@mmmmmarcus what superstitions? It is actually supposed to be 999, apparently, but I don't give a shit. Thought it was funny that all other videos where a lot higher on likes, but this one kept at it at 666...for a long time. Didn't find the need to explain myself any further, didn't think viewers were that stupid.
@JiubLink There's far more empirical evidence for the Bible and it's science than there is for any naturalistic origin of life or Darwinian levels of evolution (family to kingdom speciation) that differ from prior creation science (species to ~family speciation).
2 minutes ago the Holy Ghost appeared to me last night, (or maybe it was the tooth fairy, it was too dark to tell.) anyway he told me to spread the word of Bob. Bob i said. and he said, "yes Bob, spread the word of Bob." then i said, "I'm ready, I'm ready." he said, "perfect, now spread the word." then he disappeared back into the closet. i still don't know what he meant.
Whoever says there is evidence for an invisible, mind-reading being whom you visit in an extra-dimensional invisible realm when you die if you believe in him ... is either lying, or delusional.
man i love this series.it educates people on how fucked up the bible really is.so many are quick to say,"oh,i've read the bible",yet ask them about the stories you point out in this series and they think you're just making it up to discredit
God's economic systems is infinitely better than communism, capitalism and socialism and easily eliminates all poverty (of the hunger, homelessness type). It basically says that all natural resources weren't made by any person and so should be shared with all people so that all have a chance to make a good life and can work to support their basic needs. But, if you work hard, you can get wealthy, so free enterprise is admired.
@Abena20 God's instructions about things being "unclean" were almost always directly related to health. Unclean things were very unhealthy. People who follow the Bible's instructions about unclean and clean things in eating habits for example, live 10 years longer than others do on average. Google Buettner and "How to live to 100" for an example of that, minute 11+. On poverty, there are over 2000 verses in the Bible speaking of how to eliminate poverty and an entire economic system.
FAGWADS, all this means is that back in those times, they could not put their clothes in the hamper and wait for their moms to do the laundry. They probably wore the same sheets of clothing for many days, so it seems pretty logical to me to wash your sheets and yourself with water. Why would you want to be walking around with dry cum stains on your sheets of clothing? Also, they didnt have toilets back then, so why wouldnt you dig and bury your feces? Would you rather just leave it there?
Trying to go point-by-point through the bible is like trying to refute the lessons in an episode of Barney and Friends. WE know it is fake, you just look foolish by taking it seriously enough that you feel you need to point out the problems with in.
That's a really, really stupid position to take. There is an extremely good reason why atheists take the time to analyse the Bible...because millions of Christians are convinced that it is a "perfect" book, and the best possible guide for any and all life choices. The only way that is EVER going to change is if the Bible is exposed, through well-informed critiques, for what it is - a book filled with fallacies, inconsistencies and appalling examples of immorality.
Seriously, what alternative are you suggesting here? That no one should bother paying any attention to the Bible "cos it's silly"? Do you really think that attitude is going to present even the slightest challenge to the millions of Christians who have convinced themselves it is the perfect word of God? If we all had your ignorant attitude, the Bible's "perfection" and "holy truth" would go unchallenged and unargued indefinitely. How would you feel about that, genius?
@basque5150 I'm sorry but you don't "KNOW" the Bible is fake. You believe propaganda machines that distort and lie, cherry pick and use double standards ad infinitum. The Bible has had billions of testable confirmations of quite a number of its scientific claims. In addition, the Bible gives ~10 years extra life to those who follow it's health principles which were millenia ahead of any scientists. National Geographic, NIH, Bluezones and others confirm this.
@dotoree "I'm sorry but you don't "KNOW" the Bible is fake. You believe propaganda machines that distort and lie, cherry pick and use double standards ad infinitum"
lol how ironic..... double standards are the zeolots best friend.
"The Bible has had billions of testable confirmations of quite a number of its scientific claims"
now who is distorting? where is this catalogue of scientific claims? and billions of testable confirmations to match?
@dotoree Yeah all that stone throwing is good exercise. Dotoree's insight into why we live twice as long as people did 2000 years ago. "God done it" Such a brilliant mind, he lives in a dirt floored hovel and buries his crap in the backyard just like they did back then. When he gets sick he anoints himself with precious oils because they knew so much more than we do. I wonder when Gods going to get pissed about our tall building trying to reach heaven and make us all speak in COBAL?
@arisechicken82 Um, no. God doesn't hate any material thing. He hates things that harm his creations. And he warns us to stay away from certain things and certain practices because they are harmful and he stated that this was the reason for many of his rules. God knows which things are healthy and which cause disease and like any good parent tells us what to avoid if we want to avoid suffering.
@dotoree he is all powerful right? why doesnt he get rid of the harmful things to man if he is so loving and benevolent?? just like any good parent that had the power to remove something that may harm their childs life??
Wrong. I'm a professor in a university and I tell me students all the time that if they don't know certain material, they won't get a good grade and maybe won't pass. Governments make punishments from crimes. It has NOTHING to do with bullying, but with justice. Same with God. If you can't understand that, there's probably no point in talking.
@dotoree you give examples of justice against a crime determined acceptable by a majority of society. the worst and most extreme of which would be the ending of a finite life (which god endorses consistently anyway)
god threatens frivolous crimes with eternal suffering, exponentially worse dont you think??
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Law in Deut. 23 is important for cleansing which is what all of the different ceremonial and levitical laws are about.
It is important to understand how this
applies to the absolute Holiness of God
and the imperfection and depravity of human kind (let alone the hygene ramifications). The way in which this video presents it incorrectly is just indicative of more straw man than an
@43alley Your book spends more time being specific on the rules of nocturnal emissions than telling its followers to not abuse children.
-
This is blatantly untrue. Ephesians 6:4 Fathers,do not exasperate your children. Colossians 3:21 Fathers,do not embitter your children,or they will become discouraged. Many others in stories, laws against incest, and verses such as 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 4:8 Proverbs 3:11-12, 1 Timothy 3:12.
@43alley A moral person not brainwashed in this religion
-
A moral person would not be brainwashing people with straw men and myriad false representations as you are doing, misunderstanding vocabulary, cherry picking, ignoring completely everything positive and the millions if not billions of lives the Bible's science has saved, the MANY human rights it pioneered and much more.
do tell... what is going on with these laws? And... wasn't it god that created us to poop and have nocturnal emission? Is he really offended by these? If so... it must be a design flaw that he couldn't correct...
I don't remember who said it... but to put the waste land so close to the pleasure dome... is clearly a mistake on god's part!!!
yea just like all those idiots who cherry pick from hitler's leadership. he did so many great things for german people (fanta, VW)!! and the people who cherry pick the information when judging child molesters. it's not like they spend ALL their time doing bad stuff.
God is not "outside of time." Being beyond the limitations of time and 3 dimensional spatial existence is being transcendent and being omnipresent in time..NOT outside of it.
Furthermore, Theophanies and Christophanies in the Old Testament which refer to the Lord "walking" among the people are finite Manifestations of the
Creator at a single location of the universe (earth) and do NOT mean that God ceased to exist as Infinite Creator throughout all of time and infinite 3 dimensional existence
I guess God had to make these rules so he wouldn't step in human dung if he walked around at night. He probably didn't want to get sticky fingers if he touched semen.
Actually they are good health rules, but I wonder why they were having so many wet dreams. Could it be sexual repression?
there's a difference between making observations and making random accusations about somebody being gay or perverted when there is no evidence make such a claim.
You, however, show your intellectual prowess (or lack there of) with every comment you post.
My now arent you the model of the upstanding christian? No real argument to make, I see. I'll guess you're about 12, maybe 14 tops, judging by your vocabulary.
@Drealist87How the hell does god find shit unclean when he made it?
-
A) The Bible never says God made it. It's likely that it was put into our biology as a consequence of sin to get rid of harmful agents. But, it's not said in the Bible.
B) Unclean in the Bible sense often means unhealthy and if you think "dung" is clean...you would fit right in with the middle age people who caused the bubonic plague, etc.
@scottpastry No, God did NOT make everything. He didn't make the internet (although he made the materials for it). He didn't make sin, suffering, or invent any type of crime or harmful thing. As to his power. He could easily force everyone to do anything he wanted, but doing that would be slavery and God has decided to give all people freedom to choose, but that also has consequences.
@scottpastry God not creating everything has nothing to do with him being omnipotent or not. No, he most certainly did not create all things, such as the idea of murder or any crime, etc. Also on slavery btw, it was voluntary before, FAR better than most welfare systems these days which take money from hardworking people to pay to people who don't work and also "slaves" (more accurate term would be servants) could redeem themselves when they wanted to and go free.
@dotoree it has everything to do with omnipotence. if you are all powerful then you can add or remove anything you want to something you created, whether it be good or bad. your god chooses to allow suffering when its within his powers to remove it.
not very nice.
didnt invent murder?? he commands characters in the bible to murder others consistently!!
slavery in certain circumstances amongst hebrews was voluntary.... but for non-hebrews it was as bad as any modern day system!!
@scottpastry The Bible predicted that there would be many false doctrines taught by churches in latter times, just as happened all through Bible times. I DO talk to other Christians about this. But, there are a number of denominations that understand the truth on this. Malachi 4:1-4 states clearly that those who insisnt on disobedience will become ashes..not burning forever. The words forever and eternal can mean as long as life lasts in English-Hebrew, just like "I will love you forever".
