawed claim, I pointed that to him and used sarcasm to let him know of his error.
@boagshoags For people that know anything about true geology a world flood. Evolution doesnt stand a chance. The geological column is one of the most devastating facts against evolution.
@jouc12 do you really believe that a person could first of all, find two of every living species that existed, fit them onto a boat that was only 135 metres long, and then distribute them throughout the entire planet? that. is. ridiculous. i don't know what scares you so much about the truth of evolution but you really need to get on board with the rest of the thinking world. there is an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.
@stevethetree1991 "distribute them throughout the entire planet?" I never said that, they did that on their own.
"absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution" Give the best one and I'll show you how its false. I've heard that claim lots of times, but they always turn out to be laughable.
@jouc12 okay. you have clearly not been looking at the evidence for evolution. you've been taught by a religious person whose version is a misrepresentation. also, last time i checked, marsupials couldn't swim to australia from israel and distribute themselves... they evolved there from geographical isolation. the evidence is in DNA, genetics, fossils, carbon dating. all you have to do is look at the evidence. read an 8th grade biology textbook, the evidence is there. just look at it.
@jouc12 aha! so you admit it! they could no more swim to america from israel than they could to australia. evolution doesn't work on coincidences. it works on NON-random natural selection of random genetic variations among species. by the way, you seem to demand a whole lot of evidence for evolution but where is your evidence for creation or god? all you have is a book, written by men who, by today's standards, knew NOTHING. they thought the earth was flat, and the sun went around us.
@stevethetree1991 "so you admit it" No I turned the table and put you in the spot cause now you have to answer how they got to other continents from Australia and by doing so, you would defeat your own argument.
Sorry to disappoint you but theres no such thing as non random natural selection. All natural selection is subject to dumb luck. Also natural selection could not possibly answer the problem I presented with all the necessary simultaneous mutations needed.
@jouc12 have you heard of pangea? marsupials spread from one super continent to another millions of years ago. the reason you don't find many placental mammals in australia is because the land bridge between continents wasn't there anymore by the time placental mammals had spread that far. that's a real scientific explanation. and again, where is YOUR evidence for creation? all you have is a book written by humans 2000 years ago when people knew nothing.
@stevethetree1991 "real scientific explanation" Good, you answered your own question of how marsupials reached Australia after the flood.
"natural selection is not dumb luck" I'll give you an example of how its dumb luck. A baby zebra is born. Lets fantasize it has one of those miracle mutations atheists everywhere dream about, a real advantage for the species but a lion comes right after the birth and kills the baby eliminating that miracle mutation forever. Was it dumb luck it got killed?
@jouc12 they didn't reach australia AFTER the flood, they reached australia MILLIONS of years ago, not 2000 years ago. your zebra example means nothing... yes, of course some genetic variations which would have been helpful may have gotten unlucky and killed before they could reproduce. that doesn't refute evolution, nor does it prove creation. evolution is a slow, slow process. over MILLIONS of years, the successful variations TENDED to survive and reproduce better than non successful ones.
@jouc12 this is what i mean. you don't understand evolution. natural selection is not dumb luck. it is what happens when one genetic variation (which is random) is (NON-randomly) selected because it is more suited to the environment than another, and that animal passes on its genes. so the most successful variations live on, and unsuccessful ones go extinct.
@jouc12 where does it say the earth was round in the bible? tell me what book, chapter and verse please. even if i grant you that, even if they knew the earth was not flat, that doesn't prove that creation is true or that god exists. where. is. your. evidence. for. creation.
@stevethetree1991 "where does it say earth was round" Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7 even indicates knowledge of gravity.
"plants need the sun to survive" Plants on day 3, sun in day 4. Are you suggesting that plants cannot survive 1 day without sunlight? Alaska has an entire month without sunlight.
The books you mentioned have been criticized heavily because of their argumentative flaws.
"evidence for creation" Its been proven that its impossible for life to come from none life thats convincing.
@jouc12 i can't believe i'm coming back to this argument... isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a circle. not a sphere. circles are two dimensional. job says nothing of gravity... and job 26:10 says "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." they thought that there were boundaries to the ocean, where the sun would drop past and rise each day. it has not been proven that life cannot come from nothing, life started simply as a self-replicating molecule.
@stevethetree1991 "job says nothing of gravity" You have to read it first before your conclusion. It says God hangs the earth on nothing. How can you say thats not a reference to gravity? If the earth floats in space is because no gravitational force is pulling it. The idea of something floating was impossible by common knowledge at the time.
"sphere" You cant rely on translation errors, the Bible is filled with them. The original word was Khoog which has more than one meaning.
@stevethetree1991 Other verses require a little thinking on your part, in my experience with atheists I'm not confident you'll understand but I'll try.
Luke 17:34-36 implies a spherical earth. Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
@stevethetree1991 Matthew 12:40 “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” Ask yourself, can a person be in the heart of a flat circle?
@jouc12 and if something as complex as life cannot come from nothing, who created god? a more complex being? who created him? you have an infinite regress of creators.
the plants could not have grown without light. it is a big leap of faith for someone who demands so much evidence believe a text that claims, with no evidence, that plants were put there before the sun even existed. also, read those books i mentioned before criticizing them. i am reading the bible to try to understand your side...
@stevethetree1991 "have grown without light" Do the experiment yourself. plant a seed and see how much it grows with sunlight. One day doesnt make much of a difference.
"an infinite regress of creators" Not at all since the Bible doesnt say anywhere God had a start. To the contrary its says hes eternal.
Heres a video about The god delusion. /watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=endscreen&NR=1
"waters with bounds" Thats a terrible misinterpretation. Never go to an atheist for theology.
@jouc12 the bible also claims that god created plants before he created the sun. plants need the sun to survive so... that make no sense! why are you clinging to this ancient text that makes no sense! look at the evidence for evolution. the real evidence. not what you learned in sunday school, and you will see that it is the best theory as to how we got here.
@jouc12 anyways... i know we're debating pretty hard here, but i need to go. clearly we're not going to agree on this. don't get me wrong, i respect your right to hold your views, so long as you respect my right to hold mine. with all due respect, i'm not going to debate this anymore, every point i would make now, you can look up in scientific journals, textbooks and non-fiction like "the god delusion" or "god is not great" or "the moral landscape" to get my side of the argument. take care.
