The Atheist Experience team are a bunch of hypocrites; they don't want reasoned sensible discussion or debate; if you make any relevant point they end up blocking you; clearly they just want the fundie fruitcake calling who will only be aware of this idiotic reductive literalist extreme interpretation of the Bible; this is old hat; debated down the centuries; they offer nothing new, only extremism and become as the people they accuse
Who honestly deserves to go to hell forever. I mean, were talking about un-imaginable suffering. Give Hitler a thousand years or two, but any more than that makes you no better than the evil person. Such a monster of a god christians believe in.
@GrecoWrestlerNJ70 I've tried explaining this view with a Christian friend of mine. He couldn't comprehend it. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that theists will do these mental gymnastics to not even take in what the opposite position is saying.
Buddhism *IS NOT ATHEISTIC*. Zen Buddhism which touts to be a philosophy and not the Buddhist religion, involves no 'gods'. But Theravada, Mahayanna and Vajrayana are all theistic religion. It's just that these 'gods' are not sovereign over mankind. They are said to typically mind their own business and affairs unless invoked with prayers, much like Hindu avatars. The RELIGION Buddhism has 'gods', devils, reincarnation, karma and different forms of hells.
@LucisFerre1 From Buddhism.about.com: "Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic."
@YaleBreaker I would add, though, that "atheistic" is still the better label, since atheism is not a claim that there is no God, and "atheistic" and "non-theistic" are basically the same thing.
@YaleBreaker, that's false. What the Pali script said was that the 'gods' don't concern themselves with people, and that's the general gist, but they can be appealed to out of mercy. Try traveling to Far East Asia sometime. They do indeed pray to not only Buddha, but to the White Tara, etc, asking favors or merit. Merit of course is their cosmic scorecard when they kick the bucket and karma tallies the sheets.
The Buddhist 'gods' are not sovereign over mankind. They're just "higher beings".
@YaleBreaker, I'll also add that karma, merit and reincarnation in the Samsara Wheel of Life are also not necessary to attain enlightenment and Nirvana. But that doesn't mean that they're not intrinsic and inextricable parts of the Buddhist religions. Indeed, the 'gods' and devils and multiple hells, etc are necessary parts of reincarnation.
@YaleBreaker, Here's a curious note. The Buddha also allegedly said in a Pali script that the 'gods' are unfortunate because life is much sweeter for them than for people, and thus they have less motivation to seek Nirvana and thus are less likely to attain it. You see, the Buddhist 'gods' are not immortal, they're just very long lived, and thus are still part of the Samsara wheel of life of reincarnation and thus they still suffer the fate of existence, though much less than humans.
"Religions cause problems." What a huge understatement. Religions themselves are the problem-- at least those that make claims that are unsupported by evidence.
@bagospannerz: Don't be frustrated. Men often have thicker hair than women - trust a guy who used to have hair as long as AronRa and is presently working on getting it back :-) On the other hand, and there your frustration may go: Men also lose their hair way sooner than women...
Rao tin Ngày đã xế, bóng chiều đã dài. Hãy sữa lại đường-lối và việc làm của các ngươi. Trước khi dây bạc đứt, và chén vàng bể. Hãy rao những lời nầy và truyền ra. Hỡi con-cái Bên-gia-min, hãy trốn khỏi thành Giê-ru-sa-lem, để được yên-ổn. Tiếng kèn thổi là tiếng của Đức Giê-hô-va.
Look I wanna point out that he isnt directly refuting the existence of The (Amazing, Sensational, Incredible, Radioactive, or Friendly Neighborhood) Spider-Man
Individualism is apart of a community that is not realistic to the self; concept can be apart of thought! There is theory that does not belong to reason; Visualistic charm . . . is an association that belongs to the air and is learned in belonging to the mind; being reason or not! You can ask what is weak and which is strong! Be vitreous to every thought; religion is the opposite to which you might understand in your reasons to your thoughts! Motivate reasons!
whoa ....ok im back, i was really getting into this video untill i saw some tits in the suggestion area...somethin about Brittanysofficial...ionno i just saw boobs and got sidetracked! @_@
or more appropriately if I said to any person "That's so Mexican!". Sorry but an negative assertion regarding a characteristic IS a perjorative against that characteristic.
"Stop acting so damn German."
"Julie, is such an African bitch".
"My Brother law is a Tall d-bag"
Unfortunately, you're argument falters, because by the implied negative perjorative of those adjectives it can only be extended to people who share those qualities, otherwise why is it perjorative?
@Jack529Teal it's only demeaning if you think being gay is wrong. If you don't have a problem with being gay, then it can't be an insult just like you can't insult me by saying i like to eat lasagna
@nuberiffic or more appropriately if I said to any person "That's so Mexican!". Sorry but an negative assertion regarding a characteristic IS a perjorative against that characteristic.
"Stop acting so damn German."
"Julie, is such an African bitch".
"My Brother law is a Tall d-bag"
Unfortunately, you're argument falters, because by the implied negative perjorative of those adjectives it can only be extended to people who share those qualities, otherwise why is it perjorative?
@OkamsRazer i get what you're saying, in that if you understand that what was said to you was meant to be insulting (even if you dont find it insulting) you can be insulted.
That is only because you know that the insulter meant to hurt you.
I have red hair, and when i was a kid i got called ranga / ginger / carrot top / bloodnut etc. But i never found it insulting because that is what colour my hair is.
In the same way if someone called me gay, and i was, i wouldnt be insulted.
I could see & imagine the answers coming but, I'd rather ACTUALLY hear them. It pisses me off when Dillahunty shuts down a call. It pisses me off more when the poster edits the conversation to a one sided arguement. What's the point? This isn't a fuckin' church!
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Please study and look into the facts. God is fact deal with it the proof is within yourself. Humble your self before a holy God and he will lift you up. Swallow your pride and admit atheism has been refuted over and over again but sadly when the truth is presented people still reject it because they love their sin. Repent and come to the saviour Jesus.
AronRa is so beast. You look at him and totally don't expect an intellectual; based off his appearance of course. But just listen to him, watch his videos... This guy is fucking amazing.
I can't understand that you have not realised by now that glendawell is not interested in an honest debate, but only wants to take pot-shots at macro-evolution, without having to actually defend his argument.
It's pointless to argue with him as he will dismiss anything out of hand that does not compute with his twisted view on reality.
Is atheism becoming a cult? Now they have a non profit organisation of atheist awareness, and are asking me for money just like churches do! And it would probably be tax free aswel! You seem to be on a slippery slope to becoming as bad as religeous people!
@dumentsem 'Now they have a non profit organisation of atheist awareness' Atheism is the name for people with a lack of belief in god. It is not a philosophy nor a group, so atheist do not have an organisation, there's an organisation promoting their take on the debate about god's existence. That does not mean every atheists is part of that organisation or agrees with it.
'and are asking me for money just like churches do' Who do that?
@dumentsem 'You seem to be on a slippery slope to becoming as bad as religeous people!'
Completely false analogy as atheism is not a religion, nor in any other way a solid group with unified tenets and rules on which to base such an organisation.
@thomaseshuis Idk. I am from east asia and grew up with budhism and taoism they are full of gods, immortals, various super natural beings, heavens and hells, frotune telling, exorcism, souls, ghost, ect. The speaker here is assuming that you can sparate the philosophy from the religion; which you ca;n but you can do that with any religion.