@scottpastry Yes, God chooses to allow suffering, because he's got a universe to think about...and Satan challenged God's govt. of the UNIVERSE. This is not just an issue with one tiny planet. It's a universe. And God suffers far more than anyone here can possibly imagine..both in sending his son to suffere AND everytime one of his children is hurt...it tears his heart apart. But, the universe must see the results of Satan's style of govt. and make a final decision on that.
@dotoree in his omnipotence, god could remove satan as a threat and source of misery. funnily enough this would alleviate his own suffering. yet.......
and why does god require the torturing of himself to forgive himself? rather self defeating.
@scottpastry Yes, God could kill off Satan easily. True. But that would not end the question that Satan was asking, "Is God's government the best way for the universe." The only way to answer that kind of question is to see the fruits of each philosophy raw. And sadly many people in this earth have chosen to follow Satan's destructive philosophy that causes so much suffering and misery. But, the demonstration is nearing the end&the universe has pretty much decided&soon humanity will too.
@dotoree even if i was to concur to your reasoning here, if god was truly benevolent, he would accept people who made the wrong choices and chose satan, back into the realms of heaven once they had the chance to compare both governments to the full. the idea that a perfectly reasoned god would expect his creations to make such important decisions based on cryptic doctrines that even you say cant be followed literally, is totally unreasonable and far from intelligent or benevolent.
@scottpastry I never said the Bible's doctrines were cryptic nor did I say they can't be followed literally. I said ALL language has literal and idiomatic elements and we must use common sense and study of background, context, etc. in other languages as we do in our own to understand the meaning, which is not hard. The problem with letting people into heaven who have intentionally rejected truth, science&evidence is that they could easily rebel and start the whole sin thing all over again.
@scottpastry No, God did not invent murder. Satan was the one who inspired the first murder by Cain. In a few VERY RARE situations God does end life as a form of justice and it's called his strange act, that he hates. It's completely untrue that he consistently commands characters to murder. But, in the few cases he does, in the long run it actually saves a lot more lives..sort of like killing Hitler before he could kill 10 million people.
@scottpastry re slavery, there's a problem with your theory (btw, why do you atheists ALWAYS assume the WORST about the Bible???). Kidnapping anyone (not just Hebrews) was a capital crime. And God SEVERAL times explicitly ordered Israel NOT to oppress foreigners remembering how they had been cruelly oppressed by the Egyptians. 1 example--
“You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt." Exodus 22:21
@scottpastry No, the Bible does not give detailed descriptions of how biogenesis, speciation, diet, exercise, blood, bacteria etc. and other things work. But, it clearly and specifically outlined these and many other things or had to understand them in order to make the rules that are so practical that even today when people follow them, they add 10 years of life to people compared to the average. Google buettner "how to live to 100" and see minute 11 for evidence of this.
@dotoree one cannot assume that because parts of a certain literature recommend humans eat food, stay clean and stay active as a method of survival, that the authors had some unique and enlightened insight into positive human lifestyle void elsewhere.
@scottpastry Scott, that is a HUGE straw man of the extremely specific recommendations that the Bible listed. The fact is this. Moses was educated by the Egyptians. But, what he wrote did not follow what he learned from them, NOR did it follow any other wisdom that existed for the last 3000 years. Some things he wrote also required knowledge of bacteria&disease transmission& similar things you can't know without modern microscopes&similar tools. This is SOLID evidence of higher intelligence.
@scottpastry In addition, Moses himself testified that the ideas were not his, and that is OBVIOUS since almost nothing he wrote had any similarity to the education he received. When this happens in regular history and a credible historian who has been documented as accurate 100s and 1000s of times says something, he is usually given some respect for what he says. But some people prefer to dismiss facts&evidence because of their apriori materialistic assumptions. I hope you aren't so dishonest.
@dotoree in fact no historian is given particular credibility over any other. and it is totally reasonable to doubt the validity of any literature.
the thing about most historic authors tho, is that most make claims that are verifiable through other means, or make unremarkable claims that warrant no special investigation one way or the other, due to the claims lack of real importance.
however, when extraordinary claims are mad, such as those of moses, they require extraordinary evidence.
@scottpastry Yes, historians who have a good track record ARE given the benefit of the doubt when they talk about things which we have no physical evidence for. Many things in our history books are based SOLELY on the testimony of historians who have been checked out with physical evidence in other areas and been proven accurate time and time again and so are considered credible.
@dotoree list one historian with a good track record who is given the benefit of the doubt and specifically in which context are they being given favour by way of credibility in the realms of science?
many historians accounts are taken on face value because
a. they dont make scientific claims. if they did and they were false they would not be given the benefit of the doubt.
@scottpastry@scottpastry Maybe this was not clear. I didn't say that historians who have a good track record are given the benefit of the doubt when they make scientific claims. I said that when historians make claims on things we can check and are consistently accurate, we generally consider their testimony valid for things they say they've witnessed or have talked to witnesses about that we can't check until we have evidence otherwise. It's sort of the innocent until proven guilty thing.
@scottpastry No,extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. That's a textbook double standard of enormous proportions and reveals apriori materialistic bias more than anything else. But, IF you are to follow that logical fallacy, the very first thing that it should be applied to is abiogenesis and atheism since we don't have even ONE case of life coming from non-life. That's certainly extraordinary. 2nd it should be applied to evolution which also has no testable evidence.
@dotoree of course its bias!! thats the whole point...
otherwise one would take anything said on face value and this would be a poor method of analysis.
athiesm and abiogenesis should not be compared, they describe totally different things.
atiesm is a lack of a position. any positive claim made by an athiest, such as there is no god, is a faith claim, and non representative of the term itself.
abiogenesis is a theory that is still yet to be found verifiable thru testing.
Historically, atheism was an aggressive denial that God's exist. Look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy and many other sources that document it's history. It's only in the last few decades that atheists have diluted the definition since they want to convert people without having to provide evidence that they know doesn't exist. There is no evidence for evolution's major distinguishing claim, that life evolved past the family,phyla&even kingdom boundaries to produce all life on earth.
@scottpastry Bias is not science. It's excluding legitimate theories from investigation, publication apriori for reasons that have nothing to do with science (money, politics, prejudice, etc.). Atheism is not the lack of a position or lack of belief. That's a modern dilution due to the fact that they can find not even one testable evidence of life from non-life (as in abiogenesis) & want to avoid being required to provide scientific evidence for their beliefs.
@scottpastry I'm sorry, but it's just not true that the scientific establishment is biased towards evidence in all cases. Sometimes it is, but many have experiences bias against their evidence and bans from presenting evidence for a variety of reasons. We have many indisputable cases where it has not been. I suggest you read the seminal work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, professor at 3 Ivy league universities for many good examples of this.
@scottpastry On Hovind and taxes, Hovind & others Christian &secular think that the IRS system has no constitutional right to tax people and was never given this right by Congress or something like that. The Bible tells us to pay taxes, so what he did has nothing to do with the Bible & I don't support what he did. Google paynoincometax to see some of the arguments they make.
@dotoree i am weel aware of the issues of legitimacy of the IRS. however this is still a hypocritical position to take, judging some laws as immutable and others as ok to break. peope in galss houses shouldnt throw stones.
@scottpastry this is still a hypocritical position to take, judging some laws as immutable and others as ok to break. peope in galss houses shouldnt throw stones.
-
Sorry, but no it's not. And I say this as someone who can't stand some of the political conservatives, esp. Glenn Beck's infotainment train of lies. LOVE John Stewart's the Daily Show exposes of him and others. But, the issue is constitutionality. If it's constitional, it's a law. If it's unconstitutional, it's illegal.
@scottpastry he was free to move to another country with laws that suited him better. he chose to be deceitful.
-
I am not a supporter of Hovind's or his tax stances. But, when anyone, Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative, capitalist or communist is falsely maligned, I will confront those falsehoods. Hovind's problem is not deceit. It's that he believed people who said the govt. has no constitutional right to tax people and esp. religious organizations.
@scottpastry Others have protested laws that were unjust...for heaven's sake, America's war for independence was almost totally in reaction to tax laws they thought were unjust. Then there is M. L. King&breaking the segregation laws& others. I don't think Hovind's decision to resist was wise. But, if he or an atheist or anyone is doing this because they think it's unconstitutional, then it's just not honest to say it's because of deceit whether we agree or disagree with their position.
@scottpastry athiesm has nothing to do with evolution. you are confusing 2 totally different fields.
-
No, I'm not confusing different fields. Those 2 ARE different, but atheism if it expects to be taken as anything rational, HAS to provide MORE evidence than the billions of evidence the Bible has from science&history, evidence that life can occur and develop without intelligence. Evolution&abiogenis are at present the only hypotheses that have a chance of helping it become rational.
@dotoree as for no evidence for evolution... you cannot be at a secular university and be a creationist without blindfolding yourself to the repeatable testable evidence for evolution at your school. or for that matter in applications on a daily basis throughout society.
look in youtube for "kent hovind vs molecular geneticist"
i am not saying you support hovind, but the caller makes a good point.
Major portions of science came from creation science&are extremely valuable or money saving already.
2) Kent Hovind is low level creationist but did gather a lot of scientific evidence & makes some good points. But, I don't consider him to be anywhere close to the best creationists who have ph.ds from top level universities &haven't even listened to him for years and years. He also made some mistakes with taxes etc. that are problematic.
@dotoree i wasnt referring to hovind himself. i was simply showing the callers point. not only isevolutionary theory used in applications on a daily basis, scientists are still waiting to be told exactly what real applications are to be discovered thru the study of creation?
yes he avoided taxes but so do secularists so its hardly relevent, except that, ironically, he preached from such a virtuous standpoint.
