ok so were is the proof that humans were not artificially created? proof not speculation. let me hear it! and dont bother with only disproving the bible because that is only 1 religion. evolution could have had a helping hand...
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO no one said that it's impossible that life on earth was introduced by some other lifeforms, or that they built our species from the genetic material of other animals, but it's still highly unlikely, and would still have to include evolution in a way. i mean, there were no white people until (relatively) recently, and those changes in pigment and heat preserving characteristics over the generations are a part of our evolution, like azian eyes or african hair.
the bible was written by men who stole and adapted most of it from earlier religions anyways. to assume god cant exist because the bible is wrong is like saying the world doesnt exist because men thought it was flat... people believe in god because it cannot be proven that he doesnt exist. just as people doubt because we cant prove he does.
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO to argue is pointless because none of us are ever going to change because instead of asking how our own views could be wrong we tend to immediately search for reasons why we are right...
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO sorry i could not respond to everything directed at me but there was a crapload of stuff and if you would like to debate feel free to message me or w/e
I am pretty sure if you don't believe an the slightest possiblity of any being greater than humanity, whether it be another race somewhere one step ahead of us or one able to create us, you are pretty fucking narrow minded. "gods" whatever they are called, had a odd ability to get people to write similar stories in pretty distant places in many different books, if they lied then, what makes you think you have access to the truth now? Ignorance? Bill's shows have a purpose and it's not to inform.
i believe science is the only way forward for man kind and that organized religion is the enemy of logic. yet i believe in god i am truly a man with out a camp, is any one else like me.
@merajoga Really? All the money science has invested in contacting/searching for "other beings" somehow "gods" can't exist in science? Not possible they could be the same? There are multiple accounts of history and what happened, if you don't believe them than why the fuck would you believe the same fucking forms of information being prited today? Real smart, they lied thousands of years ago for thousands of years.......BUT NOW there is the truth............bunch of tools.
@HomeEnergyNow LOL science has put money into finding other beings, so this means science and god is compatible. The story of Jesus was a common fairy-tail during those times , the bible was written 40-80 years after the death of jesus, its a 2000 year old primitive book that says a man walked on water, made a woman out of a rib, and some old man collected every insect in the world and put them on a boat... There is no science in religion. Science is forever expanding. Religion is stationary.
Adam and Eve had 3 sons, Cain, Abel and Seth. Christians actually believe that 3 men somehow populated the world. And we are supposed to believe them?
@Mratl131 It'a a lot crazier in reality. At one point there was NO LIFE on Earth and we somehow populated the world. We may whine about religious people and their stories but it's not like reality is any less extravagant.
@Mratl131 "Adam and Eve" are plural for "Man and woman" In Hebrew. Besides, species were a hell of a lot tougher & more likely to survive longer & reproduce better way back then than they are today. Unless of course you still want to cling to Darwin's falsified belief that everything gets better against entropy. Actually, 3 men reproducing into billions is much more believable than a cell happening by accident then populating into multiple billions of different creatures..by accident.
The fact that you argued about the NUMBER of people and not the thought that 3 men somehow reproduced shows how ignorant you are. Men can't get pregnant. Surprising right?
@blattt188 Oh, cute, a creationist. You do realize that entropy only holds true in a closed system, right? And that the Earth isn't a closed system? And that contrary to being "falsified", Darwin's theory of natural selection has been used in as widely varying fields as medicine and computer science? And that the human body contains "design" that, contrary to being intelligent, points to a slow process of change?
Of course you don't. HEIL JESUS! TURN OR BURN BABY!
Biological superiority? We're not superior to other species. But Bush is an exception. He is below other species by a good margin. AETA-approving swine like him should be rounded up and hog-tied.
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO yes it does.. according to them, god is never wrong.. and the "bible" again according to them, is the word of god.. So according to their logic, if everything in the bible was a load of shit (which it is) then god doesn't exist.. and i'll clarify by saying THEIR god, not that any of the other ones exists either.
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO The theory of evolution (as well as basic physics and reality) have resulted in all organized religion losing credibility in their beliefs. The arguments for theism are now in philosophy which, imo, is just as erroneous when looking at the big picture.
I get what you mean, but all a god is is a creator, not exactly, "god in the sky, watching you, taking care of you" bullshit we all hear. All a god is a is a creator, and if the big bang is in fact how the universe started, the explosion and expansion, wouldnt that TECHNICALLY be a god? couldn't "god" just be the universe? Cause if scientists were to sit in a lab and create a new microscopic life form, wouldn't that make those scientists god to them?
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO That certainly is an interesting view - yet, how often do people split god into the following two (as far as I can conceive) categories: the personal God & the universal (Spinozism) God?
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO In the future will they say the thousands of videos of lights over pheonix the same night are fake? The thousands of articles written about it.....they will say, pheonix people are full of shit including the the governer or congressman forget? Sorry you can't believe in something greater than humanity in that tiny mind, on this tiny planet in this tiny solar system. Pretty narrow. Really narrow actually.
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO That doesn't make sense, if it denies the stories are false then they must be true, but they can't all be true. Please clarify what you meant.
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO "It only denies that the stories of the christian god and others are false" So evolution "claims the stories of the christian god are true then"? I think you worded that badly :).
@BladeLigerV It might be easier for you to understand like this, but science does not support you at all. Evolution and ID are not compatible in any way. The evidence only supports evolution, and that is without question.
So, how about you be reasonable? Go and read some book about evolution and how it works. You'll feel a whole lot better afterwards.
@BladeLigerV Intelligent Design is just a made up illogical concept desperately trying to involve a god in a process that does not require one. Why do you think no one mentioned intelligent design before evolution became a credible field of science? It's a bullshit cover-up for the fallacies of the bible.
@AslansButterfly Intelligent design makes an unfalisifiable truth claim, thus it's not science. A scientific theory must be able to be rigorously tested and falsifiable, or its not science. Evolution by natural selection has more evidence backing it then the Einstien's General Relativity. There is absolutly no way to test the claims of intelligent design.
@MrEchidna55 You think I haven't heard the "but you can't test intelligent design" a thousand times already. I know that, dear. I do have a brain. My point is, just because an idea is spiritual as opposed to scientific does not mean it deserves to be mocked. There's plenty of reason in intelligent design, for those of us who can open our minds up long enough to admit we don't have all the answers.
@AslansButterfly I can level with you on that actually. I'm sorry speaking presumptuously. A semi-decent case can be made logically for a "prime mover and shaker" that started the universe, i just have a problem with the movement to undermine the education of our kids by puttin ID into science classrooms when it isn't science in any legth of the term to pander to the religious parents of the country.
@MrEchidna55 I don't have to "dust up" on anything. Intelligent design is logical, you'd know that if you would think about it long enough with an open mind. I am simply an open minded person, and I refuse to be any other way. You can take what I say or leave it.