@thomaseshuis See you are sparatating the philosphy from the religion. I am sorry but I also have to take issue with your use of' mainstream' do you mean western concepts of taoism and buddhism
@baimeng1 'See you are sparatating the philosphy from the religion.' I am not. Religions do not necessarily have a god. With mainstream I mean the denomination or set of rules and claims followed by the majority of people who fall under that religion.
@thomaseshuis religions have to have a deity, be it a supernatural being or man him self, there is always a deity.
As for taoism, mainstream would be nearly the whole worlds chinese population and many from societies heavily influenced by chinese culture who all hold many of the same superstitious beliefs. The majority of buddhists, if not all, believe in deities, sprits, the human soul, ect, in some from or another.
@baimeng1 'religions have to have a deity, be it a supernatural being or man him self, there is always a deity.' A supernatural man is not the same as a god.
And no, a religion does not have to have a god.
Oxford dictionary:
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship.
'and many from societies heavily influenced by chinese culture who all hold many of the same superstitious beliefs.' Yes, but Taoism itself has no god. It is the other superstitions and/or religions that get mixed with Taoism that provide god(s) for people to believe in. The same is true for Buddhism.
@baimeng1 'The refutation[1] of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen by many as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. In Buddhism the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,[2][3] called nirvana. The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator,'
Many Buddhist combine other religions with Buddhism itself. it is from these other religions that god(s) come from, not form Buddhism itself.
@thomaseshuis do you see the separation here. that is the philosophy of buddhism not the practice or beliefs of the majority of the world's buddhists. you claim that buddhism is an atheist religion but most buddhists of the world would not agree with you at all.
@thomaseshuis Deities don't have to be super natural beings, but can be man himself. for me a belief in a human soul or higher consciousness, what have you, is the same as a belief in god(s).
what it comes down to is just what the true definition of religion is.
@baimeng1 'deities don't have to be super natural beings, but can be man himself.' I just gave you the definition of religion, it did not contain the words deity or god.
'for me a belief in a human soul or higher consciousness, what have you, is the same as a belief in god(s).' You can believe whatever you want, it does not change the actual definitions and the definition of religion does not require a god or deity.
@thomaseshuis religion is a belief in and reverence for the super natural and all pracitces, worship, values, ect, based on those beliefs. a deity can be antthing or any one. taoism at its core deify nature, the cosmos. chan buddhism deify mankind. in effect elevting these things to super natural positions. if we remove the super natural then we remove the religion that spawned it.
'(usually the Deity)the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity):she raised her head as if appealing to the Deity presiding over the church'
Buddhism does not have such a thing, neither does Taoism.
Your personal definitions do not overrule the actual definitions.
@baimeng1 'taoism at its core deify nature' They do not see it as a single individual that created everything.
'buddhism deify mankind.' Mankind is neither one being nor the creator of everything.
'if we remove the super natural then we remove the religion that spawned it. ' You are implying that the supernatural aspect of a religion is always a deity or god, which as I have shown you is false.
@thomaseshuis no, tao is a cosmic froce from which everything comes from and makes up everything in our reality, isn't that creation? buddhism in a sense seeks to elevate man from a common beast by relalizing our buddha nature turning man in to a super natural being, thus a deity.
Anything considered to be super natural can be given the status of a deity suitable of worship and reverence, and a religion must include the super natural so all religions have a deity.
@baimeng1 'no, tao is a cosmic froce from which everything comes from and makes up everything in our reality' It is not a concious entity.
'buddhism in a sense seeks to elevate man from a common beast by relalizing our buddha nature turning man in to a super natural being, thus a deity.' Again since humanity is neither a single entity, nor the creator of everything, nor is Buddha the creator (he even rejects such a thing). Buddhism does not have a god.
@baimeng1 'Anything considered to be super natural can be given the status of a deity suitable of worship and reverence' No, that's your personal definition, not the scientific one.
I've given you the definitions, explained to you why certainly Buddhism and in essence Taoism as well are not religions with a god.
@thomaseshuis Can i ask you if you are a buddhists? if so then what sect? my family are nichiren buddhists, my mother mainly, and adherents to the great pantheon of taoists and shinto gods. i grew up with this stuff so i know it fairly well. the reason i am asking is to know what experiences you have had with these religions.
@baimeng1 'Can i ask you if you are a buddhists?' No, but I have studied it's origins as I've also done with Islam and Christianity.
'and adherents to the great pantheon of taoists and shinto gods.' I already pointed out many Buddhist mix other religions into the mix. That still does not change the fact Buddhism itself has no god(s), they come from other religions.
'to know what experiences you have had with these religions. ' Several Buddhist friends, studies of religions.
@thomaseshuis true, they both have many gods and other super natural entities and beliefs. that is what makes them religions and not mere philosophies. a better arguement for an asian religion not to have a god or gods can be made for confucianism since the philosophy and religion of confucianism can be distinguished more clearily then in taoism and buddhism, and confucianits themselves have made that distinction.
@baimeng1 ''true, they both have many gods and other super natural entities and beliefs.' No, the original Buddhism does not have a god, neither does Taoism, they are religions without a god.
@baimeng1 'what it comes down to is just what the true definition of religion is. ' Which I gave you and which does not contain the words or requirements of god or deity.
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
@Clear404 Wrong, you should really check your own statements before insultig others. As a matter of fact, never doing that would be a great thing. Atheism and Theism are two stances on a god, Gnosticism and Agnosticism label the knowledge they each claim to have. There are many Agnostic Theists.
this guy doesn't even know what an atheist is!! An atheist, thickies, is someone who does not believe there's a god.
An 'agnostic' is not someone who fucking believes there's a god (fucking hell!!). An agnostic is someone who does not assent to either belief or disbelief.
Someone who believes there's a god is not an atheist. But you don't have to believe that god 'necessarily' exists. Just that he exists.
You lot really are quite thick. COnfident, and thick. A toxic combo
@LordSauceness You just WISH that was true. If you beat the bushes, you will find that many atheists are not only uneducated on the matter, but full blown morons who can't track a single thought from beginning to end.
@sooperfukker Perhaps, but..... morons abound in every area of life. But even an atheist moron is protected against bullshit. (his wallet, that is).... Unlike his counterpart moron in the Christian world, he won't donate a dime to any church, faith healer, telly vangelical etc. He won't pay money for a vistit ot a pyschic to get his future told.
However, he probably wouldn't be smart enough to hold back slapping you once or twice if ya ever told him that to his face.
@LordSauceness Here comes another funny aspect into play. It's exactly those morons among the atheists who think they have the moral highground on simply everything. Since they see their atheism as a sort of competition, they don't want to lose this highground by commiting acts of violence, which they would usually attribute to religious people.
@glendaweil 'I know what faith is you have faith that macro evolution happened' No you don't. There is ample evidence for macro evolution. It's just that creationists made up their own impossible definition of it which is fundamentally different than the definition used by actual biologists.
You cannot observe or verify the existence of god, macro evolution has been observed and verified. Big difference.
@thomaseshuis The definition is not impossible macro evolution is impossible and never happened macro means big changes so you evotards take small changes and call them macro and say just add time yea ok that does not fly you cannot show macro evolution so you make up a lesser definition that fits thats something that has been happening for years no big surprise when there is no proof make it up.
@thomaseshuis Macro is large micro is small any idiot except you obviously knows this is what I am talking about you idiots redfine words to fit your narrative there is no macro except except in your mind.
@glendaweil 'Macro is large micro is small any idiot except you'
1. Calling names is a sign of someone who has no actual arguments.
2. I do know this, what you fail to realise is that the accumulation of micro evolutionary changes leads to the macro evolution of a species, where it can no longer reproduce with it's ancestor species.