@scottpastry Many people define things wrongly. I'll try to make it clear again.
1) Creation theory says speciation can occur up to the family level. ALL speciation up to the family level is creation science and has been so since long before Darwin. EVERYTHING the caller called evolution actually is a part of creation science, EVERYTHING..evolutionists plagiarize and try to take credit for creation science.
2) Darwinian evolution's unique idea is evolution WAY past the family boundary.
More exactly, we now say that oxygen is a better explanation of burning than phlogiston, because the first fits all the facts while the second does not.” Pasteur’s famous experiments on spontaneous generation were also directly in proving a negative, that spontaneous generation is not true and doesn’t occur and that life can’t come into being from non-living things like trash. Many aspects of science are directly involved in disproving concepts positive or negative.
@scottpastry re proving a negative,science sometimes progresses by doing precisely that Ex-in falsification.
"It is by constructing possible models of a phenomena(a hypothesis),&then testing them(falsification),that we advance &build on the knowledge we already have. By doing so,we prove many negatives. We came to the conclusion that oxygen is the necessary gas in burning because we were first able to disprove the existence of phlogiston,which was the reigning scientific position at the time.”
@dotoree no thats testing and proving an alternative positive claim.
how can you disprove the existence of phlogiston without applying the same method to the existence of god?
they looked for phlogiston, they didnt find it, they decided it didnt exist.
no one has shown imperical evidence for the existence of god, so it must not exist, right?
to disagree with this god statement you must also acknowledge that no evidence has been found for the non existence of phlogiston. cant have it both ways
@scottpastry No, it's NOT a positive claim (although many positive and negative claims are easily reversible). The anti-phlogistanists hypothesized that phlogistan was NOT (negative) given off in combustion&rusting. They tested this by weighing EVERYTHING in the experiments, even the gases and found out that after combustion&rusting rust weighed more than iron, meaning that phlogistan if it was involved would have to have a negative weight. THEN they looked for a better explanation.
1) This geneticist like most scientists are not told the truth. All speciation up to the family level is a CREATIONIST theory&published long before Darwin. NONE can be attributed to Darwinian theory(the difference is that Darwinian theory hypothesizes that speciation goes WAY past the family boundary). EVERYTHING he talks about fits in creation science. Evolution has actually hindered scientific understanding in significant ways.
@dotoree like he said, prove it wrong, which you sound comfortable in doing, and not only will you be financially supported by the science community for the rest of your life, you will win a nobel prize.
@scottpastry Prove what wrong? Evolutionists bear the burden of proof for proving that speciation can produce life that changes way past the family boundary. They don't have one case so far. That scientists and many others are not told the indisputable facts of history...that all speciation and variations up to the family level are creation science and have nothing to do with proving Darwinian evolution whatsoever.
@scottpastry as in Evolution has no testable evidence of the major unique idea of Darwin--that speciation has no biological limits whatsoever and that life can adapt past the family boundary. The only evidence it has is extremely speculative...worse than that of spontaneous generation, such as speculating on ancestry based on location of burial...utterly ridiculous...no one thinks that tools buried in similar layers gave birth to each other, or that all in cemeteries are closely related.
@dotoree cont... the TED talk is good, and i will not argue that the bible contains some passages that may speak of certain positive lifestyle traits. however, the fact that similar unusually high life expectancy rates can also be found in isolated and non christian regions such as okinawa, is evidence against the claim that christian doctrine has some special insight into human longevity and positive lifestyle.
@scottpastry Sorry for misjudging you as an atheist. By reading the Bible at "face value" do you mean literally? If you do that, you can get into all sorts of misunderstanding. I am writing a book now which has 300 pages of translations from English to Korean. I've found all sorts of mistakes with literal translations, some quite humorous. Literal translations OFTEN distort the intention of the author. At present, I would FIRE any translators who uses only a literal translation method.
@scottpastry Some things can be translated literally and they're very well and good...but others just don't work. For example, translating "It's raining cats and dogs" literally into other languages would be ludicrous. Even the same words have different connotations. Pumpkin means ugly in Korea, but cute in English. God explicitly stated there was to be NO oppression of foreigners. That's very explicit. There were cases of justice-punishment also. But, no oppression was condoned.
@basque5150 you call me blind?!?! ok lets see who is blind, the ignorant fool who follows something without any facts or proof just because a book written by superstitious fools which also has been edited and traduced at convenience by more superstitious fools to brainwash more ignorant fools, or the "oxymoron" atheist who seeks answers in already proven facts, and even more, keeps questioning those facts? BTW I already have a college degree...get out of your delusion...
@joresgon "Tell me why you discard every other religion's gods and I shall tell you why I discard yours.."
aaa nice atheist wisdom
--
For the SAME reason that there are many scientific hypotheses, but many turn out wrong, but a few or only one turns out to be correct. The evidence from science, history,etc. for Christianity is FAR stronger than any other religion, bar none.
You know, I really don't think America has forsaken God. I think the problem is too many true believers trying to push biblical law into public policy. Well funded fundies, if you like.
@bluebeard2 I think the problem is too many true believers trying to push biblical law into public policy.
-
Have you ever wondered why it is that America was a world leader in many areas in the 1st part of the last century, but now that evolution has been indoctrinated into millions of us and creation banned completely, we've lost our place in many of the sciences, etc? And I thought atheists valued free speech. My bad.
@bluebeard2 A) Since you have obviously never studied ANY of the evidence, you are not qualified to judge. Creationism has billions of testable confirmations of it's claims and that's indisputable.
B) You don't know facts. Korea where I teach beats the pants of American high school students.
C) America lost for a LOT of reasons...one being that it spent trillions on the nonsense of evolution.
You will never be able to make an intelligent judgement until you have studied facts on both sides.
a) Please, direct me to the evidence in favour of creationsim.
b) We aren't talking about high school students, we're talking about science. So here's facts. World Development Index rates the US as the 6th biggest R&D spender as a percentage of GDP. None of the other superpowers are ahead of it.
c) No, nothing to do with evolution. Why do you think it's not correct?
d) I agree. But I have studied these facts. You also don't have a basis to think I haven't.
B) Darwinian evolutions distinguishing difference is that it claims evolution has no limits. A very common way to test rival hypotheses is at the point where they begin to differ. Evolutionists cant just copy creation science, extrapolate and call that evidence when there is nothing that shows speciation beyond creation science limits. Evolution MUST show evidence of evolution beyond the family level before it becomes a theory.
it had become clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology. One of the key things you need to understand is this:
A) ALL speciation up to the family level falls entirely within Creationist science & was published LONG before Darwin.
Kidnapping-selling slaves by force was a capital crime(Ex 21:16). Thus nearly all slavery was BY CHOICE&a welfare system with the person in need working for his keep. It was limited to 7 years&if even a tooth were knocked out, slaves were freed (gigantic human rights compared to any other nation of the time&even these days) (Ex 21:26-27).
@scottpastry 1) creationism has for millenia presented fully testable evidence, much that has been published long before evolution even existed. Both biogenesis and speciation up to the family level are fully within creation science and published in scientific magazines LONG before Darwin.
2) the Bible does not teach an eternal hell. That came from the Greeks and some Christians followed it. It's a demonic doctrine, cruel and not biblical. Google helltruth and read the site.
@scottpastry oops, typing late at night, typo there...speciation up to the family level was part of Genesis and published by creation long before Darwin's book ever existed. All speciation up to the family level is proof of Genesis concepts, NOT Darwin's. There are many peer reviewed articles that give evidence for creation. Every time biogenesis or speciation is mentioned, those are things creationists spoke of LONG before evolutionists did.
@scottpastry I'm sorry, but A) peer review is not the ultimate arbiter of truth. It follows the establishments view VERY often and bans the publishing of many views which have evidence. I've documented cases of it in several areas of science, history and even language teaching. But, google and read these two articles:
1) "Q: Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?"
2) "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)"
no one denies that some scientists are creationists.
no one denies that creationist scientists have had work published in scientific journals.
but as of yet, no scientist has published workable, testable theories n a peer reviewed scientific journal.
the funny thing is, the moment anyone publishes anything that gives evidence (as seen as satisfactory by the scientific method) for creation, the science world will be all over it like a fat kid on a cup cake.
@scottpastry Read the articles listed and the titles. It is absolutely untrue that no creation science ideas have been published. And you must realize the enormous bias that exists as well. To publish anything with creationist ideas is like trying to publish something promoting democracy in North Korea. There's a grossly unjust bias and falsehod that just because something has connections to God, it can't be scientific. This is grossly untrue.
@scottpastry With due respect, you're making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions and just assuming that the establishment could not possibly be wrong, when we know for 100% fact that numerous times in history the establishment has been DEAD and COMPLETELY wrong and taught major scientific errors for decades and centuries. Biogenesis is fully testable, so is creationist speciation as is how strata is laid down&100s of other things Bible science-history teaches are fully tested and documented.
@dotoree i did not say abiogenesis couldnt be tested, i said it has not found to be verifiable thru testing.
and i know that the scientific world is currently wrong about a lot of things.
that is the beauty of science, it is emergent. it will always challange itself. it will always welcome an alternative theory that shows itself it disprove any previous understanding.
the science world will welcome any of your creation evidence.
@scottpastry I like your idealism on science&that's how it SHOULD work, but the fact is it doesn't work that way in all too many cases. It's not just in the creation evolution area. My mentor has been teaching linguistics for 26 years&is phenomenally successful with students, better than 1000s of other teachers I know. He has done solid research&top people in the field can't find any problem with it, but his research has been rejected countless times because it's disliked by the establishment.