I expect tonight's last new rule of the night to show up on youtube and for people to try using bill's arguments to support their faith in evolution. yes, I like his show for I love to hear all sides of everything (unlike most people here). finally, at least bill would acsept the existance of god should he come down to earth and do a miracle (I forgot what) with nachos. at least he would acsept the real truth once it finaly precents itself for real (unlike most people here)
@warriorprince1010 WRONG. The overwhelming majority of Scientists which comprises the Scientific Community doesn't accept creationism because it isn't supported with evidence & It has never passed Peer Review. There are facts, evidence & the most comprehensive methodology We have (the Scientific Method) which supports the Theory of Evolution. Just because a Hypothesis isn't refuted doesn't mean it's accepted.
@warriorprince1010 Where do I mention anything about what people think ? What most People think is irrelevant. You're wrong If You think the Scientific Community accepts creationism. Evidence supports claims. There isn't any evidence which support creationism. Please present any creation hypothesis which has been accepted by any Scientific Peer Review Organization.
@warriorprince1010 Science isn't only about Data. Science is about evidence & continual testing. As more evidence is discovered Scientists will continue to test accepted Theories. creationism isn't an accepted Scientific Theory.
@warriorprince1010 Earlier You stated "Science is happy with creation" Science isn't about emotion. Obviously You're sad because the overwhelming majority of Scientists don't accept creationism.
@warriorprince1010 There is no data that supports Creation. In fact the only "evidence", and I use that term loosely, for Creation is the Bible. Since Creation insists that the earth is 6000 years old (though I have heard some say 12000) then dinosaurs and man must have coexisted at some point. You would think that a 40 ft T-Rex would be mentioned in the Bible as a result.
@Zythe Maher likes to stir up shit, he is ignorant. One side is right, the other is not. One side is flawless, the other is evil. Maher thinks atheists are geniuses, Christian are morons. Liberals are saints, republicans are devils. He even admitted in an interview he did that he doesn't think there are left wing extremists out there, only right wing, are you kidding me? He is so full of himself, he is a bigot.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
it doesn't mean "guess". Please, Creationists, learn your terminology before trying to replace science with your 2000 year old opinion
Here's the thing: Creationism/ID is not science because no scientist would touch something as unsupported by fact and evidence as ID is with a ten-foot pole. You don't see articles on ID in peer reviewed journals or taught in classrooms because scientists don't like it. You don't see these things BECAUSE ITS NOT SCIENCE. As always, IDers continue to fight a battle they lost before it began because they lack the capacity to comprehend it.
Intelligent Design is, among other things, logically invalid. It suggests that there are creatures on this planet who came about in ways that the theory of evolution cannot explain. It then implies from this that some kind of omnipotent creator (such as God) must have been responsible. But logically you can't draw ANY conclusions. If such creatures exist, then we simply don't know how they came about.
Here is the problem with teaching the Creation Myth, there are thousands of them. Every culture on earth, East Indian, West Indian, Chinese, African, South American, has its own creation story. What makes the Christian creation myth any more real than all those other stories?
So to be fair, I you teach one, don't you have to teach them all?
Countless centuries ago, Mar was a habitable planet, the people living there know the magnetic fields were collasping, and knew that meant the loss of all atmosphere. So the looked a primitive earth and decide to send a DNA bomb there. They knew they couldn't live on, but they knew, in a sense, that their progeny could live on through the mutation of the DNA with earth species.
Bada-Bing-Bada-Boom - We were intelligently design by the lost races of Mars. That is science.
@Saeyabor dont worry. Someone nuts will kill everyone off soon and then the only people left will be those out on the north and south pole research stations who im betting will be mostly atheist. They can repopulate and the people get a fresh start without genocide and the like.
Bill, please don't say you "believe" in evolution. You don't "believe" in evolution anymore than you believe in gravity or the spherical Earth. Scientists and rational people accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth which of course is strongly supported by evidence.
@VoidedMirror no it's accurate to say "believe", because you cannot possibly know for absolute certainty, the theories are simply unprovable. But, I agree they have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that they couldn't be wrong though.
But when you think about it; theists often use the word "belief" when they really mean "I know". So maybe Bill is using the word in that context, idk.
"Scientists and rational people accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth which of course is strongly supported by evidence. "
Yes, and I BELIEVE them.
And by the way, I do believe in Gravity. I see and feel it everyday. Now the specific details of the how and why of Gravity might be proven or dis-proven, but gravity itself is a fact you can believe in.
@Flash02021990 "I hope you are humble enough to realize that you dont know everything to determine a non existance of a designer" I believe that Invisible Pink Unicorns exist, and you have no proof to the contrary, so it must exist.
The world is being run by Luciferians who call their agenda the New World Order. One of their main goals (to be carried out through the occult) has been to destroy religion, lead people to deny the existence of God, & create a new society that is totally secular. It's sad to see so many people falling for their scam as they con the masses.
Research the New World Order and the Illuminati via Google & YouTube. Also, watch an online series called "The Arrivals" and "The Arrivals Reloaded."
The future in the Bible is bright&full of hope. This soon coming dispensation the Millenium is when they will beat their swords into plowshares&their spears into pruning hooks&they will study war no more. Jesus Christ is coming back, He will touch down on the Mount of Olives east of Jerusalem. That is why there is the modern nation of Isreal today. Jesus Christ will rule from Jerusalem.
@krank34 God is not a monkey. God is a Canadian. There is a Kevin Smith video here on YouTube stating as much. It's not followed by 'lol' so it MUST be true.
I won't post the link, but it's a 1 minute video called 'God Is A Canadian'
why can't we all just get along? creationism/intelligent design and evolution are both theories, none of them are proven facts. people believe what they want to believe, let it be.
NEWS FLASH! Evolution has been proven through genetics.
If we are going to teach creationism alongside evolution, then we should also teach the flat-world theory alongside proper astronomy.
It doesn't matter what the hell your religion says to believe; if scientific research and proven facts have said otherwise, then teach the facts in schools. It's like saying "my religion believes that the Cthlulu created the world, so we should teach that in schools too".
@danusty Who still thinks there's a "missing link"? It's called common ancestry. You should learn the difference before you make yourself look foolish in public. So here's the first test for creationism: explain how your creation myth is superior to any of the other creation myths. The trick is, whatever reasons you use to dismiss other creation myths must also be applied to your creation myth. So much for your "theory" of talking snakes, magic fruit and Jewish zombies.
@ExperienceCounts2 you definetly don't have any idea of my private conversation with foojuice101 and I never said I believed in creationism. you know what you and other people here look like (daNDayati), you look like bigots. only foojuice101 has an IDEA of what my beliefs are and here you are attacking me and "my creationism". bigotry I tell you.
@danusty I do have an idea of what your beliefs are, you stated them clearly. You called the creation religion "theory" and implied it's on par with the scientific theory of biological evolution. When you claim mythology is fact or that it's science, you lose your "special beliefs" privilege and you get called on pure, unadulterated bullshit. You've been called on it. Would it be bigotry to call someone on b.s. for believing in the Easter Bunny or astrology? What's the difference?
@ExperienceCounts2 no sir. just cause I respect and see things through all sides of the spectrum doesn't mean I believe in them. when did I claim to beliebe in creationism? but that's something people like you (bigots) can see, because according to people like you, you have the truth grabed by the hand. creationism is a theory wether you want to acsept it or not. all I want is for people to at least try to see things from all sides, get allong and respect each other like I do
@danusty creationism/intelligent design is not science and is not a theory.. it does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory... it's just made up... science is about determining truth... religion (i.e. creationism/ID) is about deceit.. no reason to get along... but it is worth the fight.