'this is what I am talking about you idiots redfine words' Again it was creationists who made up these terms which are completely different from the scientific ones.
@glendaweil 'so you evotards take small changes and call them macro and say just add time yea ok that does not fly' No, it was creationists, who made up their own definition expecting ducks to evolve in crocodiles and more such nonsense.
The fact that creationists made up their own definitions neither disproves evolution, nor does it prove creationism.
'cannot show macro evolution so you make up a lesser definition that fits' Again it's creationists who made up definitions not biologists.
@thomaseshuis Creationist did not make up definitions you do that, so man did not evolve from an ape like creature is that what your saying or are you saying because it happened over a grand scale of time we cannot prove it happened so yo grab anything that looks remotly like what you percieve macro to be and use it to define macro (which is what you do).
@glendaweil 'Creationist did not make up definitions you do that'
'The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. '
@glendaweil They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[13] '
@glendaweil 'The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.'
Visit the website talkorigins (dot) org if you don't believe me.
@glendaweil 'something that has been happening for years no big surprise when there is no proof make it up.' As I said before you can witness it in bacteria, which don't take years to evolve.
I can see you have not bothered to read any scientific and peer-reviewed work on this, untill you do, I'm done debating with you.
P.s. Watch the 'Foundational Falsehood of Creationism' series, it explains quite clearly what evolution is and the mountains of evidence already available.
@glendaweil 'You can witness micro evolution in bacteria micro is real macro is BS.' That's because you aplly creationists terms and definitions instead of those used by actual biological scientists.
Again I urge you to watch Aronra video series called 'Foundational Falsehood of Creationism' it explains in detail what macro and micro evolution is, how creationists can't come up with one unified definition and how their definitions differ from the actual scientific one.
@thomaseshuis If that makes you happy go ahead and believe it but that does not make it true like I said micro happens thats all you got it is not A ZERO SUM GAME so adding billions of years does not make micro macro.
@glendaweil may I ask if you have education in any biological field, or specifically evolutionary biology? Do you have credentials that give you a valid word in the field of evolution?
@glendaweil 'I have enough education to know bs when I hear it.' Without actual counter arguments you're jsut dismissing it out of hand, which is neither scientifically, nor rationally honest.
@glendaweil so you dont have any credentials yet you arrogantly attack the field? Why do you pretend to know on the topic more then numerous international scientists all around the world who spend lifetimes in specific fields?
@eleminatus I do not arrogantly attack any field I attack macro evolution macro evolution is not a field it is part of a field micro has ben proven macro has not simple. Oh atheist believe macro sure I do not.
@glendaweil 'macro has not simple' This proves you have neither viewed the site talkorigins, nor watched Aronra video series, which you claimed you did.
Not only have you failed to read some actual scientific work and definitions on this subject, you lied that you did.
If you had read the site, you would know macro evolution has been proven multiple times.
@thomaseshuis macro has not simple what the hell does that even mean I have been to the web sites you call out and read that garbage about macro once again for the 1 millionth time micro does not prove macro. White and black are te same also because if you leave a white peron in the sun for a million years it will turn black that is as stupid as your micro and macro are the same BS.
@glendaweil 'macro has not simple what the hell does that even mean' It's direct quote from one of your former comments.You claim that macro evolution has not been proven, which in turn proofs you have not read the talkorigins site, nor watched Aronra video series, like I asked you to.
'for the 1 millionth time micro does not prove macro' For the umpteenth time, marco evolution is non existent distinction, a term made up by creationists to try and disprove evolution. No biologist uses this term.
@glendaweil 'as your micro and macro are the same BS.' Until you have actually read the site or watched the video I asked you, or read any other scientific source, I'm done debating with you, as you fail to realise macro- and micro evolution are creationist invented, pseudo-scientific terms.
@glendaweil how do you know? Wanna show me your research? your data? your tests? You havent worked a day in the field of evolutionary biology, you dont have any education in it, you dont even have any connections to it, yet you arrogantly claim that something specific about it is wrong! There are thousands of biologists who can testify otherwise, and then there is you. Who do you think has more validity?
@eleminatus You are right I do not need to work a day in the field to know bs when I see it and macro is bs.We are not apes nor did we descend from apes or ape like creatures.
@glendaweil seriously? Do you tell doctors what to do too? How about engineers? Construction workers? Physicists? Chemists? Cosmologists? Paleontologists? etc Would you appreciate if I told YOU what to do in your place of work? I dont think so! You admit that you havent even studied the topic at hand but yet you make such conclusions. You are performing one of the biggest intellectual fallacies possible!
@glendaweil buddy, you live in the delusion where you assume you are smart, thinking you know more then professionals, throwing around wild claims that you yourself cant even back up. Not to mention that your main arguments are repetition and insults. And then you dare accuse me of using bullshit? You are extremely arrogant and intellectually impeded!
@eleminatus Then you are just dumb I guess I never made a denial of SCIENCE I made a denial of macro evolution if macro evolution is all sciece to you then you are the one with the problem not me.
@glendaweil do you have trouble with semantics too? do you not understand what words mean? I used word "science" in an abstract or most general sense, since macro evolution is a part of. Its part of conventional science, with thousands of papers and terabits of data to back it up. All you have is juvenile bitching and moaning because of a lack of understanding of the topic you argue. And then you wonder why people laugh at you!
@eleminatus Yea right don't you ever get tired slinging this bs about macro evolution you will never convince me so good luck. Duh words have meaning wow prof. you are good.
@glendaweil convince you? dont be ridiculous! I dont give a damn about that. All im trying to find out is why you are so arrogant that you imagine you know about macro evolution more then scientists! You cant even back your claims up. All you do is repeat "macro wrong" with no arguments or data to back such claim up.
@eleminatus Easy never happened all you do is redefine terms take micro and call it macro to fit your narrative but you have no proof of macro evolution ie. cow to whale or whale to cow like creature you guys cannot keep it straight even I heard it both ways or ape to man you say well micro happens therefore macro has to be true well it is not.
@eleminatus Easy never happened all you do is redefine terms take micro and call it macro to fit your narrative but you have no proof of macro evolution ie. cow to whale or whale to cow like creature you guys cannot keep it straight even I heard it both ways or ape to man you say well micro happens therefore macro has to be true well it is not.
@glendaweil 'do not care about your silly atheistic claims about macro evolutuion' Atheists do not make claims about marco evolution, that would be some theists and creationists.
'I never made a denial of SCIENCE I made a denial of macro evolution' Then you do make a denial of science since macro evolution is not a scientific term.
'if macro evolution is all sciece to you' It's a creationist term, ergo not scientific.
@glendaweil I have and the definitions you use are not the scientific definitions, but creationist definitions.
'In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another.'
@thomaseshuis So you change definitions to support your macro bs understand cannot prove it so change the definition just like the climate change scientist manipulate data to support there claim.
@glendaweil ' So you change definitions to support your macro bs' I have not once changed the definition.
What's more you have yet to explain what your understanding of the term macro-evolution is.
' cannot prove it ' I'm still waiting for you to read the talkorigins website.
' so change the definition' I did not.
'just like the climate change scientist manipulate data to support there claim.' One group of scientist falsifying data in no way disproves other scientific theories.