@jouc12 that's ridiculous. atheism is literally the lack of religion. now i just think you're trolling. atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. there is no dogma in atheism that says that there could never possibly be a god. i am open to the possibility of a god, but you would have to show me reasonable evidence of his existence. the only reason i do not believe in god, or fairies, or the toothfairy is because there is no evidence supporting that idea.
@boagshoags And somehow your reading skills are so poor that you assumed my correction of his error became my error which is absurd. Its unbelievable that I have to explain something that obvious. And to place a cherry on top, I have to hear atheists say to me all the time how much smarter they think they are.
Uranium decay is not the main problem, but the assumed starting point of zero lead.
@boagshoags Your need to be dishonest shows how hopeless you are in this argument. Its embarrassing enough that you claimed I said something because my post contained a comment I quoted from someone else. The least you could do to salvage some dignity was to drop it but no, you lie and your own post proves it shameless.
@boagshoags The uranium test presumes the led to uranium atoms ratio starts with 0 led. The problem is theres no way of proving thats true. If a zircon cools off slowly led atoms will be pushed out since they are a different size from the zircon. Thats where the zero assumption comes from. If the lava cools off quickly the led atoms wont have time to exit and will be trapped inside the zircon providing a wrong misleading age.
@boagshoags Since lava cools off in seconds when in contact with water the led will remain inside providing a false age. Guess what all the locations with the oldest dates are surrounded by, water.
@jouc12 You realize there are hundreds of methods for dating, right? And that many of them are more accurate than carbon dating, and cover a much larger time period?
where do you get your information on evolution? by disillusion creationists?
The truth is I don't believe your stories about people dying and how they claim to have been resurrected?
So to me it doesn't matter if they hallucinated or are trying to get attention?
I need evidence, I know you live in a world where Santa clause gives you presents and Jesus is your best friend, but frankly I don't give a damn about any of that?
@circleofconfusion9 "I don't believe your stories" They're facts which you challenged but after failing to provide any arguments against my reply's now you say its all false. And thats the only escape you have, denial.
If you want to claim that every person including doctors, neurosurgeon scientists, entire medical staffs and even atheists that dont want to believe in life after death and have no reason to, I would say you're just deluding yourself.
@DeimosMk2 Thats a brave reply (sarcasm). You say I'm stupid and yet you're unable to answer my argument. If I'm stupid and you're incapable of answering me, what does that make you? I would say that someone that convinced itself that all things in existence are the result of dumb luck is the willfully stupid one.
@DeimosMk2 Thats a brave reply (sarcasm). You say I'm stupid and yet you're unable to answer my argument. If I'm stupid and you're incapable of answering me, what does that make you? I would say that someone that convinced itself that all things in existence are the result of dumb luck is the willfully stupid one.
evolution seems the most plausible, and the big bang.
of course the next question is you need life for evolution, and you need matter for a big bang?
that's why I dont understand why you creationists disprove on evolution and the big bang? they don't actually disprove your god? I sure wish it did?
I just can't say "Well God created the universe" just because I can't answer a question? theirs no evidence to even believe in God in the first place?
@ANIOLATORV yes u can. there are Christians that believe God started everything through science.
Lol... i also think that its funny how "Christians" ignore all the teaching of the bible (being nice) to support one little sentence about the origin of man by insulting and threatening
@TheStolenBike of course you can believe in God and science. But you can't use science to argue the existence of God. Science is evidence-based. Religion is faith based. There is no evidence for God whatsoever. I my personal opinion, i think believing in something for which there is no evidence is silly. Why not believe in the flying spaghetti monster or fairies at the bottom of the garden? Because they are ridiculous concepts, and no one has any evidence for them...
@boagshoags So... are you trying to say that people can believe in God and Science, but people shouldn't use science to try to prove God because Christianity is faith-based?
@TheStolenBike Yes, exactly. And also, not only shouldn't use science, but CAN'T use science to prove God. And not just Christians. Any religion. Faith is a separate thing (and in my opinion, a silly thing).
@boagshoags Science is evidence-based explanations about the natural world. God by definition is supernatural, and therefore it is not Science's job to dispute or disprove God
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Often times, science can be used to support Christian viewpoints. For anyone who wants to learn how science and the Bible work hand in hand, I recommend that you watch the video series "Learn the Bible in 24 Hours" by Dr. Chuck Missler. This series uses science to argue that God exists. Further, it addresses the theory of evolution). Also, it is worth noting that there are many philosophical arguments that have reasoned that a god must exist; these can be found in texts by Plato, Descartes, etc.
bill o'reilly's flawgic is lawless
eamond619 1 week ago 3
Lol
jameskparos 2 weeks ago
bill o'reilly's flawgic is lawless
eamond619 1 week ago 3
Lol
jameskparos 2 weeks ago
@DeimosMk2 "Can you provide proof that the theories" If an impact with earth really happened where is the evidence for it? Dont you think that if something as big as the moon hits the earth is not going to leave a depression on the planet?
jouc12 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@boagshoags Wheres the evidence that a meteorite hit earth? You atheist are all the same. You hear a theory that supports your religious beliefs and immediately assume its a fact with no evidence to support it. The fact is that theory and all others regarding the moon have been proven false. All you have is your self delusion.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12 So your explanation is that an invisible man in the sky put it there? At least scientists try to explain things and are willing to say that some things are unknown. The invisible man in the sky option is fucking RIDICULOUS. And "all theories regarding the moon have been proved false"?!! Ughhhh... What does that even mean??! People like you don't do the religious movement any favours. And for fuck's sake, ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION.
boagshoags 2 weeks ago
@boagshoags "RIDICULOUS" How do you know that? Do you have any proof to back your claim? This is based on your assumption not a fact.
"ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION" Get educated. It just so happens that in the U.S atheism is a religion by federal law.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12 It's my opinion that it's ridiculous. How can you prove something is ridiculous? That's ridiculous. And dude, Atheism is a religion in exactly the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism has no dogma, no rites, no holy books, no places of worship and no clergy of any description. It offers no moral guidance, no political opinions and no world view. It is not a religion.
boagshoags 2 weeks ago
@boagshoags "no places of worship" Obviously you are confused. Organized religion is not the only type of religion. Organization is not a requirement for a religion.