@danusty Myth is not theory in any sense of the word and definitely not in the scientific sense. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. It must testable, that is it must make specific, testable predictions. It must fit the known evidence. The myth of creation is none of those. Magic, invisible men, and stories of evil curses placed on people by the gods are not theories, they're idiocy that people have to brainwash little kids with because no rational 12 year old would fall for it.
@danusty And yet you don't seem to be able to respond to simple questions from a 12 year old, do you? Why should anyone give any more credence to your creation myth than they do to any other creation myth? It's a simple question, isn't it? If you don't like your mythology being held to normal standards of evidence that all scientific theories are then don't try to bullshit people by calling your myth a theory.
@danusty You are applying the common definition of "theory" to creationism, and the scientific definition of the word "theory" to evolution. The scientific definition of the word "theory" is as close to the word "fact" as science allows. The common definition of the word "theory" is the equivalent of the scientific word "hypothesis". Every "theory" (or "fact" in common usage) is by definition also a "hypothesis" (or "theory" in common usage), but not vice versa.
@danusty In common usage both are theories, however only evolution is a fact. In scientific usage both are hypotheses, but only evolution is a theory. BTW, the website that you told me to go, while it does use the common definition of theory for the second definition, has the scientific definition of theory listed as the main definition. At this point you're arguing semantics. Both are potential explanations, only evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
@charwinger21 both according to the definition are theories and that as they say is that. und no, there is no PROOF of evolution. show me the common ancestor of humans and chimps, they are still looking for it. till then, there is no PROOF of either one, hence both are theories
@danusty 1.Both are hypotheses (we're talking science here, not common English. We already went over this)2.There is EXTENSIVE evidence of evolution, much more than can be written in this comment.Of specific note would be the fossil record, extensive genetic evidence of common descent (of every living thing), vestigiality (appendix, noncoding DNA, Woolnerian tip, coccyx, wisdom teeth, plica semilunaris, plantaris muscle,etc.),Galápagos Islands, and that doesn't even scratch the surface.
There is proof of Evolution, & there are transitory species, many of them. Neanderthal was more ape like that Homo Erectus. Cro-magnon was more ape like than Neanderthal. They recently discovery of pigmy sized/chimp sized humans in Australia (they called them Hobbits). There are reptiles that have feathers, etc...
There are plenty of experiments at the high school level that demonstrate Evolution.
You have the most superficial definition of what "Theory" is
@blueboyblue as you said, those species that you mentioned are separate species., they aren't homosapiens sapiens which is what we are., did they look similar to us and to chimps? yes, but they were their own separate species. species is not the same as race. just because a donkey and a horse (2 diferent species) look alike doesn't mean they are the same. a donkey is a donkey and a horse is a horse. also, fight your battle with the dictionary, not me.
@blueboyblue what tells you that those are as you call them transitional species and not a species of their own? like I said, just because a donkey and a horse are very similar don't mean they are the same. they are their own separate species and it just so hapens it looks like one of them could have transitioned from the other. as I said, there is no real definitive proof of evolution or creationism
@danusty first every species on the planet is a transitional species and a species of there own, life is constantly adapting, when you have to isolated populations they diverge and eventually become separate spices. there is also rock solid evidence of evolution its called DNA and markers inside DNA call ERVs. we can track these ERVs and the more closely related the species the more ERVs they have in common, there is evidence of evolution, you just have to be willing to look for it.
@swiftyJ88 I want you to do something. I want you to watch all the seminars (all of them) with an open mind (like I did) on this website: creationtoday(.)org(/)category(/)type(/)video(/)creation-seminars(/)
delete the parentesis. I watched them all. in those videos Mr hoven uses REAL science to back his theory on creationism and how everything in the bible happened as written. he makes a GREAT case.
@swiftyJ88 I want you to do something. I want you to watch all the seminars (all of them) with an open mind (like I did) on this website: creationtoday(dot)org(fwd slash)category(fwd slash)type(fwd slash)video(fwd slash)creation-seminars(fwd slash)
delete the parentesis. I watched them all. in those videos Mr hoven uses REAL science to back his theory on creationism and how everything in the bible happened as written. he makes a GREAT case.
@swiftyJ88 now, just because he uses real science to back up his theory on creationism and he makes a great case defending it doesn't mean I believe in everything he says and doesn't mean creationism is real. I apply the same thing to evolution, people use real science to back it up, they make a great case, but I don't believe in it either. there is no definitive proof of either. if you asked a creationist he'll tell you evolution has been debunked and the bibble has been proven right
@danusty Theory in science doesn't mean the same thing as it does in common usage. A Scientific Theory is considered FACT until other FACTS are discovered that disprove it. Saying "a book I believe was written by God says otherwise" is not FACT. Personally, I share a similar belief to Mr Maher. I believe in ID, I just happen to think that ID=Evolution, because its the only thing that makes sense given the evidence.
@swiftyJ88 if I ask you, you will tell me the total oposite. so, since there is no definitive proof why can't we all just get along? in the end, when it's all said and done and the real proof is finaly revealed I'll accept whichever is the real one, be it creationism, evolution or something else. are you willing to do the same?
by the way, english is my 2nd language, sorry if I make mistakes writting this
@danusty The simple thing I can bring this down to is;
We know that parts of what's written inside the bible have been proven incorrect.
The age of the earth was vastly off. Though some may dispute the methods of ageing the earth, No scientist who has any real education on the subject will accept an age any younger then One Billion years old. That number is incredibly conservative.
This could either mean the bible was tampered with, Or that the writers lied about what they saw/heard.
@danusty I love the fact that you used the examples of a donkey and a horse, because they are still closely related enough that they can breed and produce the (sterile) animal known as a "Mule". A species as we know is is what something looked like at a certain point in time, not throughout it's whole history. A lot of the published information on the Y-MRCA does a great job of explaining it.
@charwinger21 a homo sapiens sapiens is a homo sapiens sapiens, a chimp is a chimp, a horse is a horse, a donkey is a donkey and a mule is........ sterile hahaaaaaaaa!
@danusty Yeah, cause they've drifted far enough apart that they're no longer the same species, but they aren't far enough apart that they can't breed anymore. There are other species like that (lions and tigers, etc.). By your logic, the number of species on earth should be constantly decreasing, but that's not the case.
@charwinger21 "By your logic, the number of species on earth should be constantly decreasing, but that's not the case." not necessarily. MAYBE due to intelligent design some KINDS of animals of the same TYPE of species can breed and produce another. after all, a rottweiler can breed with a chiuaua and keep on breeding with it till a new (new on earth) kind of dog comes to existance.
I hope my message is understood, english is my 2nd language.
@charwinger21 no, that is not evolution, that is like saying that a mulato is an evolved being because he came from 2 (or more) humans (black, white you name it). no it's not that dog would still be a dog and a mulato is still a homo sapiens sapiens.