@thomaseshuis Lets go over his one more time and maybe you will get it I have been to talkorigins still do not believe macro evolution and by macro I am talking about cowlike creature to whale ape to man thats the macro I am talking about it is easier to call it macro than explain the evolution I am refering to so your definition is irrelevant you know what I mean if you don't know to what I am refering then you are ignorant.
@glendaweil 'I have been to talkorigins still do not believe macro evolution and by macro I am talking about cowlike creature'
This proves one of two possibilities:
1. You're lying and you didn't visit the site.
2. Benefit of the doubt, you did visit the site and are wilfully ignoring the actual theory and macro-evolution definition. Nowhere on the talkorigins website does it say whales evolved directly into cows or vice versa.
@thomaseshuis I never said directly that is your word the theory is over millions of years cowlike creature to whale not directly that is stupid. een to talk origins not lying just do not buy the bs.
@glendaweil 'I never said directly that is your word the theory is over millions of years cowlike creature to whale' You were heavily implying it, but never mind.
I never talked about cows and whales, that was all you.
'een to talk origins not lying just do not buy the bs.' If you don't believe what it says, then go read their sources: scientific and peer-reviewed books. If you don't believe those, get an actual education as a biologist and study the evidence yourself.
@thomaseshuis I never heavily implied anything you inserted directly not me. And why would I want to be indocrinated by the same people who are pushing this bs I do not believe macro ever hppened so why would I want to learn something that is not true.
@glendaweil 'Like I said enough of your atheistic bs goodby.' Again, the facts about evolution, nor the theory of evolution have anything to do with me or my view about the existence of god(s).
@glendaweil Nor does it say that macro-evolution is the direct, spontaneous evolution of one species into another.
So for the final time: 'by macro I am talking about cowlike creature to whale ape to man thats the macro I am talking about' This is not what the scientific definition of macro-evolution is, nor does the theory of evolution or biologists claim that these kind of spontaneous, direct evolution of cows into whales or apes into men!
@glendaweil You are the one using a made up version of an actual definition.
'it is easier to call it macro' So you admit you are using a wrong definition.
Your whale-to-cow and ape-to-man examples which you keep referring to are not what the theory of evolution postulates, nor what any biologist claims to have happened.
@glendaweil 'you know what I mean if you don't know to what I am refering then you are ignorant.'
If you'd actually studied the site you would know that 'what I mean' is not something the evolution theory nor evolutionary scientist claims to be, so you're either wilfully ignorant or lying.
@glendaweil 'Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.'
Google '29+ Evidences for Macroevolution' if you still don't believe macro evolution has been proven.
@thomaseshuis Yea you can change the definition all you want you still have no proof of macro evolution whale to cow or cow to whale ape to man that kind of evolution whatever you want to call it does not and never happened so instead of saying all that everytime I just say macro never happened get it is that simple enough for you.
@thomaseshuis What an idiot evoution teaches this crap in school and you here telling me they do not teach it are you on drugs or what, It is macro evolution large changes over time now your changing the definition again to fit your narrative.
@thomaseshuis You are right evolution does not teach anything teachers do. So you are telling me that cowlike creature never evolved into whales and humans never evolved from an ape like ancestor then we are in complete agreement on he subject.
@glendaweil 'So you are telling me that cowlike creature never evolved into whales' You are already compromising your earlier statement. You were talking about cows, not cow-like creatures evolving whales.
I am not an evolutionary expert so I don't know which species evolved into which exact other species. But I can assure you that cows are evolutionary descendants of some kind of aquatic ancestor.
@thomaseshuis Not an evolutionary expert yet you are telling me I do not know the theory interesting look either you beleve this bs or not which is it cowlike creature to whale or visa versa I have heard it both ways ape to man
I do not believe it happened and I do not care hat you call it micro macro or speciation.
@glendaweil 'Not an evolutionary expert yet you are telling me I do not know the theory' I can say that, because eventhough I am not an >expert< I still have studied the field and now that the idea of species spontaneously evolving into others is not what the theory of evolution states. And I especially know that if you accept the scientific definitions of macro- and micro-evo
This has been flagged as spam show
The Atheist Experience team are a bunch of hypocrites; they don't want reasoned sensible discussion or debate; if you make any relevant point they end up blocking you; clearly they just want the fundie fruitcake calling who will only be aware of this idiotic reductive literalist extreme interpretation of the Bible; this is old hat; debated down the centuries; they offer nothing new, only extremism and become as the people they accuse
no1hoopsman 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great Video!
landscapedesignoc 1 week ago
Who honestly deserves to go to hell forever. I mean, were talking about un-imaginable suffering. Give Hitler a thousand years or two, but any more than that makes you no better than the evil person. Such a monster of a god christians believe in.
GrecoWrestlerNJ70 3 weeks ago
@GrecoWrestlerNJ70 I've tried explaining this view with a Christian friend of mine. He couldn't comprehend it. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that theists will do these mental gymnastics to not even take in what the opposite position is saying.
SuperMegaFl0yd 2 weeks ago
Aron is brilliant!
InfinityDz 1 month ago
Buddhism *IS NOT ATHEISTIC*. Zen Buddhism which touts to be a philosophy and not the Buddhist religion, involves no 'gods'. But Theravada, Mahayanna and Vajrayana are all theistic religion. It's just that these 'gods' are not sovereign over mankind. They are said to typically mind their own business and affairs unless invoked with prayers, much like Hindu avatars. The RELIGION Buddhism has 'gods', devils, reincarnation, karma and different forms of hells.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1 From Buddhism.about.com: "Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic."
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker I would add, though, that "atheistic" is still the better label, since atheism is not a claim that there is no God, and "atheistic" and "non-theistic" are basically the same thing.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker, that's false. What the Pali script said was that the 'gods' don't concern themselves with people, and that's the general gist, but they can be appealed to out of mercy. Try traveling to Far East Asia sometime. They do indeed pray to not only Buddha, but to the White Tara, etc, asking favors or merit. Merit of course is their cosmic scorecard when they kick the bucket and karma tallies the sheets.
The Buddhist 'gods' are not sovereign over mankind. They're just "higher beings".
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker, I'll also add that karma, merit and reincarnation in the Samsara Wheel of Life are also not necessary to attain enlightenment and Nirvana. But that doesn't mean that they're not intrinsic and inextricable parts of the Buddhist religions. Indeed, the 'gods' and devils and multiple hells, etc are necessary parts of reincarnation.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker, Here's a curious note. The Buddha also allegedly said in a Pali script that the 'gods' are unfortunate because life is much sweeter for them than for people, and thus they have less motivation to seek Nirvana and thus are less likely to attain it. You see, the Buddhist 'gods' are not immortal, they're just very long lived, and thus are still part of the Samsara wheel of life of reincarnation and thus they still suffer the fate of existence, though much less than humans.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
"Religions cause problems." What a huge understatement. Religions themselves are the problem-- at least those that make claims that are unsupported by evidence.
AbbeyRoadkill1 1 month ago
Good Video.. I like this Very infomative..
Spasatcom 1 month ago
You cannot say there is no God,but you can say there is no reason to believe in a God
dan69052 1 month ago
@dan69052
Exactly. :)
papermermaid 1 month ago
Aron's voice is similar to the voice of Johnny Cash.That's pretty cool.
JesusEater1 1 month ago
I love aron but it's so frustrating as a girl, that his hair is better than mine!
bagospannerz 2 months ago 24
@bagospannerz: Don't be frustrated. Men often have thicker hair than women - trust a guy who used to have hair as long as AronRa and is presently working on getting it back :-) On the other hand, and there your frustration may go: Men also lose their hair way sooner than women...