"How can you prove something is ridiculous?" How can you assert it is? You must have a basis.
"not a religion" You would say that religion is based on faith, belief without evidence. Atheists believe more things on faith than any theistic religion on the planet. Atheism is the grandest of all religions.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
There's no proof God even Exists, except in books written by man. claiming to be prophets hearing the voice of God?
its crazy, and theres no evidence?
Science has tons of evidence to back it up.
Also if God created everything than who created God, and if you say God always existed? then why cant the universe or matter have always existed?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 Evolution is not science, its a part of the atheist religion. Science is based on facts. Evolution is based on half truths, deception and keeping the public ignorant. Ask Eugenie Scott.
"why cant the universe or matter have always existed?" Because its a known fact is not possible. Science has proven that. The same physical impossibilities for an eternal universe dont apply to God because he is not made out of physical matter.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
wow you take creationism over evolution?
which is all about deception, without an ounce of truth.
Evolution is science.
fossil records, DNA, genetic code, humans have 96% of their genes in common with apes, which proves we shared a common ancestor?
"eternal universe don't apply to God because he is not made out of physical matter"
show me proof?
there is no evidence God exists except for your beliefs?
science has both. evidence, and a belief in science to find the truth?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
science doesn't have all the answers, but they have some?
religion is man made, with no proof to back up its claims?
how can you deny science, and take religion over it?
just because you can't explain things doesn't mean God did it?
Also do you believe in Santa clause?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 "how can you deny science" I dont, I deny evolution. I believe I made that very clear.
"do you believe in Santa clause?" No, and I dont believe in talking monkeys either.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
you need to take a 2nd look at the evidence that supports evolution
because you obviously have been misinformed on the topic of evolution?
show me proof there's no talking monkeys? I believe in talking monkeys
I read a book that had talking monkeys, so they exist!
And talking monkeys have always existed because they are not made out of physical matter?
haha see? when I read your comments supporting God. you sound crazy to me?
Talking Monkeys is just as absurd as God
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 "Talking Monkeys is just as absurd as God" And your point is?
"the evidence that supports evolution" Give me one of these evidences.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
I already did? but again
fossil records, and please don't give me the BS about a crocodile duck fossil?
evolution in fossils needs to happen slowly in order for the survival of that species.
and DNA. our genes have 96% in common with apes. which proves we shared a common ancestor.
as for proof of documented evolution? look up Italian wall lizards that where introduced to an island off the coast of croatia
thats just some of the proof.
Now give me one bit of evidence that supports God?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circeofconfuson9 "Now give me one bit of evidence" You havent given any yet.
"fossil records" Be more specific. I can also say fossil record as evidence for God.
"96%" Actual 93% which means nothing. You share 50% of your genes with a banana. What does that prove?
"Italian wall lizards" Paliarmo italiano. Thats a good example of how easily people get fooled by evolutionist. Wheres the evidence that any change occurred do to a mutation? or is this evidence pure assumption.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 Bananas dont have hearts nor longs so you would expect a chimp to be closer. But just as 50% doesnt make you half banana 93% doesnt make you 93% ape.
"the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God.
"internal organs have shifted" You completely missed the point. Wheres the evidence that evolution caused it? take your fingers out of your eyes and read.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
regarding the lizards, if there internal organs have shifted to allow that species to survive in its new environment, then that's evolution!
Lizards don't go to heaven or hell, so God sure had nothing to do with the lizards evolving?
You still have no proof of Gods existence? even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't mean it was God?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 "internal organs have shifted" Why would that make it evolution? If evolution was defined as shifting organs then I would agree. What you need though is a mutation that caused it. Either provide evidence of the mutation or drop the claim. This is a perfect example of how atheism is a religion. You insist to give credit to evolution on something without evidence. Its pure faith.
"Lizards don't go to heaven or hell" Again more assertions without evidence.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
Evidence for mutation is the shifting organs, and increased skull.
you keep avoiding my question? what proof do you have for Gods existence?
evolution may or may not be true, but at least theres evidence to support it?
Give me evidence for Gods existence?
if you want to classify it as a religion, than go right ahead?
I'm more than aware that being an atheist requires a belief that god doesn't exist.
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 "Evidence for mutation" I see your problem now. You think that change = mutation. This is a result of evolutionary brainwashing. Learn about genetic recombination, thats what really happened.
I'll give you good evidence for God. Are you aware that many people die and are resurrected? They say that they were conscious, could see, hear and think even though they were dead. How is that possible in your materialistic world view?
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
genetic recombination allows for different combos of DNA , so if a disease takes out a species other species can survive.
I know about that.
your example is not proof, just people's delusions
are you basing your whole religious beliefs off these peoples stories?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 "I know about that" If you believe thats all it does then you dont.
"people's delusions" Did I mention some of those people are atheist? Are they deluded too?
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
please educate me, what else does it do? and while your at it ,explain to me how its not linked to evolution,and how those lizards changed from genetic recombination, and how it ties in with God?
And sure atheist can be just as deluded as any religious person
we are both human
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 How is it that people dont look exactly like their siblings? Or have the same size, voice, personality ext. The genomic differences between any two siblings are tremendous, and with rare exception all of those genetic distinctions were specifically created by recombination.
"just as deluded" Big problem, an atheist has not reason to. Why would an atheist that doesnt want to believe in life after death delude themselves into it. That makes no sense at all.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
okay thanks, but I don't see how you genetic recombination relates to God?
wheres that connection?
I meant atheist can get sick or have hallucinations, or have a mental illness
where they see things? it makes no difference if there athiest, or christian. there both human?
you said that some atheist experienced life after death?
So they probably hallucinated?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 "connection?" Its an intelligent process. Evolution is a dumb luck process and thats what you need if theres no God. With recombination that escape route does not exist.
"probably hallucinated?" Answer this.. how can someone hallucinate without a brain? When a person is dead the brain is not working anymore. Hallucinations are impossible without a brain.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12 What exactly is your argument? That God exists because God exists? That's not a particularly good argument. And that is not what a scientist would call "evidence" for the existence of God. If you want to read about evidence for evolution try Dawkins's "The Greatest Show on Earth". But I know you won't. And it's possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time. You won't go to hell for it.
boagshoags 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@boagshoags "its possible believe God and evolution" You're right about the not going to hell for it but it is not possible to believe both if its the God of the Bible. Theistic evolutionists have never made any sense of it cause they can't.