@danusty Actually, you're describing evolution very precisely right there (although you're using some VERY unscientific terms). Yes, we're all considered homo sapiens sapiens, but there are differences between us, and as we reproduce, there are changes in our offspring relative to us. If you blocked off two groups of humans from each other completely for a long enough time, those minuscule changes would add up until they are separate species.
@charwinger21 that is not evolution. the outcome of 2 diferent types of dogs, a white and a black person doesn't produce an evolved "creature"/"being", it produces the same type of creature with a mixed look. just cause it looks mixed doesn't make it an evolved/different species.
@charwinger21 another simple example: if a wide nosed man has a baby with a thin nosed woman and they have an average nosed kid (that looks different to both of them because of the nose), that kid will still be a human kid, not an evolved species of its own.
ok so were is the proof that humans were not artificially created? proof not speculation. let me hear it! and dont bother with only disproving the bible because that is only 1 religion. evolution could have had a helping hand...
St1cKnGoJuGgAlO 10 hours ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO no one said that it's impossible that life on earth was introduced by some other lifeforms, or that they built our species from the genetic material of other animals, but it's still highly unlikely, and would still have to include evolution in a way. i mean, there were no white people until (relatively) recently, and those changes in pigment and heat preserving characteristics over the generations are a part of our evolution, like azian eyes or african hair.
T1H0 2 hours ago
coming back to this the funniest part is " president bush is a brilliant scientist" lol
St1cKnGoJuGgAlO 1 day ago
GOD IS NOT A MONKEY! Monkeys exist.
dealmeidaable 1 day ago
His hair looks like an unshaved asshole
ScienceFictionHairdo 4 days ago
the bible was written by men who stole and adapted most of it from earlier religions anyways. to assume god cant exist because the bible is wrong is like saying the world doesnt exist because men thought it was flat... people believe in god because it cannot be proven that he doesnt exist. just as people doubt because we cant prove he does.
St1cKnGoJuGgAlO 6 days ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO to argue is pointless because none of us are ever going to change because instead of asking how our own views could be wrong we tend to immediately search for reasons why we are right...
St1cKnGoJuGgAlO 6 days ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO sorry i could not respond to everything directed at me but there was a crapload of stuff and if you would like to debate feel free to message me or w/e
St1cKnGoJuGgAlO 6 days ago
watch?v=vl1MClbdCj0
Mechaghostman3 6 days ago
maher isnt smart enough to know if evolution is true or not.
darkfur35 6 days ago
@darkfur35 No he just trust the overwhelming and demonstrable evidence that it is true.
Jayjon81 4 days ago
@Jayjon81 maher has never seen any evidence. He doent know how to read.
darkfur35 4 days ago
I am pretty sure if you don't believe an the slightest possiblity of any being greater than humanity, whether it be another race somewhere one step ahead of us or one able to create us, you are pretty fucking narrow minded. "gods" whatever they are called, had a odd ability to get people to write similar stories in pretty distant places in many different books, if they lied then, what makes you think you have access to the truth now? Ignorance? Bill's shows have a purpose and it's not to inform.
HomeEnergyNow 6 days ago
i believe science is the only way forward for man kind and that organized religion is the enemy of logic. yet i believe in god i am truly a man with out a camp, is any one else like me.
Colleywoodstudios 1 week ago
The more we advance in science, the less credible religion becomes. If you want to stop this nutty religious bullshit, promote scientific discovery
merajoga 1 week ago
@merajoga Really? All the money science has invested in contacting/searching for "other beings" somehow "gods" can't exist in science? Not possible they could be the same? There are multiple accounts of history and what happened, if you don't believe them than why the fuck would you believe the same fucking forms of information being prited today? Real smart, they lied thousands of years ago for thousands of years.......BUT NOW there is the truth............bunch of tools.
HomeEnergyNow 6 days ago
@HomeEnergyNow LOL science has put money into finding other beings, so this means science and god is compatible. The story of Jesus was a common fairy-tail during those times , the bible was written 40-80 years after the death of jesus, its a 2000 year old primitive book that says a man walked on water, made a woman out of a rib, and some old man collected every insect in the world and put them on a boat... There is no science in religion. Science is forever expanding. Religion is stationary.
merajoga 6 days ago
@merajoga It will do that in little minds.
HomeEnergyNow 6 days ago
Even if we were designed, the designer was not very intelligent
jdub94ful 1 week ago
Stop calling it intelligent design. There is nothing intelligent about that theory.
tokiswartooths 1 week ago
@tokiswartooths ... i think you were going for funny, but you gotta kinda hit the mark in order for such humor to be successful
xESOTERlC 1 week ago
Adam and Eve had 3 sons, Cain, Abel and Seth. Christians actually believe that 3 men somehow populated the world. And we are supposed to believe them?
Mratl131 1 week ago 14
@Mratl131 Moses; the first to troll humanity - for over 2 thousand years. God hates homosexuals BUT WAIT three males made babies with their anal sex.
blindedby2monkeys 1 week ago
@Mratl131 Maybe you can go back in time and write something better?
HomeEnergyNow 6 days ago
@Mratl131 these three sons looked at the mother and went...what else we supposed to do. Lol
danesesse 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mratl131 The dude from egyptian mythology was Adam's kid? Awesome. =D
Jetsiuc 5 days ago
@Mratl131 And then they try to tell you homosexuality is a sin. LOL!!
donzaloog1400 4 days ago
@Mratl131 It'a a lot crazier in reality. At one point there was NO LIFE on Earth and we somehow populated the world. We may whine about religious people and their stories but it's not like reality is any less extravagant.
GompCelticPL 2 days ago
@Mratl131 "Adam and Eve" are plural for "Man and woman" In Hebrew. Besides, species were a hell of a lot tougher & more likely to survive longer & reproduce better way back then than they are today. Unless of course you still want to cling to Darwin's falsified belief that everything gets better against entropy. Actually, 3 men reproducing into billions is much more believable than a cell happening by accident then populating into multiple billions of different creatures..by accident.
blattt188 2 days ago
@blattt188
The fact that you argued about the NUMBER of people and not the thought that 3 men somehow reproduced shows how ignorant you are. Men can't get pregnant. Surprising right?
Mratl131 1 day ago
@blattt188 Oh, cute, a creationist. You do realize that entropy only holds true in a closed system, right? And that the Earth isn't a closed system? And that contrary to being "falsified", Darwin's theory of natural selection has been used in as widely varying fields as medicine and computer science? And that the human body contains "design" that, contrary to being intelligent, points to a slow process of change?
Of course you don't. HEIL JESUS! TURN OR BURN BABY!
PhobicOne 1 day ago
Biological superiority? We're not superior to other species. But Bush is an exception. He is below other species by a good margin. AETA-approving swine like him should be rounded up and hog-tied.
vgman94 2 weeks ago
Evolution in no way defies the possibility of a god. It only denies that the stories of the christian god and others are false
St1cKnGoJuGgAlO 3 weeks ago 41
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO yes it does.. according to them, god is never wrong.. and the "bible" again according to them, is the word of god.. So according to their logic, if everything in the bible was a load of shit (which it is) then god doesn't exist.. and i'll clarify by saying THEIR god, not that any of the other ones exists either.