GGGNVideos 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rao tin Ngày đã xế, bóng chiều đã dài. Hãy sữa lại đường-lối và việc làm của các ngươi. Trước khi dây bạc đứt, và chén vàng bể. Hãy rao những lời nầy và truyền ra. Hỡi con-cái Bên-gia-min, hãy trốn khỏi thành Giê-ru-sa-lem, để được yên-ổn. Tiếng kèn thổi là tiếng của Đức Giê-hô-va.
hoangtuyethalelugia.mov.vn
hoangtuyethalelugia.mov.vn
hoangtuyethalelugia 2 months ago
Look I wanna point out that he isnt directly refuting the existence of The (Amazing, Sensational, Incredible, Radioactive, or Friendly Neighborhood) Spider-Man
jackhovatter 2 months ago
Individualism is apart of a community that is not realistic to the self; concept can be apart of thought! There is theory that does not belong to reason; Visualistic charm . . . is an association that belongs to the air and is learned in belonging to the mind; being reason or not! You can ask what is weak and which is strong! Be vitreous to every thought; religion is the opposite to which you might understand in your reasons to your thoughts! Motivate reasons!
in2dionysus 2 months ago
whoa ....ok im back, i was really getting into this video untill i saw some tits in the suggestion area...somethin about Brittanysofficial...ionno i just saw boobs and got sidetracked! @_@
genestarwind7 3 months ago
Lol, I love how Aron's like, "Yeah, go read the Bible! That should do it! *wink wink*" lol
macgeek2004 3 months ago
thumbs up if you think God (Yahweh, Allah, Shiva..) is gay!
Macabremalifica 3 months ago
@Macabremalifica Thats pretty demeaning to gay people
Jack529Teal 3 months ago
@Jack529Teal relax dude, when used in the pejorative gay doesn't mean homosexual. South Park did an episode on it
Macabremalifica 3 months ago
@Macabremalifica I thought that was "fag".
auroraman56 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
or more appropriately if I said to any person "That's so Mexican!". Sorry but an negative assertion regarding a characteristic IS a perjorative against that characteristic.
"Stop acting so damn German."
"Julie, is such an African bitch".
"My Brother law is a Tall d-bag"
Unfortunately, you're argument falters, because by the implied negative perjorative of those adjectives it can only be extended to people who share those qualities, otherwise why is it perjorative?
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@Macabremalifica and yes I know I sent this identical reply to both You and the other fellow who supported a similar claim.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@Jack529Teal it's only demeaning if you think being gay is wrong. If you don't have a problem with being gay, then it can't be an insult just like you can't insult me by saying i like to eat lasagna
nuberiffic 3 months ago
@nuberiffic or more appropriately if I said to any person "That's so Mexican!". Sorry but an negative assertion regarding a characteristic IS a perjorative against that characteristic.
"Stop acting so damn German."
"Julie, is such an African bitch".
"My Brother law is a Tall d-bag"
Unfortunately, you're argument falters, because by the implied negative perjorative of those adjectives it can only be extended to people who share those qualities, otherwise why is it perjorative?
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@OkamsRazer and yes I know I sent this identical reply to both You and the other fellow who supported a similar claim.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@OkamsRazer i get what you're saying, in that if you understand that what was said to you was meant to be insulting (even if you dont find it insulting) you can be insulted.
That is only because you know that the insulter meant to hurt you.
I have red hair, and when i was a kid i got called ranga / ginger / carrot top / bloodnut etc. But i never found it insulting because that is what colour my hair is.
In the same way if someone called me gay, and i was, i wouldnt be insulted.
nuberiffic 1 month ago
@Macabremalifica Well sir that implies that they exist.
nojuggernaut 2 months ago
I love AronRa. what an intelligent and decent man. Respect him a bunch.
marcetclaude 3 months ago
I could see & imagine the answers coming but, I'd rather ACTUALLY hear them. It pisses me off when Dillahunty shuts down a call. It pisses me off more when the poster edits the conversation to a one sided arguement. What's the point? This isn't a fuckin' church!
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Please study and look into the facts. God is fact deal with it the proof is within yourself. Humble your self before a holy God and he will lift you up. Swallow your pride and admit atheism has been refuted over and over again but sadly when the truth is presented people still reject it because they love their sin. Repent and come to the saviour Jesus.
jordan7787 3 months ago
AronRa is so beast. You look at him and totally don't expect an intellectual; based off his appearance of course. But just listen to him, watch his videos... This guy is fucking amazing.
Auurelius 4 months ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
I can't understand that you have not realised by now that glendawell is not interested in an honest debate, but only wants to take pot-shots at macro-evolution, without having to actually defend his argument.
It's pointless to argue with him as he will dismiss anything out of hand that does not compute with his twisted view on reality.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
Best description of religion I have ever heard @ 3:50
ThePedub 4 months ago
Sorry matt im willing, but not able. :(
newb4714 4 months ago
Is atheism becoming a cult? Now they have a non profit organisation of atheist awareness, and are asking me for money just like churches do! And it would probably be tax free aswel! You seem to be on a slippery slope to becoming as bad as religeous people!
dumentsem 4 months ago
@dumentsem 'Now they have a non profit organisation of atheist awareness' Atheism is the name for people with a lack of belief in god. It is not a philosophy nor a group, so atheist do not have an organisation, there's an organisation promoting their take on the debate about god's existence. That does not mean every atheists is part of that organisation or agrees with it.
'and are asking me for money just like churches do' Who do that?
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dumentsem 'You seem to be on a slippery slope to becoming as bad as religeous people!'
Completely false analogy as atheism is not a religion, nor in any other way a solid group with unified tenets and rules on which to base such an organisation.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
creationist=a fool.
casparus52 4 months ago
Again there is the claim that humans have a good nature. how can you make the claim that reason can be our guiding light.
baimeng1 4 months ago
Wow, budhism, taoism are atheists religions. that isn't a correct statement.
baimeng1 4 months ago
@baimeng1 They are not atheist religions, they do however have no god in them.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@thomaseshuis Idk. I am from east asia and grew up with budhism and taoism they are full of gods, immortals, various super natural beings, heavens and hells, frotune telling, exorcism, souls, ghost, ect. The speaker here is assuming that you can sparate the philosophy from the religion; which you ca;n but you can do that with any religion.
baimeng1 4 months ago
@baimeng1 Atheism is only a position on the lack of god(s), immortals and other supernatural beings or phenomena are not included in that position.
Taoism, at least the original and mainstream form, has no god(s).
Neither has the original Buddhism, though some people consider Buddha a god or combine Buddhism with another religion.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@thomaseshuis See you are sparatating the philosphy from the religion. I am sorry but I also have to take issue with your use of' mainstream' do you mean western concepts of taoism and buddhism
baimeng1 4 months ago
@baimeng1 'See you are sparatating the philosphy from the religion.' I am not. Religions do not necessarily have a god. With mainstream I mean the denomination or set of rules and claims followed by the majority of people who fall under that religion.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@thomaseshuis religions have to have a deity, be it a supernatural being or man him self, there is always a deity.
As for taoism, mainstream would be nearly the whole worlds chinese population and many from societies heavily influenced by chinese culture who all hold many of the same superstitious beliefs. The majority of buddhists, if not all, believe in deities, sprits, the human soul, ect, in some from or another.
baimeng1 4 months ago
@baimeng1 'religions have to have a deity, be it a supernatural being or man him self, there is always a deity.' A supernatural man is not the same as a god.