And I never claimed God is its own evidence. You say the moon hit this planet I asked wheres the big hole from the impact. Thats evidence not belief. Of course you were never able to answer it cause it never happened. You're the one with faith.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 You said that fossils are evidence for god, because he put them there. That's very much like saying God is evidence for God. I could say that the flying spaghetti monster put them there with as much certainty. A scientist would say fossils are the remains evidence of an organism that lived in the past. They can then use carbon dating to find out roughly how long ago that organism lived. Then, by comparing phylogeny (amongst other things) they can use this evidence to support evolution.
boagshoags 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@boagshoags "use carbon dating to find out roughly how long ago that organism lived" Carbon dating only works on thousands not millions. So it would be useless for most fossils assuming your fantasy dates are correct.
"You said that fossils are evidence for god" Can you quote me saying that? or are you just making stuff up to convince yourself you have an argument? I know I never said that. Also, just because a statement is not followed by the evidence doesnt mean its not there.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 ""the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God."
You said it on page 3.
Stratigraphy and radio-isotope dating (of something like uranium, with a half life of 700 million years) can also be used to date rocks near the fossil.
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags "You said it on page 3" No I did not. It was circleofconfusion9 who made that statement, look again. Notice that the message you quoted me with, has a quotation mark in between because of me quoting him. His original message where he said it is still there. Had you paid attention to what you were reading you would have noticed that my message had quotations, meaning someone else said it not me. No wonder you believe evolution you readily believe what you want to believe.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 you said it. look again. no quotation marks. whatever. you don't think fossils are proof of God? Then what are they proof of?
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags "you said it" So you're a liar. Its good to know what I'm dealing with. Not a surprise since your video has false claims and you believe evolution. You fit the stereotype nicely. You dare to say theres no quotation marks even though your post itself shows one of my quotation marks in it providing the proof. Anyone can see that it was circleofconfusion9 comment. My post had quotation marks and you wont find any of my comments saying that.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12
Please don't call me a liar. I've created an image to clear this up. Go to imgur dot com and add Gb9vs after the backslash (youtube won't let me post links).
This is all beside the point anyway. Obviously, because you deny saying it, you don't believe that fossils are proof of God. So, I'm asking you, what are fossils proof of? Simple answer please. No ranting. Let's try to make this a civilised debate.
boagshoags 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boagshoags Heres the whole thing
/"the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God\
As I said before, the comment "the evidence is the fossil" was made by circleofconfusion9 not me. The image you provided has the quotation marks which you denied were there and yet you say don't call me a liar. Notice my question "How does a fossil proves evolution?"
jouc12 1 week ago
@boagshoags By the question, I clearly dont believe thats a sound argument. Then I followed up with sarcasm (not a statement) That just as him assuming evolution made it, I can as well assume God made it and with (sarcasm) that would be evidence for God. Anyone but you would easily understand what I meant.
What happened here is that someone made a flawed claim, I pointed that to him and used sarcasm to let him know of his error.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 So... again... What are fossils evidence of?
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags For people that know anything about true geology a world flood. Evolution doesnt stand a chance. The geological column is one of the most devastating facts against evolution.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 A world flood like the one in the Bible where Noah took two of every living organism on board?
boagshoags 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boagshoags Kind of. Noah took 2 or 7 of every living organism on board from the surrounding area.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 do you really believe that a person could first of all, find two of every living species that existed, fit them onto a boat that was only 135 metres long, and then distribute them throughout the entire planet? that. is. ridiculous. i don't know what scares you so much about the truth of evolution but you really need to get on board with the rest of the thinking world. there is an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.
stevethetree1991 11 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "distribute them throughout the entire planet?" I never said that, they did that on their own.
"absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution" Give the best one and I'll show you how its false. I've heard that claim lots of times, but they always turn out to be laughable.
jouc12 11 hours ago
@jouc12 okay. you have clearly not been looking at the evidence for evolution. you've been taught by a religious person whose version is a misrepresentation. also, last time i checked, marsupials couldn't swim to australia from israel and distribute themselves... they evolved there from geographical isolation. the evidence is in DNA, genetics, fossils, carbon dating. all you have to do is look at the evidence. read an 8th grade biology textbook, the evidence is there. just look at it.
stevethetree1991 11 hours ago
Comment removed
jouc12 11 hours ago
@jouc12 aha! so you admit it! they could no more swim to america from israel than they could to australia. evolution doesn't work on coincidences. it works on NON-random natural selection of random genetic variations among species. by the way, you seem to demand a whole lot of evidence for evolution but where is your evidence for creation or god? all you have is a book, written by men who, by today's standards, knew NOTHING. they thought the earth was flat, and the sun went around us.
stevethetree1991 11 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "so you admit it" No I turned the table and put you in the spot cause now you have to answer how they got to other continents from Australia and by doing so, you would defeat your own argument.
Sorry to disappoint you but theres no such thing as non random natural selection. All natural selection is subject to dumb luck. Also natural selection could not possibly answer the problem I presented with all the necessary simultaneous mutations needed.
jouc12 10 hours ago
@jouc12 have you heard of pangea? marsupials spread from one super continent to another millions of years ago. the reason you don't find many placental mammals in australia is because the land bridge between continents wasn't there anymore by the time placental mammals had spread that far. that's a real scientific explanation. and again, where is YOUR evidence for creation? all you have is a book written by humans 2000 years ago when people knew nothing.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "real scientific explanation" Good, you answered your own question of how marsupials reached Australia after the flood.
"natural selection is not dumb luck" I'll give you an example of how its dumb luck. A baby zebra is born. Lets fantasize it has one of those miracle mutations atheists everywhere dream about, a real advantage for the species but a lion comes right after the birth and kills the baby eliminating that miracle mutation forever. Was it dumb luck it got killed?
jouc12 8 hours ago
@jouc12 they didn't reach australia AFTER the flood, they reached australia MILLIONS of years ago, not 2000 years ago. your zebra example means nothing... yes, of course some genetic variations which would have been helpful may have gotten unlucky and killed before they could reproduce. that doesn't refute evolution, nor does it prove creation. evolution is a slow, slow process. over MILLIONS of years, the successful variations TENDED to survive and reproduce better than non successful ones.
stevethetree1991 7 hours ago
@jouc12 this is what i mean. you don't understand evolution. natural selection is not dumb luck. it is what happens when one genetic variation (which is random) is (NON-randomly) selected because it is more suited to the environment than another, and that animal passes on its genes. so the most successful variations live on, and unsuccessful ones go extinct.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@stevethetree1991
"the earth was flat" Wrong, they knew the earth was round cause thats what the Bible says. Atheist were the ones that thought the earth was flat.