LoluskPoo 2 weeks ago
@LoluskPoo any1 with half a brain knows that the bible was not written by god... i think the spelling errors prove that.
St1cKnGoJuGgAlO 2 weeks ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO i didn't the the bible was written by god.. i said the bible is the word of god (big difference, not that i believe it whatsoever)
LoluskPoo 2 weeks ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO The theory of evolution (as well as basic physics and reality) have resulted in all organized religion losing credibility in their beliefs. The arguments for theism are now in philosophy which, imo, is just as erroneous when looking at the big picture.
opszanski 2 weeks ago 4
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO Evolution denies religion.
Some people, people like you still believe god created the big bang, or whatever started all this ( if it was started that is)
I say, why the fuck would you even believe?
Faith by default is meaningless.
I on the other hand, dont give a rats ass to how we came to be, I'm more focused on doing something fun with this ride.
Because that's all it is, a ride.
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo
I get what you mean, but all a god is is a creator, not exactly, "god in the sky, watching you, taking care of you" bullshit we all hear. All a god is a is a creator, and if the big bang is in fact how the universe started, the explosion and expansion, wouldnt that TECHNICALLY be a god? couldn't "god" just be the universe? Cause if scientists were to sit in a lab and create a new microscopic life form, wouldn't that make those scientists god to them?
BadReligi0nFan1 4 days ago
@BadReligi0nFan1 yeah the word god can be used in many terms.
What I'm refuting is the religious god that has and still is effecting our daily lives and states of mind.
It's a cancer on the human race, and it was useful, for a time.
It was mankind's first try at organizing society. But we're far past that now.
Siedlerdeo 3 days ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO Evolution makes god completely redundant. If he does exist he does absolutely nothing.
CowLunch 1 week ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO That certainly is an interesting view - yet, how often do people split god into the following two (as far as I can conceive) categories: the personal God & the universal (Spinozism) God?
Bmanritchie 1 week ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO In the future will they say the thousands of videos of lights over pheonix the same night are fake? The thousands of articles written about it.....they will say, pheonix people are full of shit including the the governer or congressman forget? Sorry you can't believe in something greater than humanity in that tiny mind, on this tiny planet in this tiny solar system. Pretty narrow. Really narrow actually.
HomeEnergyNow 6 days ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO That doesn't make sense, if it denies the stories are false then they must be true, but they can't all be true. Please clarify what you meant.
CowLunch 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO "It only denies that the stories of the christian god and others are false" So evolution "claims the stories of the christian god are true then"? I think you worded that badly :).
Lerakon2 4 days ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO That's right
Trickishismael360 3 days ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO Actually, it doesn't. Even if you're talking about evolution motivated by chance, it still doesn't change anything.
blattt188 2 days ago
@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO But it also in no way supports it.
QSxFuzionzZ 13 hours ago
As a true Christian I'm quit pissed right now.
For all we really know intelligent design and evolution could very well be the same.
Just hear me out.
Animals were created first before humans.
God could have had verry well made them from an ape or something in like...insta evolution or something.
Its much easier to understand like this, so people, please, be reasonable.
BladeLigerV 3 weeks ago
@BladeLigerV its not in the bible like that .. the bible is either right or wrong , nothing can be amended.
kargwain187 3 weeks ago
@BladeLigerV It might be easier for you to understand like this, but science does not support you at all. Evolution and ID are not compatible in any way. The evidence only supports evolution, and that is without question.
So, how about you be reasonable? Go and read some book about evolution and how it works. You'll feel a whole lot better afterwards.
TopRobbo1970 3 weeks ago
@BladeLigerV
Grow the fuck up!
anonymousSWE 2 weeks ago
@BladeLigerV -- If you're 5 years old ...
boomtao 2 weeks ago
@BladeLigerV Intelligent Design is just a made up illogical concept desperately trying to involve a god in a process that does not require one. Why do you think no one mentioned intelligent design before evolution became a credible field of science? It's a bullshit cover-up for the fallacies of the bible.
CowLunch 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Intellegent design is not a "load of crap", Bill.
1) The Bible creation story = (probably) a load of crap. I say "probably" because I, unlike you, do try to keep an open mind about these things.
2) Intelligent design = logical, and not necessarily tied to the Bible
3) Evolution + Intelligent design = NOT MUTUALLY EXCUSIVE
4) Just because an idea is spiritual does NOT make it "a load of crap."
AslansButterfly 3 weeks ago
6) Intelligent design is ALSO supported by many intelligent, thinking people.
Stick it up your ass.
AslansButterfly 3 weeks ago
@AslansButterfly Intelligent design makes an unfalisifiable truth claim, thus it's not science. A scientific theory must be able to be rigorously tested and falsifiable, or its not science. Evolution by natural selection has more evidence backing it then the Einstien's General Relativity. There is absolutly no way to test the claims of intelligent design.
MrEchidna55 3 weeks ago
@MrEchidna55 You think I haven't heard the "but you can't test intelligent design" a thousand times already. I know that, dear. I do have a brain. My point is, just because an idea is spiritual as opposed to scientific does not mean it deserves to be mocked. There's plenty of reason in intelligent design, for those of us who can open our minds up long enough to admit we don't have all the answers.
AslansButterfly 3 weeks ago
@AslansButterfly I can level with you on that actually. I'm sorry speaking presumptuously. A semi-decent case can be made logically for a "prime mover and shaker" that started the universe, i just have a problem with the movement to undermine the education of our kids by puttin ID into science classrooms when it isn't science in any legth of the term to pander to the religious parents of the country.
MrEchidna55 3 weeks ago
@AslansButterfly So we all agree that intelligent design is not scientific right?
I never heard anyone say that is not true, I have just heard some people state that its science and some people say that it is not.
lajijiga 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrEchidna55 3 weeks ago
@AslansButterfly So why don't you dust up on scientific methodology, and then come back with a reasoned response and we may take you seriously.
MrEchidna55 3 weeks ago
@MrEchidna55 I don't have to "dust up" on anything. Intelligent design is logical, you'd know that if you would think about it long enough with an open mind. I am simply an open minded person, and I refuse to be any other way. You can take what I say or leave it.
AslansButterfly 3 weeks ago
Oh, and:
5) Just because you think that one side of a debate is "a load of crap" - so now it just shouldn't be taught anymore?
This is one of the reasons why government schools SUCK ASS and free-thinking homeschooling RULES.