And no, a religion does not have to have a god.
Oxford dictionary:
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baimeng1
'and many from societies heavily influenced by chinese culture who all hold many of the same superstitious beliefs.' Yes, but Taoism itself has no god. It is the other superstitions and/or religions that get mixed with Taoism that provide god(s) for people to believe in. The same is true for Buddhism.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@baimeng1 'The refutation[1] of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen by many as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. In Buddhism the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,[2][3] called nirvana. The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator,'
Many Buddhist combine other religions with Buddhism itself. it is from these other religions that god(s) come from, not form Buddhism itself.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@thomaseshuis do you see the separation here. that is the philosophy of buddhism not the practice or beliefs of the majority of the world's buddhists. you claim that buddhism is an atheist religion but most buddhists of the world would not agree with you at all.
baimeng1 4 months ago
@baimeng1 'do you see the separation here' There is no seperation. The religions of Buddhism and Taoism don't have god(s).
It does not matter what people do or believe in NEXT TO it, the religions themselves do not have a god.
'you claim that buddhism is an atheist religion' I did not, I just stated that they are religions without god(s).
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@thomaseshuis Deities don't have to be super natural beings, but can be man himself. for me a belief in a human soul or higher consciousness, what have you, is the same as a belief in god(s).
what it comes down to is just what the true definition of religion is.
baimeng1 4 months ago
@baimeng1 'deities don't have to be super natural beings, but can be man himself.' I just gave you the definition of religion, it did not contain the words deity or god.
'for me a belief in a human soul or higher consciousness, what have you, is the same as a belief in god(s).' You can believe whatever you want, it does not change the actual definitions and the definition of religion does not require a god or deity.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@thomaseshuis religion is a belief in and reverence for the super natural and all pracitces, worship, values, ect, based on those beliefs. a deity can be antthing or any one. taoism at its core deify nature, the cosmos. chan buddhism deify mankind. in effect elevting these things to super natural positions. if we remove the super natural then we remove the religion that spawned it.
baimeng1 4 months ago
@baimeng1 From the oxford dictionary:
'(usually the Deity)the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity):she raised her head as if appealing to the Deity presiding over the church'
Buddhism does not have such a thing, neither does Taoism.
Your personal definitions do not overrule the actual definitions.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@baimeng1 'taoism at its core deify nature' They do not see it as a single individual that created everything.
'buddhism deify mankind.' Mankind is neither one being nor the creator of everything.
'if we remove the super natural then we remove the religion that spawned it. ' You are implying that the supernatural aspect of a religion is always a deity or god, which as I have shown you is false.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@thomaseshuis no, tao is a cosmic froce from which everything comes from and makes up everything in our reality, isn't that creation? buddhism in a sense seeks to elevate man from a common beast by relalizing our buddha nature turning man in to a super natural being, thus a deity.
Anything considered to be super natural can be given the status of a deity suitable of worship and reverence, and a religion must include the super natural so all religions have a deity.
baimeng1 4 months ago
@baimeng1 'no, tao is a cosmic froce from which everything comes from and makes up everything in our reality' It is not a concious entity.
'buddhism in a sense seeks to elevate man from a common beast by relalizing our buddha nature turning man in to a super natural being, thus a deity.' Again since humanity is neither a single entity, nor the creator of everything, nor is Buddha the creator (he even rejects such a thing). Buddhism does not have a god.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@baimeng1 'Anything considered to be super natural can be given the status of a deity suitable of worship and reverence' No, that's your personal definition, not the scientific one.
I've given you the definitions, explained to you why certainly Buddhism and in essence Taoism as well are not religions with a god.
You think of it what you want, this is how it is.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@thomaseshuis Can i ask you if you are a buddhists? if so then what sect? my family are nichiren buddhists, my mother mainly, and adherents to the great pantheon of taoists and shinto gods. i grew up with this stuff so i know it fairly well. the reason i am asking is to know what experiences you have had with these religions.
baimeng1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baimeng1 'Can i ask you if you are a buddhists?' No, but I have studied it's origins as I've also done with Islam and Christianity.
'and adherents to the great pantheon of taoists and shinto gods.' I already pointed out many Buddhist mix other religions into the mix. That still does not change the fact Buddhism itself has no god(s), they come from other religions.
'to know what experiences you have had with these religions. ' Several Buddhist friends, studies of religions.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
@thomaseshuis true, they both have many gods and other super natural entities and beliefs. that is what makes them religions and not mere philosophies. a better arguement for an asian religion not to have a god or gods can be made for confucianism since the philosophy and religion of confucianism can be distinguished more clearily then in taoism and buddhism, and confucianits themselves have made that distinction.
baimeng1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baimeng1 ''true, they both have many gods and other super natural entities and beliefs.' No, the original Buddhism does not have a god, neither does Taoism, they are religions without a god.
thomaseshuis 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baimeng1 'what it comes down to is just what the true definition of religion is. ' Which I gave you and which does not contain the words or requirements of god or deity.
thomaseshuis 4 months ago
Magic in Burnsville? Sounds like a description of hell to me. A magical burnsville!
Ledwix 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Can I please like this video one hundred TRILLION times?
MarlosZappa 4 months ago
@Clear404 Wrong, you should really check your own statements before insultig others. As a matter of fact, never doing that would be a great thing. Atheism and Theism are two stances on a god, Gnosticism and Agnosticism label the knowledge they each claim to have. There are many Agnostic Theists.
pat5168 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this guy doesn't even know what an atheist is!! An atheist, thickies, is someone who does not believe there's a god.
An 'agnostic' is not someone who fucking believes there's a god (fucking hell!!). An agnostic is someone who does not assent to either belief or disbelief.
Someone who believes there's a god is not an atheist. But you don't have to believe that god 'necessarily' exists. Just that he exists.
You lot really are quite thick. COnfident, and thick. A toxic combo
Clear404 4 months ago
Atheism is the great insulator against bullshit.
LordSauceness 5 months ago 14
@LordSauceness You just WISH that was true. If you beat the bushes, you will find that many atheists are not only uneducated on the matter, but full blown morons who can't track a single thought from beginning to end.
sooperfukker 4 months ago
@sooperfukker Perhaps, but..... morons abound in every area of life. But even an atheist moron is protected against bullshit. (his wallet, that is).... Unlike his counterpart moron in the Christian world, he won't donate a dime to any church, faith healer, telly vangelical etc. He won't pay money for a vistit ot a pyschic to get his future told.
However, he probably wouldn't be smart enough to hold back slapping you once or twice if ya ever told him that to his face.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LordSauceness Here comes another funny aspect into play. It's exactly those morons among the atheists who think they have the moral highground on simply everything. Since they see their atheism as a sort of competition, they don't want to lose this highground by commiting acts of violence, which they would usually attribute to religious people.
sooperfukker 4 months ago
a real atheist is the one does not belive in nothing AND DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANY RELIGION
didacus666alexo 5 months ago
AGREE !!!!!!!!!!!!
flexbrat 5 months ago
all hail the FSM....
dansta187 5 months ago
The guy with the long hair & beard would look great as a Klingon!
1NX9 5 months ago 3
Oh man, this was recorded on Pi Day! 3-14
idiocy808 6 months ago
Only scientist and atheist need evidence religion is not science and visa versa so the belief system requires faith not evidence.
glendaweil 6 months ago in playlist Atheist
@glendaweil Please consider two things:
1. Look up the definition of faith.
2. Why should we have faith in your specific god and not in the other 2000+ gods?
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis I know what faith is you have faith that macro evolution happened it fits your narrative but there is no proof.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'I know what faith is you have faith that macro evolution happened' No you don't. There is ample evidence for macro evolution. It's just that creationists made up their own impossible definition of it which is fundamentally different than the definition used by actual biologists.