@dotoree any issues your linguistics teacher has in publication is a reflection, good or bad, of the feld of linguistics itself and not reflective of an evolutionary or athiestic bias in either field.
@scottpastry any issues your linguistics teacher has in publication is a reflection, good or bad, of the feld of linguistics itself and not reflective of an evolutionary or athiestic bias in either field.
-
No, this is a symptomatic problem of the scientific establishment in numerous fields. Atheism and evolution are one of the most biased fields by far, but there is bias against evidence by many scientific establishments when that evidence goes past certain traditions and dogmas.
@scottpastry more specifically, give examples of versus that scientifically explain species variation , besides genesis 1:24. this verse is vague and far from unique or pioneering. if this verse shows some scientific knowledge of species variation because it descibes an observation, then any writings that pre date the writings of genesis, and are culturally isolated from the region such as china, describing any animal giving birth to the same animal, would be given credit for creation science
@scottpastry@scottpastry Google "Profile: Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom (Transcript)" for another well known case of someone being punished by the establishment for publishing something outside the establishment's dogma...and Sternberg isn't even a creationist or proponent of intelligent design. He just thought science was supposed to allow debate about testable facts. Sadly evolutionists can't tolerate fair debate or discussion of evidence. They suppress it in all sorts of ways.
@dotoree i have not even read it and i know he wasnt refused debate, he broke the scientific method at some point.
just like all the lecturers off expelled with ben stein. they were made out to have lost their jobs becuase of their creationist views, which was far from the case.
if you want to be considered part of the scientific world, then you follow the rules. if you cant folllow the rules then you exist in your own field. science is under no obligation to accpet non scientific claims.
@scottpastry You are believing FALSEHOODS very easily. And to say that you "know something" without even reading is just simply astounding. It is 100% certain that many have lost their jobs because of creationist views. I am in personal contact with Caroline Crocker (primary source evidence, not hearsay like you have). She was told directly by other faculty that her lectures were stopped solely because she criticized evolution (she didn't even teach creation).
@scottpastry Not qualified? She received an Associate of Arts from Des Moines Area Community College, a B.Sc. in microbiology and virology from University of Warwick, U.K. in 1979, an M.Sc. in medical microbiology from University of Birmingham, U.K in 1993, and a PhD in immunopharmacology from the University of Southampton, U.K. in 1999. Plus, she has written and published widely? What in the universe are you talking about, not qualified?
@scottpastry People HAVE followed the rules NUMEROUS times and been banned. You are simply naive if you think that scientists don't have bias against evidence that doesn't fit their worldview. Scientific history and the present in several areas gives us quite a number of examples of people who collected evidence, followed the scientific method perfectly and were rejected. I know PERSONALLY what my mentor did and his research which never ONCE broke any laws of science. OPEN YOUR EYES.
@scottpastry 1) Millions of firsthand witnesses are most certainly not anecdotal evidence (this term refers to rumors that you didn't personally witness or individual cases that conflict with numerous testable cases in research).
2) Hunger, poverty and relationships are most certainly topics scientists are DIRECTLY concerned with solving. Google and read about Norman Borlaug for example..one of the greatest scientists ever who sadly is mostly unknown.
@scottpastry I already gave you examples and I have more as well.
1) My mentor's scientific experiments in language learning
2) Nobel prize winner in physics complaining that facts that disagree with big bang are not allowed to be published (note that I actually think the big bang has significant evidence and btw, is one of the best evidences for God.)
3) Historians with evidence of ancient technology have had great difficulty publishing their evidence.
@dotoree these analogies are nothing like supernatural claims made by religon. all of these points involve physical materials which we are pretty good at determining where they exist, what they fix and what they might destroy.
this in no way resembles religous claims.
i challenge you to prove the non existence of any creation of the mind. any mythological creature, any god figure, unicorns etc.
@scottpastry Remember you made a general statement without any exceptions...that you can't prove a negative. We can and science often has done exactly that. So that claim of yours (that even several of the best atheist sites on the internet say is untrue), is not accurate or scientifically true. God is definitely also physical and part of our sensory world. And we have plenty of evidence for His existence from science, history, extremely credible witnesses, ESP. in contrast to atheism.
@scottpastry going by your method for disproving the exisitence of phlogiston, god does not exist.
-
HUH? It's NOT my method. What are you talking about? And the phlogistan experiment has zero connection to God's existence since we have tons of evidence, esp. from the historical method of his existence, but also from the scientific. So much so that Antony Flew,the world's foremost atheist for ~50 years, gave up atheism to believe in a creator.
@scottpastry you have not disproven any alternate god figure, and mythical creature, the yeti etc.
-
Seriously, you need to learn to compare evidence fairly. I know it's tempting to follow our opinions&biases instead of following the weight of evidence. But that's bias, not science.
A) Other supernatural forces DO exist.
B) If some god has no witnesses, no scientific knowledge way ahead of others, no major prophecies beyond human power, etc. there's no reason to believe it's real. Simple.
What people still go about with numerology? Please...
DearestyouXII 1 year ago
666 likes.........
ElementSid115 1 year ago
@ElementSid115 671 now. Enough with the superstitions.
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
@mmmmmarcus what superstitions? It is actually supposed to be 999, apparently, but I don't give a shit. Thought it was funny that all other videos where a lot higher on likes, but this one kept at it at 666...for a long time. Didn't find the need to explain myself any further, didn't think viewers were that stupid.
ElementSid115 1 year ago
@ElementSid115 Calm down.
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
@JiubLink There's far more empirical evidence for the Bible and it's science than there is for any naturalistic origin of life or Darwinian levels of evolution (family to kingdom speciation) that differ from prior creation science (species to ~family speciation).
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Empirical evidence?! HAH! Like what?? I doubt you know what that means, but if you do then you're a flat out liar in that comment.
seanotube85 1 year ago 4
Lot's slutty daughters... LOL
aconnecte 1 year ago 2
That was informational ! I never knew about this one.......... OOps gotta go.
pumpstations 1 year ago
The Average life expectancy was lower, so there were a higher percentage of adolescent males back then.
milascave 1 year ago
its bullshit that even the smallest most personal part of NORMAL life was in the bible and there are laws against them .
charliechickrox 1 year ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
2 minutes ago the Holy Ghost appeared to me last night, (or maybe it was the tooth fairy, it was too dark to tell.) anyway he told me to spread the word of Bob. Bob i said. and he said, "yes Bob, spread the word of Bob." then i said, "I'm ready, I'm ready." he said, "perfect, now spread the word." then he disappeared back into the closet. i still don't know what he meant.
oh man, that's one goofy ghost.
peace, lardo.
lardo444 1 year ago 4
excellent video!
pokerstaaars 1 year ago
after reading all of the comments for these videos i kind feel bad because i just thought the video was funny.
kazyBarbarian 1 year ago
Ha ha, this is a great series!
1974freud 1 year ago
Whoever says there is evidence for an invisible, mind-reading being whom you visit in an extra-dimensional invisible realm when you die if you believe in him ... is either lying, or delusional.
lesliekwan80 1 year ago
man i love this series.it educates people on how fucked up the bible really is.so many are quick to say,"oh,i've read the bible",yet ask them about the stories you point out in this series and they think you're just making it up to discredit
InSinGrin 1 year ago
we are lot's daughters, and we are virgins,...maybe you could change that....biblically?,..come let us know each other,
with that script never have been so LOLed!
kevin080592 1 year ago
Ffs. Another debate about religion. Muslims, christians, scientologists...whatever. Please know you're wrong. The End
lol
marinos1977 1 year ago
I wish God wouldn't worry so much about people being "unclean" in this fashion and more about poverty and disease. Certainly it is more important.
Abena20 1 year ago
God's economic systems is infinitely better than communism, capitalism and socialism and easily eliminates all poverty (of the hunger, homelessness type). It basically says that all natural resources weren't made by any person and so should be shared with all people so that all have a chance to make a good life and can work to support their basic needs. But, if you work hard, you can get wealthy, so free enterprise is admired.
dotoree 1 year ago
@Abena20 God's instructions about things being "unclean" were almost always directly related to health. Unclean things were very unhealthy. People who follow the Bible's instructions about unclean and clean things in eating habits for example, live 10 years longer than others do on average. Google Buettner and "How to live to 100" for an example of that, minute 11+. On poverty, there are over 2000 verses in the Bible speaking of how to eliminate poverty and an entire economic system.
dotoree 1 year ago
What langiuage is that spoken?
MinisterKGB 1 year ago
@MinisterKGB - It's real Aramaic ... the words are in that language, but that's not how it actually translates.