AslansButterfly 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
AslansButterfly 3 weeks ago
I expect tonight's last new rule of the night to show up on youtube and for people to try using bill's arguments to support their faith in evolution. yes, I like his show for I love to hear all sides of everything (unlike most people here). finally, at least bill would acsept the existance of god should he come down to earth and do a miracle (I forgot what) with nachos. at least he would acsept the real truth once it finaly precents itself for real (unlike most people here)
danusty 3 weeks ago
There is no such thing as a scientific community. Science is happy with creation, there is no data to refute it.
warriorprince1010 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 WRONG. The overwhelming majority of Scientists which comprises the Scientific Community doesn't accept creationism because it isn't supported with evidence & It has never passed Peer Review. There are facts, evidence & the most comprehensive methodology We have (the Scientific Method) which supports the Theory of Evolution. Just because a Hypothesis isn't refuted doesn't mean it's accepted.
tranquility4all 3 weeks ago
@tranquility4all Wrong, what most people think is of no concern to me or science., Science is about data and data supports creation.
warriorprince1010 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 Where do I mention anything about what people think ? What most People think is irrelevant. You're wrong If You think the Scientific Community accepts creationism. Evidence supports claims. There isn't any evidence which support creationism. Please present any creation hypothesis which has been accepted by any Scientific Peer Review Organization.
tranquility4all 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 Correction: What People think or believe is irrelevant & isn't evidence to support any claim.
tranquility4all 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warriorprince1010 Correction: What People think or believe is irrelevant & isn't evidence to support any claim.
tranquility4all 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 Science isn't only about Data. Science is about evidence & continual testing. As more evidence is discovered Scientists will continue to test accepted Theories. creationism isn't an accepted Scientific Theory.
tranquility4all 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 Earlier You stated "Science is happy with creation" Science isn't about emotion. Obviously You're sad because the overwhelming majority of Scientists don't accept creationism.
tranquility4all 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 There is no data that supports Creation. In fact the only "evidence", and I use that term loosely, for Creation is the Bible. Since Creation insists that the earth is 6000 years old (though I have heard some say 12000) then dinosaurs and man must have coexisted at some point. You would think that a 40 ft T-Rex would be mentioned in the Bible as a result.
drownoble 3 weeks ago
Maher is a moronic prick.
RyZombie619 4 weeks ago
@RyZombie619 Please articulate your viewpoints.
Zythe 4 weeks ago
@Zythe Maher likes to stir up shit, he is ignorant. One side is right, the other is not. One side is flawless, the other is evil. Maher thinks atheists are geniuses, Christian are morons. Liberals are saints, republicans are devils. He even admitted in an interview he did that he doesn't think there are left wing extremists out there, only right wing, are you kidding me? He is so full of himself, he is a bigot.
RyZombie619 4 weeks ago
the·o·ry
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
it doesn't mean "guess". Please, Creationists, learn your terminology before trying to replace science with your 2000 year old opinion
GamrDan 1 month ago
Worshiping the US mail is more logical then ID, atleast US mail is real.
dave19941000 1 month ago
did you hear....they found another intermediate fossil near ethiopia.....tall blonde a
jimshortsfull 1 month ago
wait... hold on a sec. doesnt intellegent design depend on evoluton?
TheFarmerboyproducti 1 month ago
Here's the thing: Creationism/ID is not science because no scientist would touch something as unsupported by fact and evidence as ID is with a ten-foot pole. You don't see articles on ID in peer reviewed journals or taught in classrooms because scientists don't like it. You don't see these things BECAUSE ITS NOT SCIENCE. As always, IDers continue to fight a battle they lost before it began because they lack the capacity to comprehend it.
Raithulu 1 month ago
creationism - The belief that ALL lifeforms on earth magically appeared in, literally, a couple of days.
halo4able 1 month ago
Creationists...lolz
They're still trying to fight a battle they've already lost. You weirdos lost. Do you understand? It's over.
If you want your kid to learn the nonsense that is creationism, you'll have to send them to a private school, or homeschool them. Period.
You will not get your religion taught in public schools. Period.
You've lost, now get on with the one life you will ever get...derp derp
Zentz29 1 month ago
666 likes... lol
yoanar2 1 month ago
Whats up with his hair... O.o
ScienceFictionHairdo 1 month ago
Intelligent Design is, among other things, logically invalid. It suggests that there are creatures on this planet who came about in ways that the theory of evolution cannot explain. It then implies from this that some kind of omnipotent creator (such as God) must have been responsible. But logically you can't draw ANY conclusions. If such creatures exist, then we simply don't know how they came about.
stretch654 1 month ago
Here is the problem with teaching the Creation Myth, there are thousands of them. Every culture on earth, East Indian, West Indian, Chinese, African, South American, has its own creation story. What makes the Christian creation myth any more real than all those other stories?
So to be fair, I you teach one, don't you have to teach them all?
blueboyblue 1 month ago
Intelligent Design -
Countless centuries ago, Mar was a habitable planet, the people living there know the magnetic fields were collasping, and knew that meant the loss of all atmosphere. So the looked a primitive earth and decide to send a DNA bomb there. They knew they couldn't live on, but they knew, in a sense, that their progeny could live on through the mutation of the DNA with earth species.
Bada-Bing-Bada-Boom - We were intelligently design by the lost races of Mars. That is science.
blueboyblue 1 month ago
@blueboyblue
RE: Mars - The Intelligent Creators of Human life on Earth
That is science.
Or at least, it is more scientific that the religious version of intelligent design.
blueboyblue 1 month ago
240p we meet again.
Quade281 1 month ago
The only thing that gives me a sliver of a doubt about evolution is the continued existence of creationists.
Saeyabor 1 month ago 53
@Saeyabor dont worry. Someone nuts will kill everyone off soon and then the only people left will be those out on the north and south pole research stations who im betting will be mostly atheist. They can repopulate and the people get a fresh start without genocide and the like.
Xellith 1 month ago
@Saeyabor If it weren't for them, how would we know we're not retarded?
Konicava 4 weeks ago
Men invented god out of imagination... some people took it too far.
drasteek 1 month ago
Bill, please don't say you "believe" in evolution. You don't "believe" in evolution anymore than you believe in gravity or the spherical Earth. Scientists and rational people accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth which of course is strongly supported by evidence.
VoidedMirror 1 month ago
@VoidedMirror no it's accurate to say "believe", because you cannot possibly know for absolute certainty, the theories are simply unprovable. But, I agree they have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that they couldn't be wrong though.
But when you think about it; theists often use the word "belief" when they really mean "I know". So maybe Bill is using the word in that context, idk.
nejtilsvampe 1 month ago
@VoidedMirror
"Scientists and rational people accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth which of course is strongly supported by evidence. "
Yes, and I BELIEVE them.
And by the way, I do believe in Gravity. I see and feel it everyday. Now the specific details of the how and why of Gravity might be proven or dis-proven, but gravity itself is a fact you can believe in.
Hey - I'm just saying...
blueboyblue 1 month ago
@Flash02021990 "I hope you are humble enough to realize that you dont know everything to determine a non existance of a designer" I believe that Invisible Pink Unicorns exist, and you have no proof to the contrary, so it must exist.
charwinger21 1 month ago
@Flash02021990 Monkeys... typewriter... infinite time... Shakespeare. I believe I just defeated your argument there.
charwinger21 1 month ago
Man sharing a common ancestor with primates? Impossible! Women created from spare ribs? Totally plausible.
Redcrimson88 1 month ago 2
@Redcrimson88 LOL love your comment! And don't forget, the spare ribs for women came from a man made out of dirt and holy breath :-P
chatte99 1 month ago
The big bang was gods fart its true , and this is proved by the fact he is obviously looking the other way the bastard .
woofalot13 1 month ago
The mail coming IS a miracle!