You cannot observe or verify the existence of god, macro evolution has been observed and verified. Big difference.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis The definition is not impossible macro evolution is impossible and never happened macro means big changes so you evotards take small changes and call them macro and say just add time yea ok that does not fly you cannot show macro evolution so you make up a lesser definition that fits thats something that has been happening for years no big surprise when there is no proof make it up.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'The definition is not impossible macro evolution is impossible' As it is defined by creationist, yes.
The definition used by actual biologists is different and has been proven and verified several times.
'macro means big changes' No, it means an accumulation of micro evolutions which result, over a period of time, in macro evolution.
The fact that you don't know this, proves you know nothing about the theory of evolution. You can observe it in bacteria for example.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis Macro is large micro is small any idiot except you obviously knows this is what I am talking about you idiots redfine words to fit your narrative there is no macro except except in your mind.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'Macro is large micro is small any idiot except you'
1. Calling names is a sign of someone who has no actual arguments.
2. I do know this, what you fail to realise is that the accumulation of micro evolutionary changes leads to the macro evolution of a species, where it can no longer reproduce with it's ancestor species.
'this is what I am talking about you idiots redfine words' Again it was creationists who made up these terms which are completely different from the scientific ones.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thomaseshuis Wrong again your the one who redifines terms not me.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'so you evotards take small changes and call them macro and say just add time yea ok that does not fly' No, it was creationists, who made up their own definition expecting ducks to evolve in crocodiles and more such nonsense.
The fact that creationists made up their own definitions neither disproves evolution, nor does it prove creationism.
'cannot show macro evolution so you make up a lesser definition that fits' Again it's creationists who made up definitions not biologists.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis Creationist did not make up definitions you do that, so man did not evolve from an ape like creature is that what your saying or are you saying because it happened over a grand scale of time we cannot prove it happened so yo grab anything that looks remotly like what you percieve macro to be and use it to define macro (which is what you do).
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'Creationist did not make up definitions you do that'
'The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. '
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@glendaweil They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[13] '
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis Micro happens macro is a figment of you imagination.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil how so?
macro is just micro with more time
nuberiffic 1 month ago
@glendaweil 'The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.'
Visit the website talkorigins (dot) org if you don't believe me.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis Been there still do not believe the macro bs because it is bs (bad science)..
glendaweil 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glendaweil 'because he felt the world was wicked for them' Explain why you don't accept it then, I'm really curious about this.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'something that has been happening for years no big surprise when there is no proof make it up.' As I said before you can witness it in bacteria, which don't take years to evolve.
I can see you have not bothered to read any scientific and peer-reviewed work on this, untill you do, I'm done debating with you.
P.s. Watch the 'Foundational Falsehood of Creationism' series, it explains quite clearly what evolution is and the mountains of evidence already available.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis You can witness micro evolution in bacteria micro is real macro is BS.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'You can witness micro evolution in bacteria micro is real macro is BS.' That's because you aplly creationists terms and definitions instead of those used by actual biological scientists.
Again I urge you to watch Aronra video series called 'Foundational Falsehood of Creationism' it explains in detail what macro and micro evolution is, how creationists can't come up with one unified definition and how their definitions differ from the actual scientific one.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis If that makes you happy go ahead and believe it but that does not make it true like I said micro happens thats all you got it is not A ZERO SUM GAME so adding billions of years does not make micro macro.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil may I ask if you have education in any biological field, or specifically evolutionary biology? Do you have credentials that give you a valid word in the field of evolution?
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus I have enough education to know bs when I hear it.
glendaweil 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glendaweil 'I have enough education to know bs when I hear it.' Without actual counter arguments you're jsut dismissing it out of hand, which is neither scientifically, nor rationally honest.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@glendaweil so you dont have any credentials yet you arrogantly attack the field? Why do you pretend to know on the topic more then numerous international scientists all around the world who spend lifetimes in specific fields?
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus I do not arrogantly attack any field I attack macro evolution macro evolution is not a field it is part of a field micro has ben proven macro has not simple. Oh atheist believe macro sure I do not.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'macro has not simple' This proves you have neither viewed the site talkorigins, nor watched Aronra video series, which you claimed you did.
Not only have you failed to read some actual scientific work and definitions on this subject, you lied that you did.
If you had read the site, you would know macro evolution has been proven multiple times.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis macro has not simple what the hell does that even mean I have been to the web sites you call out and read that garbage about macro once again for the 1 millionth time micro does not prove macro. White and black are te same also because if you leave a white peron in the sun for a million years it will turn black that is as stupid as your micro and macro are the same BS.
glendaweil 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glendaweil 'macro has not simple what the hell does that even mean' It's direct quote from one of your former comments.You claim that macro evolution has not been proven, which in turn proofs you have not read the talkorigins site, nor watched Aronra video series, like I asked you to.
'for the 1 millionth time micro does not prove macro' For the umpteenth time, marco evolution is non existent distinction, a term made up by creationists to try and disprove evolution. No biologist uses this term.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glendaweil 'as your micro and macro are the same BS.' Until you have actually read the site or watched the video I asked you, or read any other scientific source, I'm done debating with you, as you fail to realise macro- and micro evolution are creationist invented, pseudo-scientific terms.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@glendaweil how do you know? Wanna show me your research? your data? your tests? You havent worked a day in the field of evolutionary biology, you dont have any education in it, you dont even have any connections to it, yet you arrogantly claim that something specific about it is wrong! There are thousands of biologists who can testify otherwise, and then there is you. Who do you think has more validity?
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus You are right I do not need to work a day in the field to know bs when I see it and macro is bs.We are not apes nor did we descend from apes or ape like creatures.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil seriously? Do you tell doctors what to do too? How about engineers? Construction workers? Physicists? Chemists? Cosmologists? Paleontologists? etc Would you appreciate if I told YOU what to do in your place of work? I dont think so! You admit that you havent even studied the topic at hand but yet you make such conclusions. You are performing one of the biggest intellectual fallacies possible!
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus If they are involved in fallcies like macro evolution yes I would get involved I got no problem with that.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil you are not a god damn expert of the field, you have no word in the matter!
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus Micro yes mcro neve happened, these sure look like words to me idiot.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil must be good basing your speculations on bullshit!
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus I would not know you seem to be the expert on bullshit.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil buddy, you live in the delusion where you assume you are smart, thinking you know more then professionals, throwing around wild claims that you yourself cant even back up. Not to mention that your main arguments are repetition and insults. And then you dare accuse me of using bullshit? You are extremely arrogant and intellectually impeded!
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus I just calls em as I sees um and thats the way I see it do not care about your silly atheistic claims about macro evolutuion or God.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil I made no claims about macro evolution or god. I made claims about your arrogance and stubborn denial of science!
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus Then you are just dumb I guess I never made a denial of SCIENCE I made a denial of macro evolution if macro evolution is all sciece to you then you are the one with the problem not me.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil do you have trouble with semantics too? do you not understand what words mean? I used word "science" in an abstract or most general sense, since macro evolution is a part of. Its part of conventional science, with thousands of papers and terabits of data to back it up. All you have is juvenile bitching and moaning because of a lack of understanding of the topic you argue. And then you wonder why people laugh at you!