"sun went around us" Wrong again, that was the consensus of people at one time. But the Bible never said such thing.
jouc12 10 hours ago
@jouc12 where does it say the earth was round in the bible? tell me what book, chapter and verse please. even if i grant you that, even if they knew the earth was not flat, that doesn't prove that creation is true or that god exists. where. is. your. evidence. for. creation.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "where does it say earth was round" Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7 even indicates knowledge of gravity.
"plants need the sun to survive" Plants on day 3, sun in day 4. Are you suggesting that plants cannot survive 1 day without sunlight? Alaska has an entire month without sunlight.
The books you mentioned have been criticized heavily because of their argumentative flaws.
"evidence for creation" Its been proven that its impossible for life to come from none life thats convincing.
jouc12 8 hours ago
@jouc12 i can't believe i'm coming back to this argument... isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a circle. not a sphere. circles are two dimensional. job says nothing of gravity... and job 26:10 says "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." they thought that there were boundaries to the ocean, where the sun would drop past and rise each day. it has not been proven that life cannot come from nothing, life started simply as a self-replicating molecule.
stevethetree1991 8 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "job says nothing of gravity" You have to read it first before your conclusion. It says God hangs the earth on nothing. How can you say thats not a reference to gravity? If the earth floats in space is because no gravitational force is pulling it. The idea of something floating was impossible by common knowledge at the time.
"sphere" You cant rely on translation errors, the Bible is filled with them. The original word was Khoog which has more than one meaning.
jouc12 6 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 Other verses require a little thinking on your part, in my experience with atheists I'm not confident you'll understand but I'll try.
Luke 17:34-36 implies a spherical earth. Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
jouc12 6 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 Matthew 12:40 “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” Ask yourself, can a person be in the heart of a flat circle?
jouc12 6 hours ago
@jouc12 and if something as complex as life cannot come from nothing, who created god? a more complex being? who created him? you have an infinite regress of creators.
the plants could not have grown without light. it is a big leap of faith for someone who demands so much evidence believe a text that claims, with no evidence, that plants were put there before the sun even existed. also, read those books i mentioned before criticizing them. i am reading the bible to try to understand your side...
stevethetree1991 8 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "have grown without light" Do the experiment yourself. plant a seed and see how much it grows with sunlight. One day doesnt make much of a difference.
"an infinite regress of creators" Not at all since the Bible doesnt say anywhere God had a start. To the contrary its says hes eternal.
Heres a video about The god delusion. /watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=endscreen&NR=1
"waters with bounds" Thats a terrible misinterpretation. Never go to an atheist for theology.
jouc12 6 hours ago
@jouc12 the bible also claims that god created plants before he created the sun. plants need the sun to survive so... that make no sense! why are you clinging to this ancient text that makes no sense! look at the evidence for evolution. the real evidence. not what you learned in sunday school, and you will see that it is the best theory as to how we got here.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@jouc12 anyways... i know we're debating pretty hard here, but i need to go. clearly we're not going to agree on this. don't get me wrong, i respect your right to hold your views, so long as you respect my right to hold mine. with all due respect, i'm not going to debate this anymore, every point i would make now, you can look up in scientific journals, textbooks and non-fiction like "the god delusion" or "god is not great" or "the moral landscape" to get my side of the argument. take care.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
Comment removed
jouc12 11 hours ago
@jouc12 and religion is "true science".... is that what you're going to say next?
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 Atheism is a religion in case you didnt know.
jouc12 10 hours ago
@jouc12 that's ridiculous. atheism is literally the lack of religion. now i just think you're trolling. atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. there is no dogma in atheism that says that there could never possibly be a god. i am open to the possibility of a god, but you would have to show me reasonable evidence of his existence. the only reason i do not believe in god, or fairies, or the toothfairy is because there is no evidence supporting that idea.
stevethetree1991 7 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "lack of religion" In the U.S it is a religion by federal law. There are lots of facts that make atheism a religion.
"AFTER the flood" How do you know that? The Bible says the lands began to move after the flood, so yes the book agrees with Pangaea.
"2000 years ago" That would be the birth of Jesus not the time of the flood.
"your zebra example means nothing" It means natural selection is subject to randomness which is something you denied.
jouc12 6 hours ago
@boagshoags that rocks exist ;-)
felipealvarez1982 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boagshoags And somehow your reading skills are so poor that you assumed my correction of his error became my error which is absurd. Its unbelievable that I have to explain something that obvious. And to place a cherry on top, I have to hear atheists say to me all the time how much smarter they think they are.
Uranium decay is not the main problem, but the assumed starting point of zero lead.
"*lead" At least you got one thing right.
jouc12 1 week ago
@boagshoags Your need to be dishonest shows how hopeless you are in this argument. Its embarrassing enough that you claimed I said something because my post contained a comment I quoted from someone else. The least you could do to salvage some dignity was to drop it but no, you lie and your own post proves it shameless.
jouc12 1 week ago
@boagshoags cont- Without proper research. How ironic that it was another atheist that made the faith based claim you accused me of.
Radio-isotope dating results are flawed and in no way reliable. If you want me to prove to you that you're wrong about that too, I'll gladly do it.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 please do.
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags The uranium test presumes the led to uranium atoms ratio starts with 0 led. The problem is theres no way of proving thats true. If a zircon cools off slowly led atoms will be pushed out since they are a different size from the zircon. Thats where the zero assumption comes from. If the lava cools off quickly the led atoms wont have time to exit and will be trapped inside the zircon providing a wrong misleading age.
jouc12 1 week ago
*lead
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags Since lava cools off in seconds when in contact with water the led will remain inside providing a false age. Guess what all the locations with the oldest dates are surrounded by, water.
jouc12 1 week ago
What exactly is your argument? Do you agree that uranium decays at a certain rate that is measurable and reliable?
boagshoags 1 week ago
@jouc12 You realize there are hundreds of methods for dating, right? And that many of them are more accurate than carbon dating, and cover a much larger time period?
drumline17 1 week ago
@jouc12
where do you get your information on evolution? by disillusion creationists?