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The world is being run by Luciferians who call their agenda the New World Order. One of their main goals (to be carried out through the occult) has been to destroy religion, lead people to deny the existence of God, & create a new society that is totally secular. It's sad to see so many people falling for their scam as they con the masses.
Research the New World Order and the Illuminati via Google & YouTube. Also, watch an online series called "The Arrivals" and "The Arrivals Reloaded."
Yrhp8268 1 month ago
Something must be wrong with my screen..
NexisFilms 1 month ago
We're rising Apes not fallen Angels.
GenTsoChicken1 1 month ago 2
@GenTsoChicken1 LMFAO
superunt43 1 month ago
@GenTsoChicken1 Apologies I had to recover from laughing?
superunt43 1 month ago
@GenTsoChicken1 Some humans do actually think, who knew?
superunt43 1 month ago
I believe the big bang was the result of a lost bet between Yahweh and Krishna after a grueling game of Canasta.
One bet on carbon, the other on silicon. Yahweh lost...lol
IsleFreeThinker1 2 months ago
@IsleFreeThinker1 Little did Yaweh know we would find a good use for that crappy silicon and make silicone!
picassopainter2 1 month ago
The future in the Bible is bright&full of hope. This soon coming dispensation the Millenium is when they will beat their swords into plowshares&their spears into pruning hooks&they will study war no more. Jesus Christ is coming back, He will touch down on the Mount of Olives east of Jerusalem. That is why there is the modern nation of Isreal today. Jesus Christ will rule from Jerusalem.
RonSafreed 2 months ago
@RonSafreed lmfao @ Jesus returning.
soitgoes87 2 months ago
@RonSafreed good for you! and now go back to your shed in the woods to immolate sheep and smear the walls with prophetic scribbling
YourSkyliner 1 month ago
@RonSafreed hahahaha, thanks man, i needed a good laugh.
JymzJameson 1 month ago
god is a monkey
krank34 2 months ago 3
@krank34 God is not a monkey. God is a Canadian. There is a Kevin Smith video here on YouTube stating as much. It's not followed by 'lol' so it MUST be true.
I won't post the link, but it's a 1 minute video called 'God Is A Canadian'
IsleFreeThinker1 2 months ago
why can't we all just get along? creationism/intelligent design and evolution are both theories, none of them are proven facts. people believe what they want to believe, let it be.
danusty 2 months ago
@danusty
NEWS FLASH! Evolution has been proven through genetics.
If we are going to teach creationism alongside evolution, then we should also teach the flat-world theory alongside proper astronomy.
It doesn't matter what the hell your religion says to believe; if scientific research and proven facts have said otherwise, then teach the facts in schools. It's like saying "my religion believes that the Cthlulu created the world, so we should teach that in schools too".
IT DOESN'T WORK.
foojuice101 2 months ago 2
@foojuice101 where is this NEWS FLASH! you speak off? have they finally found the missing link? yes, the one that proves we come from an ancient ape.
don't get me wrong son, I believe in science and I also believe in god even though I have no way to prove his existence.
like I said: creationism/intelligent design and evolution are both theories. just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean it's true.
now, show me this NEWS FLASH!
danusty 2 months ago
@danusty
Okay, I sent you a PM. Stupid YT won't let me fit in the comment
foojuice101 2 months ago
@danusty Who still thinks there's a "missing link"? It's called common ancestry. You should learn the difference before you make yourself look foolish in public. So here's the first test for creationism: explain how your creation myth is superior to any of the other creation myths. The trick is, whatever reasons you use to dismiss other creation myths must also be applied to your creation myth. So much for your "theory" of talking snakes, magic fruit and Jewish zombies.
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 you definetly don't have any idea of my private conversation with foojuice101 and I never said I believed in creationism. you know what you and other people here look like (daNDayati), you look like bigots. only foojuice101 has an IDEA of what my beliefs are and here you are attacking me and "my creationism". bigotry I tell you.
danusty 2 months ago
@danusty I do have an idea of what your beliefs are, you stated them clearly. You called the creation religion "theory" and implied it's on par with the scientific theory of biological evolution. When you claim mythology is fact or that it's science, you lose your "special beliefs" privilege and you get called on pure, unadulterated bullshit. You've been called on it. Would it be bigotry to call someone on b.s. for believing in the Easter Bunny or astrology? What's the difference?
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
Comment removed
danusty 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExperienceCounts2 no sir. just cause I respect and see things through all sides of the spectrum doesn't mean I believe in them. when did I claim to beliebe in creationism? but that's something people like you (bigots) can see, because according to people like you, you have the truth grabed by the hand. creationism is a theory wether you want to acsept it or not. all I want is for people to at least try to see things from all sides, get allong and respect each other like I do
danusty 2 months ago
@danusty creationism/intelligent design is not science and is not a theory.. it does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory... it's just made up... science is about determining truth... religion (i.e. creationism/ID) is about deceit.. no reason to get along... but it is worth the fight.
daNDayati 2 months ago 2
@daNDayati I'm not going to technicaly reply this message. I'm going to leave it with: you should have seen the conversation foojuice101 and I had.
danusty 2 months ago
@danusty Myth is not theory in any sense of the word and definitely not in the scientific sense. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. It must testable, that is it must make specific, testable predictions. It must fit the known evidence. The myth of creation is none of those. Magic, invisible men, and stories of evil curses placed on people by the gods are not theories, they're idiocy that people have to brainwash little kids with because no rational 12 year old would fall for it.
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago 2
@ExperienceCounts2 may I say you sound like a 12 year old yourself
danusty 2 months ago
@danusty And yet you don't seem to be able to respond to simple questions from a 12 year old, do you? Why should anyone give any more credence to your creation myth than they do to any other creation myth? It's a simple question, isn't it? If you don't like your mythology being held to normal standards of evidence that all scientific theories are then don't try to bullshit people by calling your myth a theory.
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago 2
@danusty Actually, intelligent design is a hypothesis, not a theory.
charwinger21 1 month ago 2
@charwinger21 read the 2nd definition at dictionary "period" com for the word theory, it applies to both, evolution and creationism
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty You are applying the common definition of "theory" to creationism, and the scientific definition of the word "theory" to evolution. The scientific definition of the word "theory" is as close to the word "fact" as science allows. The common definition of the word "theory" is the equivalent of the scientific word "hypothesis". Every "theory" (or "fact" in common usage) is by definition also a "hypothesis" (or "theory" in common usage), but not vice versa.
charwinger21 1 month ago 10
@charwinger21 I'm using the definition of the word theory and it's pretty clear how that word is defined so I rest my case. both are theories
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty In common usage both are theories, however only evolution is a fact. In scientific usage both are hypotheses, but only evolution is a theory. BTW, the website that you told me to go, while it does use the common definition of theory for the second definition, has the scientific definition of theory listed as the main definition. At this point you're arguing semantics. Both are potential explanations, only evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
charwinger21 1 month ago 2
@charwinger21 both according to the definition are theories and that as they say is that. und no, there is no PROOF of evolution. show me the common ancestor of humans and chimps, they are still looking for it. till then, there is no PROOF of either one, hence both are theories
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty 1.Both are hypotheses (we're talking science here, not common English. We already went over this)2.There is EXTENSIVE evidence of evolution, much more than can be written in this comment.Of specific note would be the fossil record, extensive genetic evidence of common descent (of every living thing), vestigiality (appendix, noncoding DNA, Woolnerian tip, coccyx, wisdom teeth, plica semilunaris, plantaris muscle,etc.),Galápagos Islands, and that doesn't even scratch the surface.
charwinger21 1 month ago
@danusty
On Theories -
There is proof of Evolution, & there are transitory species, many of them. Neanderthal was more ape like that Homo Erectus. Cro-magnon was more ape like than Neanderthal. They recently discovery of pigmy sized/chimp sized humans in Australia (they called them Hobbits). There are reptiles that have feathers, etc...