43alley 1 year ago
"He shall not come within the camp." Correct me if I'm wrong, but... yeah. He did come in the camp. ; )
Gotta love how the visiting Yahweh hates spuge so much. I'd think it'd remind him of heaven... all white and sticky.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
"He shall not come within the camp." Correct me if I'm wrong, but ... yeah. He did come in the camp. ; )
Gotta love how the visiting Yahweh hates spuge so much. I'd think it'd remind him of heaven... all white and sticky.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwww..............O_o
christianshounen101 1 year ago
FAGWADS, all this means is that back in those times, they could not put their clothes in the hamper and wait for their moms to do the laundry. They probably wore the same sheets of clothing for many days, so it seems pretty logical to me to wash your sheets and yourself with water. Why would you want to be walking around with dry cum stains on your sheets of clothing? Also, they didnt have toilets back then, so why wouldnt you dig and bury your feces? Would you rather just leave it there?
duttybachelor 1 year ago
LMFAO This shit is just too funny
Angel0Martinez 1 year ago
Cant believe I'm getting aroused by cartoon women! They are pretty fit though!
jackfin 1 year ago
Trying to go point-by-point through the bible is like trying to refute the lessons in an episode of Barney and Friends. WE know it is fake, you just look foolish by taking it seriously enough that you feel you need to point out the problems with in.
basque5150 1 year ago
@basque5150
That's a really, really stupid position to take. There is an extremely good reason why atheists take the time to analyse the Bible...because millions of Christians are convinced that it is a "perfect" book, and the best possible guide for any and all life choices. The only way that is EVER going to change is if the Bible is exposed, through well-informed critiques, for what it is - a book filled with fallacies, inconsistencies and appalling examples of immorality.
garethac81 1 year ago 2
@basque5150
Seriously, what alternative are you suggesting here? That no one should bother paying any attention to the Bible "cos it's silly"? Do you really think that attitude is going to present even the slightest challenge to the millions of Christians who have convinced themselves it is the perfect word of God? If we all had your ignorant attitude, the Bible's "perfection" and "holy truth" would go unchallenged and unargued indefinitely. How would you feel about that, genius?
garethac81 1 year ago
@basque5150 I'm sorry but you don't "KNOW" the Bible is fake. You believe propaganda machines that distort and lie, cherry pick and use double standards ad infinitum. The Bible has had billions of testable confirmations of quite a number of its scientific claims. In addition, the Bible gives ~10 years extra life to those who follow it's health principles which were millenia ahead of any scientists. National Geographic, NIH, Bluezones and others confirm this.
dotoree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dotoree "I'm sorry but you don't "KNOW" the Bible is fake. You believe propaganda machines that distort and lie, cherry pick and use double standards ad infinitum"
lol how ironic..... double standards are the zeolots best friend.
"The Bible has had billions of testable confirmations of quite a number of its scientific claims"
now who is distorting? where is this catalogue of scientific claims? and billions of testable confirmations to match?
scottpastry 1 year ago
@dotoree Yeah all that stone throwing is good exercise. Dotoree's insight into why we live twice as long as people did 2000 years ago. "God done it" Such a brilliant mind, he lives in a dirt floored hovel and buries his crap in the backyard just like they did back then. When he gets sick he anoints himself with precious oils because they knew so much more than we do. I wonder when Gods going to get pissed about our tall building trying to reach heaven and make us all speak in COBAL?
crossoldman 1 year ago 7
If I were a christian or a jew I wouldn´t be proud for this kind of lessons to be on my guide book for morals and ethics.-
MartinGianola 1 year ago
God has too much time on his hands lol
fallbread 1 year ago
come know us...biblically
zanzibartraveler09 1 year ago
LOL god doesnt like stepping in shit when he comes to give marching orders.
veganslayer1 1 year ago 4
cool
RRSAlabama 2 years ago
i dont get it....
Zkrudriverz 2 years ago
Good thing these laws don't apply anymore. Think what an impact on global warming all that traveling would have had :)
Xigano1 2 years ago
this was to keep them clean i don't want semen and poo in my camp nether
mhorsebmouse 2 years ago
Hahahahahaha, God hates poo and semen.
arisechicken82 2 years ago 3
@arisechicken82 Um, no. God doesn't hate any material thing. He hates things that harm his creations. And he warns us to stay away from certain things and certain practices because they are harmful and he stated that this was the reason for many of his rules. God knows which things are healthy and which cause disease and like any good parent tells us what to avoid if we want to avoid suffering.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree he is all powerful right? why doesnt he get rid of the harmful things to man if he is so loving and benevolent?? just like any good parent that had the power to remove something that may harm their childs life??
only bullies like your god threaten.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry only bullies like your god threaten.
-
Wrong. I'm a professor in a university and I tell me students all the time that if they don't know certain material, they won't get a good grade and maybe won't pass. Governments make punishments from crimes. It has NOTHING to do with bullying, but with justice. Same with God. If you can't understand that, there's probably no point in talking.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree you give examples of justice against a crime determined acceptable by a majority of society. the worst and most extreme of which would be the ending of a finite life (which god endorses consistently anyway)
god threatens frivolous crimes with eternal suffering, exponentially worse dont you think??
scottpastry 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Law in Deut. 23 is important for cleansing which is what all of the different ceremonial and levitical laws are about.
It is important to understand how this
applies to the absolute Holiness of God
and the imperfection and depravity of human kind (let alone the hygene ramifications). The way in which this video presents it incorrectly is just indicative of more straw man than an
attempt to understand what is really
going on with these laws.
Breckmin 2 years ago
I presented it the way it's written your old book ... word for word.
Your old book spends more time being specific on the rules of nocturnal emissions than it does telling its followers to not abuse children.
A moral person not brainwashed in this religion would find that repulsive.
43alley 2 years ago 23
@43alley Your book spends more time being specific on the rules of nocturnal emissions than telling its followers to not abuse children.
-
This is blatantly untrue. Ephesians 6:4 Fathers,do not exasperate your children. Colossians 3:21 Fathers,do not embitter your children,or they will become discouraged. Many others in stories, laws against incest, and verses such as 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 4:8 Proverbs 3:11-12, 1 Timothy 3:12.
dotoree 1 year ago
@43alley A moral person not brainwashed in this religion
-
A moral person would not be brainwashing people with straw men and myriad false representations as you are doing, misunderstanding vocabulary, cherry picking, ignoring completely everything positive and the millions if not billions of lives the Bible's science has saved, the MANY human rights it pioneered and much more.
dotoree 1 year ago
do tell... what is going on with these laws? And... wasn't it god that created us to poop and have nocturnal emission? Is he really offended by these? If so... it must be a design flaw that he couldn't correct...
I don't remember who said it... but to put the waste land so close to the pleasure dome... is clearly a mistake on god's part!!!
chyrd 2 years ago
you can interpret it and cherry pick all you want..youre still an idiot if you subscribe to this.
EnergonCubed 2 years ago
yea just like all those idiots who cherry pick from hitler's leadership. he did so many great things for german people (fanta, VW)!! and the people who cherry pick the information when judging child molesters. it's not like they spend ALL their time doing bad stuff.
zanzibartraveler09 1 year ago
God is not "outside of time." Being beyond the limitations of time and 3 dimensional spatial existence is being transcendent and being omnipresent in time..NOT outside of it.
Furthermore, Theophanies and Christophanies in the Old Testament which refer to the Lord "walking" among the people are finite Manifestations of the
Creator at a single location of the universe (earth) and do NOT mean that God ceased to exist as Infinite Creator throughout all of time and infinite 3 dimensional existence
Breckmin 2 years ago
I guess God had to make these rules so he wouldn't step in human dung if he walked around at night. He probably didn't want to get sticky fingers if he touched semen.
Actually they are good health rules, but I wonder why they were having so many wet dreams. Could it be sexual repression?
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago 6
there's a difference between making observations and making random accusations about somebody being gay or perverted when there is no evidence make such a claim.
You, however, show your intellectual prowess (or lack there of) with every comment you post.
Poeticnuisance 2 years ago
My now arent you the model of the upstanding christian? No real argument to make, I see. I'll guess you're about 12, maybe 14 tops, judging by your vocabulary.
Poeticnuisance 2 years ago 2
hahahah i love the "thumbs up" at the end xD
i
NeigeNoSora 2 years ago
How the hell does god find shit unclean when he made it? Damn if Christians believe this story they are fucking stupid.
Drealist87 2 years ago 18
@Drealist87How the hell does god find shit unclean when he made it?
-
A) The Bible never says God made it. It's likely that it was put into our biology as a consequence of sin to get rid of harmful agents. But, it's not said in the Bible.
B) Unclean in the Bible sense often means unhealthy and if you think "dung" is clean...you would fit right in with the middle age people who caused the bubonic plague, etc.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree No it was simply a metaphor. The bible was forshadowing jesus as shit, and no more helpful shit.
God knows which things are healthy and which cause disease and like any good parent tells us what to avoid if we want to avoid suffering.
Really!? wow where in the bible does god discuss the dangers of parastic, microbial, or invisible contraction of diseases?
freeofjesus 1 year ago
@dotoree hahaha the bible never said god made it??
but god made everything, right?
fail.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry No, God did NOT make everything. He didn't make the internet (although he made the materials for it). He didn't make sin, suffering, or invent any type of crime or harmful thing. As to his power. He could easily force everyone to do anything he wanted, but doing that would be slavery and God has decided to give all people freedom to choose, but that also has consequences.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree so god didnt create everythng?? so he is not omnipotent??
and he gives you laws that are punishible by eternal suffering yet you think you have a choice?? interesting........
god endorses slavery.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry God not creating everything has nothing to do with him being omnipotent or not. No, he most certainly did not create all things, such as the idea of murder or any crime, etc. Also on slavery btw, it was voluntary before, FAR better than most welfare systems these days which take money from hardworking people to pay to people who don't work and also "slaves" (more accurate term would be servants) could redeem themselves when they wanted to and go free.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree it has everything to do with omnipotence. if you are all powerful then you can add or remove anything you want to something you created, whether it be good or bad. your god chooses to allow suffering when its within his powers to remove it.
not very nice.
didnt invent murder?? he commands characters in the bible to murder others consistently!!
slavery in certain circumstances amongst hebrews was voluntary.... but for non-hebrews it was as bad as any modern day system!!