The truth is I don't believe your stories about people dying and how they claim to have been resurrected?
So to me it doesn't matter if they hallucinated or are trying to get attention?
I need evidence, I know you live in a world where Santa clause gives you presents and Jesus is your best friend, but frankly I don't give a damn about any of that?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 "I don't believe your stories" They're facts which you challenged but after failing to provide any arguments against my reply's now you say its all false. And thats the only escape you have, denial.
If you want to claim that every person including doctors, neurosurgeon scientists, entire medical staffs and even atheists that dont want to believe in life after death and have no reason to, I would say you're just deluding yourself.
jouc12 1 week ago
@circleofconfusion9 "connection?" Its an intelligent process. Evolution is a dumb luck process and thats what you need if theres no God. With recombination that escape route does not exist.
"probably hallucinated?" Answer this.. how can someone hallucinate without a brain? When a person is dead the brain is not working anymore. Hallucinations are impossible without a brain.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12 What exactly is your argument? That God exists because God exists? That's not a particularly good argument. And that is not what a scientist would call "evidence" for the existence of God. If you want to read about evidence for evolution try Dawkins's "The Greatest Show on Earth". But I know you won't. And it's possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time. You won't go to hell for it.
boagshoags 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@boagshoags "its possible believe God and evolution" You're right about the not going to hell for it but it is not possible to believe both if its the God of the Bible. Theistic evolutionists have never made any sense of it cause they can't.
And I never claimed God is its own evidence. You say the moon hit this planet I asked wheres the big hole from the impact. Thats evidence not belief. Of course you were never able to answer it cause it never happened. You're the one with faith.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 You said that fossils are evidence for god, because he put them there. That's very much like saying God is evidence for God. I could say that the flying spaghetti monster put them there with as much certainty. A scientist would say fossils are the remains evidence of an organism that lived in the past. They can then use carbon dating to find out roughly how long ago that organism lived. Then, by comparing phylogeny (amongst other things) they can use this evidence to support evolution.
boagshoags 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@boagshoags "use carbon dating to find out roughly how long ago that organism lived" Carbon dating only works on thousands not millions. So it would be useless for most fossils assuming your fantasy dates are correct.
"You said that fossils are evidence for god" Can you quote me saying that? or are you just making stuff up to convince yourself you have an argument? I know I never said that. Also, just because a statement is not followed by the evidence doesnt mean its not there.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 ""the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God."
You said it on page 3.
Stratigraphy and radio-isotope dating (of something like uranium, with a half life of 700 million years) can also be used to date rocks near the fossil.
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags "You said it on page 3" No I did not. It was circleofconfusion9 who made that statement, look again. Notice that the message you quoted me with, has a quotation mark in between because of me quoting him. His original message where he said it is still there. Had you paid attention to what you were reading you would have noticed that my message had quotations, meaning someone else said it not me. No wonder you believe evolution you readily believe what you want to believe.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 you said it. look again. no quotation marks. whatever. you don't think fossils are proof of God? Then what are they proof of?
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags "you said it" So you're a liar. Its good to know what I'm dealing with. Not a surprise since your video has false claims and you believe evolution. You fit the stereotype nicely. You dare to say theres no quotation marks even though your post itself shows one of my quotation marks in it providing the proof. Anyone can see that it was circleofconfusion9 comment. My post had quotation marks and you wont find any of my comments saying that.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12
Please don't call me a liar. I've created an image to clear this up. Go to imgur dot com and add Gb9vs after the backslash (youtube won't let me post links).
This is all beside the point anyway. Obviously, because you deny saying it, you don't believe that fossils are proof of God. So, I'm asking you, what are fossils proof of? Simple answer please. No ranting. Let's try to make this a civilised debate.
boagshoags 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boagshoags Heres the whole thing
/"the evidence is the fossil" How does a fossil proves evolution? By assuming evolution made it? I can say God made it. Theres your evidence for God\
As I said before, the comment "the evidence is the fossil" was made by circleofconfusion9 not me. The image you provided has the quotation marks which you denied were there and yet you say don't call me a liar. Notice my question "How does a fossil proves evolution?"
jouc12 1 week ago
@boagshoags By the question, I clearly dont believe thats a sound argument. Then I followed up with sarcasm (not a statement) That just as him assuming evolution made it, I can as well assume God made it and with (sarcasm) that would be evidence for God. Anyone but you would easily understand what I meant.
What happened here is that someone made a flawed claim, I pointed that to him and used sarcasm to let him know of his error.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 So... again... What are fossils evidence of?
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags For people that know anything about true geology a world flood. Evolution doesnt stand a chance. The geological column is one of the most devastating facts against evolution.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 A world flood like the one in the Bible where Noah took two of every living organism on board?
boagshoags 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boagshoags Kind of. Noah took 2 or 7 of every living organism on board from the surrounding area.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 do you really believe that a person could first of all, find two of every living species that existed, fit them onto a boat that was only 135 metres long, and then distribute them throughout the entire planet? that. is. ridiculous. i don't know what scares you so much about the truth of evolution but you really need to get on board with the rest of the thinking world. there is an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.
stevethetree1991 11 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "distribute them throughout the entire planet?" I never said that, they did that on their own.
"absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution" Give the best one and I'll show you how its false. I've heard that claim lots of times, but they always turn out to be laughable.
jouc12 11 hours ago
@jouc12 okay. you have clearly not been looking at the evidence for evolution. you've been taught by a religious person whose version is a misrepresentation. also, last time i checked, marsupials couldn't swim to australia from israel and distribute themselves... they evolved there from geographical isolation. the evidence is in DNA, genetics, fossils, carbon dating. all you have to do is look at the evidence. read an 8th grade biology textbook, the evidence is there. just look at it.
stevethetree1991 11 hours ago
Comment removed
jouc12 11 hours ago
@jouc12 aha! so you admit it! they could no more swim to america from israel than they could to australia. evolution doesn't work on coincidences. it works on NON-random natural selection of random genetic variations among species. by the way, you seem to demand a whole lot of evidence for evolution but where is your evidence for creation or god? all you have is a book, written by men who, by today's standards, knew NOTHING. they thought the earth was flat, and the sun went around us.
stevethetree1991 11 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "so you admit it" No I turned the table and put you in the spot cause now you have to answer how they got to other continents from Australia and by doing so, you would defeat your own argument.