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus Yea right don't you ever get tired slinging this bs about macro evolution you will never convince me so good luck. Duh words have meaning wow prof. you are good.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil convince you? dont be ridiculous! I dont give a damn about that. All im trying to find out is why you are so arrogant that you imagine you know about macro evolution more then scientists! You cant even back your claims up. All you do is repeat "macro wrong" with no arguments or data to back such claim up.
eleminatus 5 months ago
@eleminatus Easy never happened all you do is redefine terms take micro and call it macro to fit your narrative but you have no proof of macro evolution ie. cow to whale or whale to cow like creature you guys cannot keep it straight even I heard it both ways or ape to man you say well micro happens therefore macro has to be true well it is not.
glendaweil 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eleminatus Easy never happened all you do is redefine terms take micro and call it macro to fit your narrative but you have no proof of macro evolution ie. cow to whale or whale to cow like creature you guys cannot keep it straight even I heard it both ways or ape to man you say well micro happens therefore macro has to be true well it is not.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'do not care about your silly atheistic claims about macro evolutuion' Atheists do not make claims about marco evolution, that would be some theists and creationists.
'I never made a denial of SCIENCE I made a denial of macro evolution' Then you do make a denial of science since macro evolution is not a scientific term.
'if macro evolution is all sciece to you' It's a creationist term, ergo not scientific.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis You are an idiot macro and micro are scientific terms look them up dummy.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil I have and the definitions you use are not the scientific definitions, but creationist definitions.
'In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another.'
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis So you change definitions to support your macro bs understand cannot prove it so change the definition just like the climate change scientist manipulate data to support there claim.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil ' So you change definitions to support your macro bs' I have not once changed the definition.
What's more you have yet to explain what your understanding of the term macro-evolution is.
' cannot prove it ' I'm still waiting for you to read the talkorigins website.
' so change the definition' I did not.
'just like the climate change scientist manipulate data to support there claim.' One group of scientist falsifying data in no way disproves other scientific theories.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis Lets go over his one more time and maybe you will get it I have been to talkorigins still do not believe macro evolution and by macro I am talking about cowlike creature to whale ape to man thats the macro I am talking about it is easier to call it macro than explain the evolution I am refering to so your definition is irrelevant you know what I mean if you don't know to what I am refering then you are ignorant.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'I have been to talkorigins still do not believe macro evolution and by macro I am talking about cowlike creature'
This proves one of two possibilities:
1. You're lying and you didn't visit the site.
2. Benefit of the doubt, you did visit the site and are wilfully ignoring the actual theory and macro-evolution definition. Nowhere on the talkorigins website does it say whales evolved directly into cows or vice versa.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis I never said directly that is your word the theory is over millions of years cowlike creature to whale not directly that is stupid. een to talk origins not lying just do not buy the bs.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'I never said directly that is your word the theory is over millions of years cowlike creature to whale' You were heavily implying it, but never mind.
I never talked about cows and whales, that was all you.
'een to talk origins not lying just do not buy the bs.' If you don't believe what it says, then go read their sources: scientific and peer-reviewed books. If you don't believe those, get an actual education as a biologist and study the evidence yourself.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis I never heavily implied anything you inserted directly not me. And why would I want to be indocrinated by the same people who are pushing this bs I do not believe macro ever hppened so why would I want to learn something that is not true.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil But until you either:
1. Scientifically disprove evolution/macro-evolution.
2. Or present a peer-reviewed scientific theory that explains the origin and diversity of species.
You cannot say (macro-)evolution is wrong. Especially when you have no biology background whatsoever.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis Well watch this micro is true and proven macro is atheistic fantasy.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'Well watch this micro is true and proven macro is atheistic fantasy.'
Another ignorant comment.
Not all atheists accept evolution.
A lot of christians accept evolution, all of it.
Macro evolution has nothing to with atheism, other then that it has been proven and can therefore be accepted by atheists as fact.
You can deny it all you want, fortunately the experts know better and the facts don't lie.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis Like I said enough of your atheistic bs goodby.
glendaweil 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glendaweil 'Like I said enough of your atheistic bs goodby.' Again, the facts about evolution, nor the theory of evolution have anything to do with me or my view about the existence of god(s).
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@glendaweil Nor does it say that macro-evolution is the direct, spontaneous evolution of one species into another.
So for the final time: 'by macro I am talking about cowlike creature to whale ape to man thats the macro I am talking about' This is not what the scientific definition of macro-evolution is, nor does the theory of evolution or biologists claim that these kind of spontaneous, direct evolution of cows into whales or apes into men!
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@glendaweil You are the one using a made up version of an actual definition.
'it is easier to call it macro' So you admit you are using a wrong definition.
Your whale-to-cow and ape-to-man examples which you keep referring to are not what the theory of evolution postulates, nor what any biologist claims to have happened.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis So we are in complete agreement whale to cow or visa versa ape to man never happened.
glendaweil 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glendaweil 'So we are in complete agreement whale to cow or visa versa ape to man never happened.'
I never claimed that in the first place, so I don't see your point.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'you know what I mean if you don't know to what I am refering then you are ignorant.'
If you'd actually studied the site you would know that 'what I mean' is not something the evolution theory nor evolutionary scientist claims to be, so you're either wilfully ignorant or lying.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.'
Google '29+ Evidences for Macroevolution' if you still don't believe macro evolution has been proven.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis Yea you can change the definition all you want you still have no proof of macro evolution whale to cow or cow to whale ape to man that kind of evolution whatever you want to call it does not and never happened so instead of saying all that everytime I just say macro never happened get it is that simple enough for you.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil Finally you give a definition.
' whale to cow or cow to whale ape to man that kind of evolution'
This is not what evolution theory states, this is not macro evolution.
No biologist claims cows evolved into whales or vice versa. No biologist claims apes evolved into humans.
You have finally admitted you have no idea what the theory of evolution is, nor what macro evolution is.
'I just say macro never happened' Because you clearly don't know what it is.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis What an idiot evoution teaches this crap in school and you here telling me they do not teach it are you on drugs or what, It is macro evolution large changes over time now your changing the definition again to fit your narrative.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'What an idiot evoution teaches this crap in school'
1. Evolution does not teach anything.
2. No scientific, peer-reviewed biology book claims whales evolved into cows, vice versa or apes into humans.
If a school uses a book or method that does, then that book or method is not an actual science book/method.
'you here telling me they do not teach it' They don't, no biologist worth his salt teaches that.
Unless you can proof otherwise, you ridiculous claims are completely fallacious.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis You are right evolution does not teach anything teachers do. So you are telling me that cowlike creature never evolved into whales and humans never evolved from an ape like ancestor then we are in complete agreement on he subject.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'So you are telling me that cowlike creature never evolved into whales' You are already compromising your earlier statement. You were talking about cows, not cow-like creatures evolving whales.
I am not an evolutionary expert so I don't know which species evolved into which exact other species. But I can assure you that cows are evolutionary descendants of some kind of aquatic ancestor.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis Not an evolutionary expert yet you are telling me I do not know the theory interesting look either you beleve this bs or not which is it cowlike creature to whale or visa versa I have heard it both ways ape to man
I do not believe it happened and I do not care hat you call it micro macro or speciation.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil 'Not an evolutionary expert yet you are telling me I do not know the theory' I can say that, because eventhough I am not an >expert< I still have studied the field and now that the idea of species spontaneously evolving into others is not what the theory of evolution states. And I especially know that if you accept the scientific definitions of macro- and micro-evo