There are plenty of experiments at the high school level that demonstrate Evolution.
You have the most superficial definition of what "Theory" is
blueboyblue 1 month ago
@blueboyblue as you said, those species that you mentioned are separate species., they aren't homosapiens sapiens which is what we are., did they look similar to us and to chimps? yes, but they were their own separate species. species is not the same as race. just because a donkey and a horse (2 diferent species) look alike doesn't mean they are the same. a donkey is a donkey and a horse is a horse. also, fight your battle with the dictionary, not me.
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty It's all in front of you. Whether you choose to recognize it or not is up to you.
TheSonorama21 1 month ago
@danusty
You asked for the "missing link" or as it they are sometimes called 'Transitional SPECIES'. I gave you Transitional Species.
blueboyblue 1 month ago
@blueboyblue what tells you that those are as you call them transitional species and not a species of their own? like I said, just because a donkey and a horse are very similar don't mean they are the same. they are their own separate species and it just so hapens it looks like one of them could have transitioned from the other. as I said, there is no real definitive proof of evolution or creationism
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty first every species on the planet is a transitional species and a species of there own, life is constantly adapting, when you have to isolated populations they diverge and eventually become separate spices. there is also rock solid evidence of evolution its called DNA and markers inside DNA call ERVs. we can track these ERVs and the more closely related the species the more ERVs they have in common, there is evidence of evolution, you just have to be willing to look for it.
Fireflygamer 1 month ago
@danusty Actually you're wrong, Definitive proof of evolution exists in other species. If you know how to youtube, You should know how to google.
& also, "christian creationism" as it was told in the bible has been debunked.
swiftyJ88 1 month ago
@swiftyJ88 I want you to do something. I want you to watch all the seminars (all of them) with an open mind (like I did) on this website: creationtoday(.)org(/)category(/)type(/)video(/)creation-seminars(/)
delete the parentesis. I watched them all. in those videos Mr hoven uses REAL science to back his theory on creationism and how everything in the bible happened as written. he makes a GREAT case.
danusty 1 month ago
@swiftyJ88 I want you to do something. I want you to watch all the seminars (all of them) with an open mind (like I did) on this website: creationtoday(dot)org(fwd slash)category(fwd slash)type(fwd slash)video(fwd slash)creation-seminars(fwd slash)
delete the parentesis. I watched them all. in those videos Mr hoven uses REAL science to back his theory on creationism and how everything in the bible happened as written. he makes a GREAT case.
danusty 1 month ago
@swiftyJ88 now, just because he uses real science to back up his theory on creationism and he makes a great case defending it doesn't mean I believe in everything he says and doesn't mean creationism is real. I apply the same thing to evolution, people use real science to back it up, they make a great case, but I don't believe in it either. there is no definitive proof of either. if you asked a creationist he'll tell you evolution has been debunked and the bibble has been proven right
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty Either way you look at it, The argument should be over.
swiftyJ88 1 month ago
@danusty Theory in science doesn't mean the same thing as it does in common usage. A Scientific Theory is considered FACT until other FACTS are discovered that disprove it. Saying "a book I believe was written by God says otherwise" is not FACT. Personally, I share a similar belief to Mr Maher. I believe in ID, I just happen to think that ID=Evolution, because its the only thing that makes sense given the evidence.
Raithulu 1 month ago 5
@swiftyJ88 if I ask you, you will tell me the total oposite. so, since there is no definitive proof why can't we all just get along? in the end, when it's all said and done and the real proof is finaly revealed I'll accept whichever is the real one, be it creationism, evolution or something else. are you willing to do the same?
by the way, english is my 2nd language, sorry if I make mistakes writting this
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty The simple thing I can bring this down to is;
We know that parts of what's written inside the bible have been proven incorrect.
The age of the earth was vastly off. Though some may dispute the methods of ageing the earth, No scientist who has any real education on the subject will accept an age any younger then One Billion years old. That number is incredibly conservative.
This could either mean the bible was tampered with, Or that the writers lied about what they saw/heard.
swiftyJ88 1 month ago
@danusty I love the fact that you used the examples of a donkey and a horse, because they are still closely related enough that they can breed and produce the (sterile) animal known as a "Mule". A species as we know is is what something looked like at a certain point in time, not throughout it's whole history. A lot of the published information on the Y-MRCA does a great job of explaining it.
charwinger21 1 month ago
@charwinger21 a homo sapiens sapiens is a homo sapiens sapiens, a chimp is a chimp, a horse is a horse, a donkey is a donkey and a mule is........ sterile hahaaaaaaaa!
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty Yeah, cause they've drifted far enough apart that they're no longer the same species, but they aren't far enough apart that they can't breed anymore. There are other species like that (lions and tigers, etc.). By your logic, the number of species on earth should be constantly decreasing, but that's not the case.
charwinger21 1 month ago
@charwinger21 "By your logic, the number of species on earth should be constantly decreasing, but that's not the case." not necessarily. MAYBE due to intelligent design some KINDS of animals of the same TYPE of species can breed and produce another. after all, a rottweiler can breed with a chiuaua and keep on breeding with it till a new (new on earth) kind of dog comes to existance.
I hope my message is understood, english is my 2nd language.
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty That's called evolution.
charwinger21 1 month ago
@charwinger21 no, that is not evolution, that is like saying that a mulato is an evolved being because he came from 2 (or more) humans (black, white you name it). no it's not that dog would still be a dog and a mulato is still a homo sapiens sapiens.
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty Actually, you're describing evolution very precisely right there (although you're using some VERY unscientific terms). Yes, we're all considered homo sapiens sapiens, but there are differences between us, and as we reproduce, there are changes in our offspring relative to us. If you blocked off two groups of humans from each other completely for a long enough time, those minuscule changes would add up until they are separate species.
charwinger21 1 month ago
@charwinger21 that is not evolution. the outcome of 2 diferent types of dogs, a white and a black person doesn't produce an evolved "creature"/"being", it produces the same type of creature with a mixed look. just cause it looks mixed doesn't make it an evolved/different species.
danusty 1 month ago
@charwinger21 another simple example: if a wide nosed man has a baby with a thin nosed woman and they have an average nosed kid (that looks different to both of them because of the nose), that kid will still be a human kid, not an evolved species of its own.
danusty 1 month ago
@danusty That's evolution. Isn't it amazing.
charwinger21 1 month ago