Sorry to disappoint you but theres no such thing as non random natural selection. All natural selection is subject to dumb luck. Also natural selection could not possibly answer the problem I presented with all the necessary simultaneous mutations needed.
jouc12 10 hours ago
@jouc12 have you heard of pangea? marsupials spread from one super continent to another millions of years ago. the reason you don't find many placental mammals in australia is because the land bridge between continents wasn't there anymore by the time placental mammals had spread that far. that's a real scientific explanation. and again, where is YOUR evidence for creation? all you have is a book written by humans 2000 years ago when people knew nothing.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "real scientific explanation" Good, you answered your own question of how marsupials reached Australia after the flood.
"natural selection is not dumb luck" I'll give you an example of how its dumb luck. A baby zebra is born. Lets fantasize it has one of those miracle mutations atheists everywhere dream about, a real advantage for the species but a lion comes right after the birth and kills the baby eliminating that miracle mutation forever. Was it dumb luck it got killed?
jouc12 8 hours ago
@jouc12 they didn't reach australia AFTER the flood, they reached australia MILLIONS of years ago, not 2000 years ago. your zebra example means nothing... yes, of course some genetic variations which would have been helpful may have gotten unlucky and killed before they could reproduce. that doesn't refute evolution, nor does it prove creation. evolution is a slow, slow process. over MILLIONS of years, the successful variations TENDED to survive and reproduce better than non successful ones.
stevethetree1991 7 hours ago
@jouc12 this is what i mean. you don't understand evolution. natural selection is not dumb luck. it is what happens when one genetic variation (which is random) is (NON-randomly) selected because it is more suited to the environment than another, and that animal passes on its genes. so the most successful variations live on, and unsuccessful ones go extinct.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@stevethetree1991
"the earth was flat" Wrong, they knew the earth was round cause thats what the Bible says. Atheist were the ones that thought the earth was flat.
"sun went around us" Wrong again, that was the consensus of people at one time. But the Bible never said such thing.
jouc12 10 hours ago
@jouc12 where does it say the earth was round in the bible? tell me what book, chapter and verse please. even if i grant you that, even if they knew the earth was not flat, that doesn't prove that creation is true or that god exists. where. is. your. evidence. for. creation.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "where does it say earth was round" Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7 even indicates knowledge of gravity.
"plants need the sun to survive" Plants on day 3, sun in day 4. Are you suggesting that plants cannot survive 1 day without sunlight? Alaska has an entire month without sunlight.
The books you mentioned have been criticized heavily because of their argumentative flaws.
"evidence for creation" Its been proven that its impossible for life to come from none life thats convincing.
jouc12 8 hours ago
@jouc12 i can't believe i'm coming back to this argument... isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a circle. not a sphere. circles are two dimensional. job says nothing of gravity... and job 26:10 says "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." they thought that there were boundaries to the ocean, where the sun would drop past and rise each day. it has not been proven that life cannot come from nothing, life started simply as a self-replicating molecule.
stevethetree1991 8 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "job says nothing of gravity" You have to read it first before your conclusion. It says God hangs the earth on nothing. How can you say thats not a reference to gravity? If the earth floats in space is because no gravitational force is pulling it. The idea of something floating was impossible by common knowledge at the time.
"sphere" You cant rely on translation errors, the Bible is filled with them. The original word was Khoog which has more than one meaning.
jouc12 6 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 Other verses require a little thinking on your part, in my experience with atheists I'm not confident you'll understand but I'll try.
Luke 17:34-36 implies a spherical earth. Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
jouc12 6 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 Matthew 12:40 “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” Ask yourself, can a person be in the heart of a flat circle?
jouc12 6 hours ago
@jouc12 and if something as complex as life cannot come from nothing, who created god? a more complex being? who created him? you have an infinite regress of creators.
the plants could not have grown without light. it is a big leap of faith for someone who demands so much evidence believe a text that claims, with no evidence, that plants were put there before the sun even existed. also, read those books i mentioned before criticizing them. i am reading the bible to try to understand your side...
stevethetree1991 8 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "have grown without light" Do the experiment yourself. plant a seed and see how much it grows with sunlight. One day doesnt make much of a difference.
"an infinite regress of creators" Not at all since the Bible doesnt say anywhere God had a start. To the contrary its says hes eternal.
Heres a video about The god delusion. /watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=endscreen&NR=1
"waters with bounds" Thats a terrible misinterpretation. Never go to an atheist for theology.
jouc12 6 hours ago
@jouc12 the bible also claims that god created plants before he created the sun. plants need the sun to survive so... that make no sense! why are you clinging to this ancient text that makes no sense! look at the evidence for evolution. the real evidence. not what you learned in sunday school, and you will see that it is the best theory as to how we got here.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@jouc12 anyways... i know we're debating pretty hard here, but i need to go. clearly we're not going to agree on this. don't get me wrong, i respect your right to hold your views, so long as you respect my right to hold mine. with all due respect, i'm not going to debate this anymore, every point i would make now, you can look up in scientific journals, textbooks and non-fiction like "the god delusion" or "god is not great" or "the moral landscape" to get my side of the argument. take care.
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
Comment removed
jouc12 11 hours ago
@jouc12 and religion is "true science".... is that what you're going to say next?
stevethetree1991 10 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 Atheism is a religion in case you didnt know.
jouc12 10 hours ago
@jouc12 that's ridiculous. atheism is literally the lack of religion. now i just think you're trolling. atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. there is no dogma in atheism that says that there could never possibly be a god. i am open to the possibility of a god, but you would have to show me reasonable evidence of his existence. the only reason i do not believe in god, or fairies, or the toothfairy is because there is no evidence supporting that idea.
stevethetree1991 7 hours ago
@stevethetree1991 "lack of religion" In the U.S it is a religion by federal law. There are lots of facts that make atheism a religion.
"AFTER the flood" How do you know that? The Bible says the lands began to move after the flood, so yes the book agrees with Pangaea.
"2000 years ago" That would be the birth of Jesus not the time of the flood.