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry The Bible predicted that there would be many false doctrines taught by churches in latter times, just as happened all through Bible times. I DO talk to other Christians about this. But, there are a number of denominations that understand the truth on this. Malachi 4:1-4 states clearly that those who insisnt on disobedience will become ashes..not burning forever. The words forever and eternal can mean as long as life lasts in English-Hebrew, just like "I will love you forever".
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry Yes, God chooses to allow suffering, because he's got a universe to think about...and Satan challenged God's govt. of the UNIVERSE. This is not just an issue with one tiny planet. It's a universe. And God suffers far more than anyone here can possibly imagine..both in sending his son to suffere AND everytime one of his children is hurt...it tears his heart apart. But, the universe must see the results of Satan's style of govt. and make a final decision on that.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree in his omnipotence, god could remove satan as a threat and source of misery. funnily enough this would alleviate his own suffering. yet.......
and why does god require the torturing of himself to forgive himself? rather self defeating.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Yes, God could kill off Satan easily. True. But that would not end the question that Satan was asking, "Is God's government the best way for the universe." The only way to answer that kind of question is to see the fruits of each philosophy raw. And sadly many people in this earth have chosen to follow Satan's destructive philosophy that causes so much suffering and misery. But, the demonstration is nearing the end&the universe has pretty much decided&soon humanity will too.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree even if i was to concur to your reasoning here, if god was truly benevolent, he would accept people who made the wrong choices and chose satan, back into the realms of heaven once they had the chance to compare both governments to the full. the idea that a perfectly reasoned god would expect his creations to make such important decisions based on cryptic doctrines that even you say cant be followed literally, is totally unreasonable and far from intelligent or benevolent.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry I never said the Bible's doctrines were cryptic nor did I say they can't be followed literally. I said ALL language has literal and idiomatic elements and we must use common sense and study of background, context, etc. in other languages as we do in our own to understand the meaning, which is not hard. The problem with letting people into heaven who have intentionally rejected truth, science&evidence is that they could easily rebel and start the whole sin thing all over again.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry No, God did not invent murder. Satan was the one who inspired the first murder by Cain. In a few VERY RARE situations God does end life as a form of justice and it's called his strange act, that he hates. It's completely untrue that he consistently commands characters to murder. But, in the few cases he does, in the long run it actually saves a lot more lives..sort of like killing Hitler before he could kill 10 million people.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry re slavery, there's a problem with your theory (btw, why do you atheists ALWAYS assume the WORST about the Bible???). Kidnapping anyone (not just Hebrews) was a capital crime. And God SEVERAL times explicitly ordered Israel NOT to oppress foreigners remembering how they had been cruelly oppressed by the Egyptians. 1 example--
“You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt." Exodus 22:21
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree i am agnostic.
i dont assume the worst of the bible . i acknowledge there are good parts. but i read it on face value, without interpretation and judge it as such.
one big problem with it is its full of contradictions. any group which wishes to be taken seriously by its literature would do well to fix that.
i acknowledge the quote, however there are several slavery rules that god condones that would indeed be judged as oppressing people.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry No, the Bible does not give detailed descriptions of how biogenesis, speciation, diet, exercise, blood, bacteria etc. and other things work. But, it clearly and specifically outlined these and many other things or had to understand them in order to make the rules that are so practical that even today when people follow them, they add 10 years of life to people compared to the average. Google buettner "how to live to 100" and see minute 11 for evidence of this.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree one cannot assume that because parts of a certain literature recommend humans eat food, stay clean and stay active as a method of survival, that the authors had some unique and enlightened insight into positive human lifestyle void elsewhere.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Scott, that is a HUGE straw man of the extremely specific recommendations that the Bible listed. The fact is this. Moses was educated by the Egyptians. But, what he wrote did not follow what he learned from them, NOR did it follow any other wisdom that existed for the last 3000 years. Some things he wrote also required knowledge of bacteria&disease transmission& similar things you can't know without modern microscopes&similar tools. This is SOLID evidence of higher intelligence.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree can you give me some versus to look at??
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry In addition, Moses himself testified that the ideas were not his, and that is OBVIOUS since almost nothing he wrote had any similarity to the education he received. When this happens in regular history and a credible historian who has been documented as accurate 100s and 1000s of times says something, he is usually given some respect for what he says. But some people prefer to dismiss facts&evidence because of their apriori materialistic assumptions. I hope you aren't so dishonest.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree in fact no historian is given particular credibility over any other. and it is totally reasonable to doubt the validity of any literature.
the thing about most historic authors tho, is that most make claims that are verifiable through other means, or make unremarkable claims that warrant no special investigation one way or the other, due to the claims lack of real importance.
however, when extraordinary claims are mad, such as those of moses, they require extraordinary evidence.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Yes, historians who have a good track record ARE given the benefit of the doubt when they talk about things which we have no physical evidence for. Many things in our history books are based SOLELY on the testimony of historians who have been checked out with physical evidence in other areas and been proven accurate time and time again and so are considered credible.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree list one historian with a good track record who is given the benefit of the doubt and specifically in which context are they being given favour by way of credibility in the realms of science?
many historians accounts are taken on face value because
a. they dont make scientific claims. if they did and they were false they would not be given the benefit of the doubt.
b. they dont make extra ordinary claims.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry @scottpastry Maybe this was not clear. I didn't say that historians who have a good track record are given the benefit of the doubt when they make scientific claims. I said that when historians make claims on things we can check and are consistently accurate, we generally consider their testimony valid for things they say they've witnessed or have talked to witnesses about that we can't check until we have evidence otherwise. It's sort of the innocent until proven guilty thing.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry No,extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. That's a textbook double standard of enormous proportions and reveals apriori materialistic bias more than anything else. But, IF you are to follow that logical fallacy, the very first thing that it should be applied to is abiogenesis and atheism since we don't have even ONE case of life coming from non-life. That's certainly extraordinary. 2nd it should be applied to evolution which also has no testable evidence.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree of course its bias!! thats the whole point...
otherwise one would take anything said on face value and this would be a poor method of analysis.
athiesm and abiogenesis should not be compared, they describe totally different things.
atiesm is a lack of a position. any positive claim made by an athiest, such as there is no god, is a faith claim, and non representative of the term itself.
abiogenesis is a theory that is still yet to be found verifiable thru testing.
scottpastry 1 year ago
Historically, atheism was an aggressive denial that God's exist. Look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy and many other sources that document it's history. It's only in the last few decades that atheists have diluted the definition since they want to convert people without having to provide evidence that they know doesn't exist. There is no evidence for evolution's major distinguishing claim, that life evolved past the family,phyla&even kingdom boundaries to produce all life on earth.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry Bias is not science. It's excluding legitimate theories from investigation, publication apriori for reasons that have nothing to do with science (money, politics, prejudice, etc.). Atheism is not the lack of a position or lack of belief. That's a modern dilution due to the fact that they can find not even one testable evidence of life from non-life (as in abiogenesis) & want to avoid being required to provide scientific evidence for their beliefs.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree science is biased. it is biased towards evidence. any benefit of the doubt they are given is purely anecdotal and nothing more.
athiesm has nothing to do with evolution. you are confusing 2 totally differnet fields.
an athiest will never be able to provide evidence for their beliefs, as no one in recorded history has suceesssfully proved a negative.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry I'm sorry, but it's just not true that the scientific establishment is biased towards evidence in all cases. Sometimes it is, but many have experiences bias against their evidence and bans from presenting evidence for a variety of reasons. We have many indisputable cases where it has not been. I suggest you read the seminal work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, professor at 3 Ivy league universities for many good examples of this.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry On Hovind and taxes, Hovind & others Christian &secular think that the IRS system has no constitutional right to tax people and was never given this right by Congress or something like that. The Bible tells us to pay taxes, so what he did has nothing to do with the Bible & I don't support what he did. Google paynoincometax to see some of the arguments they make.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree i am weel aware of the issues of legitimacy of the IRS. however this is still a hypocritical position to take, judging some laws as immutable and others as ok to break. peope in galss houses shouldnt throw stones.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry this is still a hypocritical position to take, judging some laws as immutable and others as ok to break. peope in galss houses shouldnt throw stones.
-
Sorry, but no it's not. And I say this as someone who can't stand some of the political conservatives, esp. Glenn Beck's infotainment train of lies. LOVE John Stewart's the Daily Show exposes of him and others. But, the issue is constitutionality. If it's constitional, it's a law. If it's unconstitutional, it's illegal.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree he was free to move to another country with laws that suited him better. he chose to be deceitful.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry he was free to move to another country with laws that suited him better. he chose to be deceitful.
-
I am not a supporter of Hovind's or his tax stances. But, when anyone, Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative, capitalist or communist is falsely maligned, I will confront those falsehoods. Hovind's problem is not deceit. It's that he believed people who said the govt. has no constitutional right to tax people and esp. religious organizations.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry Others have protested laws that were unjust...for heaven's sake, America's war for independence was almost totally in reaction to tax laws they thought were unjust. Then there is M. L. King&breaking the segregation laws& others. I don't think Hovind's decision to resist was wise. But, if he or an atheist or anyone is doing this because they think it's unconstitutional, then it's just not honest to say it's because of deceit whether we agree or disagree with their position.
dotoree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scottpastry athiesm has nothing to do with evolution. you are confusing 2 totally different fields.