"your zebra example means nothing" It means natural selection is subject to randomness which is something you denied.
jouc12 6 hours ago
@boagshoags that rocks exist ;-)
felipealvarez1982 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boagshoags And somehow your reading skills are so poor that you assumed my correction of his error became my error which is absurd. Its unbelievable that I have to explain something that obvious. And to place a cherry on top, I have to hear atheists say to me all the time how much smarter they think they are.
Uranium decay is not the main problem, but the assumed starting point of zero lead.
"*lead" At least you got one thing right.
jouc12 1 week ago
@boagshoags Your need to be dishonest shows how hopeless you are in this argument. Its embarrassing enough that you claimed I said something because my post contained a comment I quoted from someone else. The least you could do to salvage some dignity was to drop it but no, you lie and your own post proves it shameless.
jouc12 1 week ago
@boagshoags cont- Without proper research. How ironic that it was another atheist that made the faith based claim you accused me of.
Radio-isotope dating results are flawed and in no way reliable. If you want me to prove to you that you're wrong about that too, I'll gladly do it.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 please do.
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags The uranium test presumes the led to uranium atoms ratio starts with 0 led. The problem is theres no way of proving thats true. If a zircon cools off slowly led atoms will be pushed out since they are a different size from the zircon. Thats where the zero assumption comes from. If the lava cools off quickly the led atoms wont have time to exit and will be trapped inside the zircon providing a wrong misleading age.
jouc12 1 week ago
*lead
boagshoags 1 week ago
@boagshoags Since lava cools off in seconds when in contact with water the led will remain inside providing a false age. Guess what all the locations with the oldest dates are surrounded by, water.
jouc12 1 week ago
What exactly is your argument? Do you agree that uranium decays at a certain rate that is measurable and reliable?
boagshoags 1 week ago
@jouc12 You realize there are hundreds of methods for dating, right? And that many of them are more accurate than carbon dating, and cover a much larger time period?
drumline17 1 week ago
@jouc12
where do you get your information on evolution? by disillusion creationists?
The truth is I don't believe your stories about people dying and how they claim to have been resurrected?
So to me it doesn't matter if they hallucinated or are trying to get attention?
I need evidence, I know you live in a world where Santa clause gives you presents and Jesus is your best friend, but frankly I don't give a damn about any of that?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 "I don't believe your stories" They're facts which you challenged but after failing to provide any arguments against my reply's now you say its all false. And thats the only escape you have, denial.
If you want to claim that every person including doctors, neurosurgeon scientists, entire medical staffs and even atheists that dont want to believe in life after death and have no reason to, I would say you're just deluding yourself.
jouc12 1 week ago
@jouc12 I say this with all irony intended.
God you're so willfully stupid.
DeimosMk2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeimosMk2 Thats a brave reply (sarcasm). You say I'm stupid and yet you're unable to answer my argument. If I'm stupid and you're incapable of answering me, what does that make you? I would say that someone that convinced itself that all things in existence are the result of dumb luck is the willfully stupid one.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeimosMk2 Thats a brave reply (sarcasm). You say I'm stupid and yet you're unable to answer my argument. If I'm stupid and you're incapable of answering me, what does that make you? I would say that someone that convinced itself that all things in existence are the result of dumb luck is the willfully stupid one.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 "even if evolution is wrong" Then what caused life then if not evolution or God.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12
I can't answer that question?
evolution seems the most plausible, and the big bang.
of course the next question is you need life for evolution, and you need matter for a big bang?
that's why I dont understand why you creationists disprove on evolution and the big bang? they don't actually disprove your god? I sure wish it did?
I just can't say "Well God created the universe" just because I can't answer a question? theirs no evidence to even believe in God in the first place?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@circleofconfusion9 Next time please read what I say. I asked for one and you gave three. False ones but I only asked for one.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
@jouc12 I read it, and I decided to give you 3 instead of 1? get over it?
and you haven't proved they where false, all you did was give your opinion?
circleofconfusion9 2 weeks ago
@jouc12 Your claims about falsehood are actually false themselves. There is plenty of evidence, if you'd actually look for it and read for yourself.
D20EnderC 2 weeks ago
@D20EnderC I would give you the same advice but going the other direction.
jouc12 2 weeks ago
lol O'Reilly is a retard
TheJuicyJon 3 weeks ago
WHOA! WHOA!
I think ppl here are forgetting that you can believe in science and God at the same time
TheStolenBike 3 weeks ago
@TheStolenBike no you cant, not if its christian god
ANIOLATORV 3 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV yes u can. there are Christians that believe God started everything through science.
Lol... i also think that its funny how "Christians" ignore all the teaching of the bible (being nice) to support one little sentence about the origin of man by insulting and threatening
TheStolenBike 3 weeks ago
@TheStolenBike of course you can believe in God and science. But you can't use science to argue the existence of God. Science is evidence-based. Religion is faith based. There is no evidence for God whatsoever. I my personal opinion, i think believing in something for which there is no evidence is silly. Why not believe in the flying spaghetti monster or fairies at the bottom of the garden? Because they are ridiculous concepts, and no one has any evidence for them...
boagshoags 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@boagshoags So... are you trying to say that people can believe in God and Science, but people shouldn't use science to try to prove God because Christianity is faith-based?
TheStolenBike 3 weeks ago
@TheStolenBike Yes, exactly. And also, not only shouldn't use science, but CAN'T use science to prove God. And not just Christians. Any religion. Faith is a separate thing (and in my opinion, a silly thing).
boagshoags 3 weeks ago
@boagshoags I completely agree with you
TheStolenBike 3 weeks ago
@boagshoags Science is evidence-based explanations about the natural world. God by definition is supernatural, and therefore it is not Science's job to dispute or disprove God
D20EnderC 2 weeks ago
@TheStolenBike if you accept the bible literally, or any holy book, then they directly contradict each other.
captainclayman 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Often times, science can be used to support Christian viewpoints. For anyone who wants to learn how science and the Bible work hand in hand, I recommend that you watch the video series "Learn the Bible in 24 Hours" by Dr. Chuck Missler. This series uses science to argue that God exists. Further, it addresses the theory of evolution). Also, it is worth noting that there are many philosophical arguments that have reasoned that a god must exist; these can be found in texts by Plato, Descartes, etc.
xBlakeH 4 weeks ago