-
No, I'm not confusing different fields. Those 2 ARE different, but atheism if it expects to be taken as anything rational, HAS to provide MORE evidence than the billions of evidence the Bible has from science&history, evidence that life can occur and develop without intelligence. Evolution&abiogenis are at present the only hypotheses that have a chance of helping it become rational.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree as for no evidence for evolution... you cannot be at a secular university and be a creationist without blindfolding yourself to the repeatable testable evidence for evolution at your school. or for that matter in applications on a daily basis throughout society.
look in youtube for "kent hovind vs molecular geneticist"
i am not saying you support hovind, but the caller makes a good point.
scottpastry 1 year ago
Major portions of science came from creation science&are extremely valuable or money saving already.
2) Kent Hovind is low level creationist but did gather a lot of scientific evidence & makes some good points. But, I don't consider him to be anywhere close to the best creationists who have ph.ds from top level universities &haven't even listened to him for years and years. He also made some mistakes with taxes etc. that are problematic.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree i wasnt referring to hovind himself. i was simply showing the callers point. not only isevolutionary theory used in applications on a daily basis, scientists are still waiting to be told exactly what real applications are to be discovered thru the study of creation?
yes he avoided taxes but so do secularists so its hardly relevent, except that, ironically, he preached from such a virtuous standpoint.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Many people define things wrongly. I'll try to make it clear again.
1) Creation theory says speciation can occur up to the family level. ALL speciation up to the family level is creation science and has been so since long before Darwin. EVERYTHING the caller called evolution actually is a part of creation science, EVERYTHING..evolutionists plagiarize and try to take credit for creation science.
2) Darwinian evolution's unique idea is evolution WAY past the family boundary.
dotoree 1 year ago
More exactly, we now say that oxygen is a better explanation of burning than phlogiston, because the first fits all the facts while the second does not.” Pasteur’s famous experiments on spontaneous generation were also directly in proving a negative, that spontaneous generation is not true and doesn’t occur and that life can’t come into being from non-living things like trash. Many aspects of science are directly involved in disproving concepts positive or negative.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry re proving a negative,science sometimes progresses by doing precisely that Ex-in falsification.
"It is by constructing possible models of a phenomena(a hypothesis),&then testing them(falsification),that we advance &build on the knowledge we already have. By doing so,we prove many negatives. We came to the conclusion that oxygen is the necessary gas in burning because we were first able to disprove the existence of phlogiston,which was the reigning scientific position at the time.”
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree no thats testing and proving an alternative positive claim.
how can you disprove the existence of phlogiston without applying the same method to the existence of god?
they looked for phlogiston, they didnt find it, they decided it didnt exist.
no one has shown imperical evidence for the existence of god, so it must not exist, right?
to disagree with this god statement you must also acknowledge that no evidence has been found for the non existence of phlogiston. cant have it both ways
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry No, it's NOT a positive claim (although many positive and negative claims are easily reversible). The anti-phlogistanists hypothesized that phlogistan was NOT (negative) given off in combustion&rusting. They tested this by weighing EVERYTHING in the experiments, even the gases and found out that after combustion&rusting rust weighed more than iron, meaning that phlogistan if it was involved would have to have a negative weight. THEN they looked for a better explanation.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry re-geneticist video.
1) This geneticist like most scientists are not told the truth. All speciation up to the family level is a CREATIONIST theory&published long before Darwin. NONE can be attributed to Darwinian theory(the difference is that Darwinian theory hypothesizes that speciation goes WAY past the family boundary). EVERYTHING he talks about fits in creation science. Evolution has actually hindered scientific understanding in significant ways.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree like he said, prove it wrong, which you sound comfortable in doing, and not only will you be financially supported by the science community for the rest of your life, you will win a nobel prize.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Prove what wrong? Evolutionists bear the burden of proof for proving that speciation can produce life that changes way past the family boundary. They don't have one case so far. That scientists and many others are not told the indisputable facts of history...that all speciation and variations up to the family level are creation science and have nothing to do with proving Darwinian evolution whatsoever.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree what are the specific versus that you claim that show the bibles unique scientific perspective.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry as in Evolution has no testable evidence of the major unique idea of Darwin--that speciation has no biological limits whatsoever and that life can adapt past the family boundary. The only evidence it has is extremely speculative...worse than that of spontaneous generation, such as speculating on ancestry based on location of burial...utterly ridiculous...no one thinks that tools buried in similar layers gave birth to each other, or that all in cemeteries are closely related.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree cont... the TED talk is good, and i will not argue that the bible contains some passages that may speak of certain positive lifestyle traits. however, the fact that similar unusually high life expectancy rates can also be found in isolated and non christian regions such as okinawa, is evidence against the claim that christian doctrine has some special insight into human longevity and positive lifestyle.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Sorry for misjudging you as an atheist. By reading the Bible at "face value" do you mean literally? If you do that, you can get into all sorts of misunderstanding. I am writing a book now which has 300 pages of translations from English to Korean. I've found all sorts of mistakes with literal translations, some quite humorous. Literal translations OFTEN distort the intention of the author. At present, I would FIRE any translators who uses only a literal translation method.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry Some things can be translated literally and they're very well and good...but others just don't work. For example, translating "It's raining cats and dogs" literally into other languages would be ludicrous. Even the same words have different connotations. Pumpkin means ugly in Korea, but cute in English. God explicitly stated there was to be NO oppression of foreigners. That's very explicit. There were cases of justice-punishment also. But, no oppression was condoned.
dotoree 1 year ago
@Drealist87 It is the waste in your body. Why would waste be clean?
duttybachelor 1 year ago
"Tell me why you discard every other religion's gods and I shall tell you why I discard yours.."
aaa nice atheist wisdom
joresgon 2 years ago 4
@joresgon lol atheist wisdom? that's an oxymoron. Atheists are just as blinded by fancy quotes and "charismatic" leaders as Christians are.
Get a life, or a college degree.
basque5150 1 year ago
@basque5150 you call me blind?!?! ok lets see who is blind, the ignorant fool who follows something without any facts or proof just because a book written by superstitious fools which also has been edited and traduced at convenience by more superstitious fools to brainwash more ignorant fools, or the "oxymoron" atheist who seeks answers in already proven facts, and even more, keeps questioning those facts? BTW I already have a college degree...get out of your delusion...
joresgon 1 year ago
@joresgon OK, what are a few of the "proven facts" you are talking about?
basque5150 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joresgon Atheist wisdom? What an oxymoron. Atheists are just as blinded by catchy quotes and "charismatic" leaders as Christians are.
Get a life, or at least an education.
basque5150 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joresgon "Tell me why you discard every other religion's gods and I shall tell you why I discard yours.."
aaa nice atheist wisdom
--
For the SAME reason that there are many scientific hypotheses, but many turn out wrong, but a few or only one turns out to be correct. The evidence from science, history,etc. for Christianity is FAR stronger than any other religion, bar none.
dotoree 1 year ago
right ok
kendrawhisp 2 years ago
You know, I really don't think America has forsaken God. I think the problem is too many true believers trying to push biblical law into public policy. Well funded fundies, if you like.
bluebeard2 2 years ago
@bluebeard2 I think the problem is too many true believers trying to push biblical law into public policy.
-
Have you ever wondered why it is that America was a world leader in many areas in the 1st part of the last century, but now that evolution has been indoctrinated into millions of us and creation banned completely, we've lost our place in many of the sciences, etc? And I thought atheists valued free speech. My bad.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
a) Creationism is definitely bullshit. There's not a zack of evidence in its favour. It's a populist religious movement
b) America has not lost its place in the sciences, other than to say your high schools are shit.
c) You lost 1st place in particle physics because you let the Europeans build the LHC without you guys building a competing accelerator.
d) Japan gives you a run for your money because they have so many hard working, educated people.
Let me know if that makes sense.
bluebeard2 1 year ago
@bluebeard2 A) Since you have obviously never studied ANY of the evidence, you are not qualified to judge. Creationism has billions of testable confirmations of it's claims and that's indisputable.
B) You don't know facts. Korea where I teach beats the pants of American high school students.
C) America lost for a LOT of reasons...one being that it spent trillions on the nonsense of evolution.
You will never be able to make an intelligent judgement until you have studied facts on both sides.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
a) Please, direct me to the evidence in favour of creationsim.
b) We aren't talking about high school students, we're talking about science. So here's facts. World Development Index rates the US as the 6th biggest R&D spender as a percentage of GDP. None of the other superpowers are ahead of it.
c) No, nothing to do with evolution. Why do you think it's not correct?
d) I agree. But I have studied these facts. You also don't have a basis to think I haven't.
bluebeard2 1 year ago
@bluebeard2
B) Darwinian evolutions distinguishing difference is that it claims evolution has no limits. A very common way to test rival hypotheses is at the point where they begin to differ. Evolutionists cant just copy creation science, extrapolate and call that evidence when there is nothing that shows speciation beyond creation science limits. Evolution MUST show evidence of evolution beyond the family level before it becomes a theory.
dotoree 1 year ago
it had become clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology. One of the key things you need to understand is this:
A) ALL speciation up to the family level falls entirely within Creationist science & was published LONG before Darwin.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree there is no creationist science until creationists present scientifically scrutinised evidence.
scottpastry 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kidnapping-selling slaves by force was a capital crime(Ex 21:16). Thus nearly all slavery was BY CHOICE&a welfare system with the person in need working for his keep. It was limited to 7 years&if even a tooth were knocked out, slaves were freed (gigantic human rights compared to any other nation of the time&even these days) (Ex 21:26-27).
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry 1) creationism has for millenia presented fully testable evidence, much that has been published long before evolution even existed. Both biogenesis and speciation up to the family level are fully within creation science and published in scientific magazines LONG before Darwin.
2) the Bible does not teach an eternal hell. That came from the Greeks and some Christians followed it. It's a demonic doctrine, cruel and not biblical. Google helltruth and read the site.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree evidence presented long before evolution existed??
you highlight you lack of knowledge of evolution and its existence since the beginning of the universe.
please give me the link to ONE credible peer reviewed scientific journal that gives evidence of creationism.
the bible speaks of eternal hell to many times to mention.
so do the spokespeople of your religon.....
if you think its a 'cruel' concept then perhaps you should voice your opinion within your church and not to non believers
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry oops, typing late at night, typo there...speciation up to the family level was part of Genesis and published by creation long before Darwin's book ever existed. All speciation up to the family level is proof of Genesis concepts, NOT Darwin's. There are many peer reviewed articles that give evidence for creation. Every time biogenesis or speciation is mentioned, those are things creationists spoke of LONG before evolutionists did.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree the bible does not give scientific explanations for biogenesis or speciation. at best it vaguely covers the concepts of generations.
you want to understand how these things work? ... you go to a science book, which do not mention biblical creation.
please point to peer reviewed articles proving creation.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry I'm sorry, but A) peer review is not the ultimate arbiter of truth. It follows the establishments view VERY often and bans the publishing of many views which have evidence. I've documented cases of it in several areas of science, history and even language teaching. But, google and read these two articles:
1) "Q: Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?"
2) "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)"
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
1. as to humphreys article..
no one denies that some scientists are creationists.
no one denies that creationist scientists have had work published in scientific journals.
but as of yet, no scientist has published workable, testable theories n a peer reviewed scientific journal.
the funny thing is, the moment anyone publishes anything that gives evidence (as seen as satisfactory by the scientific method) for creation, the science world will be all over it like a fat kid on a cup cake.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Read the articles listed and the titles. It is absolutely untrue that no creation science ideas have been published. And you must realize the enormous bias that exists as well. To publish anything with creationist ideas is like trying to publish something promoting democracy in North Korea. There's a grossly unjust bias and falsehod that just because something has connections to God, it can't be scientific. This is grossly untrue.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree im sure ideas have been published..... but no testable theories.
the day creationists do that, they will be welcomed into its very discriminatory world.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry With due respect, you're making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions and just assuming that the establishment could not possibly be wrong, when we know for 100% fact that numerous times in history the establishment has been DEAD and COMPLETELY wrong and taught major scientific errors for decades and centuries. Biogenesis is fully testable, so is creationist speciation as is how strata is laid down&100s of other things Bible science-history teaches are fully tested and documented.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree i did not say abiogenesis couldnt be tested, i said it has not found to be verifiable thru testing.
and i know that the scientific world is currently wrong about a lot of things.
that is the beauty of science, it is emergent. it will always challange itself. it will always welcome an alternative theory that shows itself it disprove any previous understanding.
the science world will welcome any of your creation evidence.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry I like your idealism on science&that's how it SHOULD work, but the fact is it doesn't work that way in all too many cases. It's not just in the creation evolution area. My mentor has been teaching linguistics for 26 years&is phenomenally successful with students, better than 1000s of other teachers I know. He has done solid research&top people in the field can't find any problem with it, but his research has been rejected countless times because it's disliked by the establishment.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree any issues your linguistics teacher has in publication is a reflection, good or bad, of the feld of linguistics itself and not reflective of an evolutionary or athiestic bias in either field.
scottpastry 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scottpastry any issues your linguistics teacher has in publication is a reflection, good or bad, of the feld of linguistics itself and not reflective of an evolutionary or athiestic bias in either field.
-
No, this is a symptomatic problem of the scientific establishment in numerous fields. Atheism and evolution are one of the most biased fields by far, but there is bias against evidence by many scientific establishments when that evidence goes past certain traditions and dogmas.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree give examples of evidence ignored by the science world.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry more specifically, give examples of versus that scientifically explain species variation , besides genesis 1:24. this verse is vague and far from unique or pioneering. if this verse shows some scientific knowledge of species variation because it descibes an observation, then any writings that pre date the writings of genesis, and are culturally isolated from the region such as china, describing any animal giving birth to the same animal, would be given credit for creation science
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry @scottpastry Google "Profile: Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom (Transcript)" for another well known case of someone being punished by the establishment for publishing something outside the establishment's dogma...and Sternberg isn't even a creationist or proponent of intelligent design. He just thought science was supposed to allow debate about testable facts. Sadly evolutionists can't tolerate fair debate or discussion of evidence. They suppress it in all sorts of ways.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree i have not even read it and i know he wasnt refused debate, he broke the scientific method at some point.
just like all the lecturers off expelled with ben stein. they were made out to have lost their jobs becuase of their creationist views, which was far from the case.
if you want to be considered part of the scientific world, then you follow the rules. if you cant folllow the rules then you exist in your own field. science is under no obligation to accpet non scientific claims.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry You are believing FALSEHOODS very easily. And to say that you "know something" without even reading is just simply astounding. It is 100% certain that many have lost their jobs because of creationist views. I am in personal contact with Caroline Crocker (primary source evidence, not hearsay like you have). She was told directly by other faculty that her lectures were stopped solely because she criticized evolution (she didn't even teach creation).
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree why was she teaching something she was not qualified in?
fired.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Not qualified? She received an Associate of Arts from Des Moines Area Community College, a B.Sc. in microbiology and virology from University of Warwick, U.K. in 1979, an M.Sc. in medical microbiology from University of Birmingham, U.K in 1993, and a PhD in immunopharmacology from the University of Southampton, U.K. in 1999. Plus, she has written and published widely? What in the universe are you talking about, not qualified?
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree lol she should have been fired. she was not teaching the curriculum the school required of her!!
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry People HAVE followed the rules NUMEROUS times and been banned. You are simply naive if you think that scientists don't have bias against evidence that doesn't fit their worldview. Scientific history and the present in several areas gives us quite a number of examples of people who collected evidence, followed the scientific method perfectly and were rejected. I know PERSONALLY what my mentor did and his research which never ONCE broke any laws of science. OPEN YOUR EYES.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree just give one example. not anecdotal evidence of plenty of cases.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry 1) Millions of firsthand witnesses are most certainly not anecdotal evidence (this term refers to rumors that you didn't personally witness or individual cases that conflict with numerous testable cases in research).
2) Hunger, poverty and relationships are most certainly topics scientists are DIRECTLY concerned with solving. Google and read about Norman Borlaug for example..one of the greatest scientists ever who sadly is mostly unknown.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree scientists are directly involved with solving relationships??
exactly which versus from the bible are going to give scientists a unique insight into solving such problems, that they dont know now??
scottpastry 1 year ago
@dotoree
So many witnesses but still nothing empirical... forgive me, but am I a fool because this arouses suspicion ?
JiubLink 1 year ago
@scottpastry I already gave you examples and I have more as well.
1) My mentor's scientific experiments in language learning
2) Nobel prize winner in physics complaining that facts that disagree with big bang are not allowed to be published (note that I actually think the big bang has significant evidence and btw, is one of the best evidences for God.)
3) Historians with evidence of ancient technology have had great difficulty publishing their evidence.
many others.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry Other cases of proving negatives:
1) You can prove that there are no lions in your house.
2) You can prove that certain medicines don't work to cure certain medical problems.
3) You can prove that no airplanes hit a school near you in the last year
and on and on.
Proving negatives is actually a fundamental aspect of science and there are even several atheists websites that have articles saying exactly this.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree these analogies are nothing like supernatural claims made by religon. all of these points involve physical materials which we are pretty good at determining where they exist, what they fix and what they might destroy.
this in no way resembles religous claims.
i challenge you to prove the non existence of any creation of the mind. any mythological creature, any god figure, unicorns etc.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry Remember you made a general statement without any exceptions...that you can't prove a negative. We can and science often has done exactly that. So that claim of yours (that even several of the best atheist sites on the internet say is untrue), is not accurate or scientifically true. God is definitely also physical and part of our sensory world. And we have plenty of evidence for His existence from science, history, extremely credible witnesses, ESP. in contrast to atheism.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree i should have been more specific.
we are talking about the credibility of supernatural claims.
you have not disproven any alternate god figure, and mythical creature, the yeti etc.
'God is definitely also physical and part of our sensory world. And we have plenty of evidence for His existence from science, history'
going by your method for disproving the exisitence of phlogiston, god does not exist.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry going by your method for disproving the exisitence of phlogiston, god does not exist.
-
HUH? It's NOT my method. What are you talking about? And the phlogistan experiment has zero connection to God's existence since we have tons of evidence, esp. from the historical method of his existence, but also from the scientific. So much so that Antony Flew,the world's foremost atheist for ~50 years, gave up atheism to believe in a creator.
dotoree 1 year ago
@scottpastry you have not disproven any alternate god figure, and mythical creature, the yeti etc.
-
Seriously, you need to learn to compare evidence fairly. I know it's tempting to follow our opinions&biases instead of following the weight of evidence. But that's bias, not science.
A) Other supernatural forces DO exist.
B) If some god has no witnesses, no scientific knowledge way ahead of others, no major prophecies beyond human power, etc. there's no reason to believe it's real. Simple.
dotoree 1 year ago