ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
"Replay it a million times...and I doubt whether anything like Homo Sapiens would ever evolve again." -Stephen Jay Gould. This is not a result of a mined quote. But it addresses the idea of humans being unique and god's favorite.
@nash984954 I just threw two dice and they landed to add up to 9 therefor 9 is my favorite number. Low odds have nothing to do with favor and maybe a race of hyper intelligent squid could have risen to take control of the earth.
@CleverWendago Consider all of the lifeforms that have died out. Humans have no curb on things remaining the same as they are now&may end up in the group of those that havedied out.Thestory of the human species is still playing out. The odds are irrelevant.Only arrogant humans with their little bit of knowledge think they know everything, a belief in god gives them privilege to think that they are above all of life. Humans r just different, not special. Squid could have risen
This is not a tautology: If we did not have idiots like Robin Collins, a Philospher from of Messiah College making stupid statements like he just made then maybe science could be taught intelligently and we could all be educated properly as opposed to having to listen to his fallacious thinking, or his false reasoninjg. Unfortunately, he is in a position that will have people exposed to and who will believe his nonsense.
Transitional form: baby human to adult human. Human fetus goes through all stages that have grown since the pre-biotic environment and began as elements floating around and reacting chemically with the other elements surrounding them in the forms of vesicles, that house these elements. H2O anyone? Theelements hydrogen and oxygen react chemically& become what is all over: water. The pre-bioticworld is not the world of today, there was not much oxygen in the atmosphere, life's chemistry created it
@JohnnyNyberg Do a video showing the "other side" of this. This is the side of non-science, but of religion, which teaches you 'what' to think, not 'how' to think. Science education teaches you 'how' to think. Do your video on the science side that you say is guilty of the same fallacies you claim they both are guilty of. Show numerous examples, as the ones FluffyAtheist has done, please. I will be waiting, but I really doubt you will do one. You only want to blur the lines&dumb folks down
@Mogley52 You are good at one thing, copying and pasting all of your comments into many youtube video's comment sections.and assuming having them in different places strengthens your argument for creationism, it doesn't, you just put out out the same old tired arguments. Just as in this video you should watch, as it is obvious you havent't done.
Okay, I'm a Christian and I watched your video and I am no less Christian than I was when I watched it. So you fail.....=)
Although I find it odd that you atheist spend so much time spreading your garbage. So you don't believe in God? Okay.....but then you spend hundreds if not thousands of hours trying to convince others to have no hope. Just odd.... Also, FluffyAthiest < YOU SPELLED ATHEIST WRONG =) So please don't talk about intelligence =)
@TheGreekMan1981 Well I think his purpose was to convince people that creationists frequently make fallacious arguments, and thereby imply that creationism is false.
Not being a creationist doesn't mean you have to not be a Christian.
Also it's pretty common for people to try and convince everyone that their opinions are correct or better, that's not weird.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). "
( I want an actual definition of "kinds" so that when you make this claim I can show Evolution by Natural Selection is predictive and creationism is silly.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@Mogley52 "The supernatural cannot be proved by science "
Neither can Leprechauns, and for the exact same reason
"science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe"
Your inability to come up with another option is not "scientific evidence", all you are doing is using special pleading because your faulty reasoning led you to an infinite regress. That is the exact opposite of science.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed?
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
@Mogley52 "Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it. "
Craig is NOT a creationist , I love how you skiped over every video were he gives reasons to think the universe began to exist
1)BGV theorm 2)Hilberts hotel 3)2nd law of thermodynamics 4) you can't add finite things together (e.g. past events) to get infinte past events 5) the Big Bang model pradicts a beginning in spacetime.
I have an idea for how to explain that natural selection isn't random. Take a random number generator, and screen the numbers for a preset attribute. The RNG represents the random nature of mutations and genetic drift, while the screening process represents natural selection.
A doctorate in education from a non-accredited school? What does that qualify you for, principal of a Baptist elementary school somewhere in Kansas? That or Secretary of State during a Republican Presidency. But certainly not an expert in science.
@xTheuglytruthx Ha, fairly weak trolling. I just thought there might have been some parts that I didn't hear which could be interpreted as supporting the theists. Troll harder.
@EclecticSceptic I would like to troll some of you guys a bit more (I say you guys, as in,the people that fell for it, not just religious people) but now i feel bad and i feel i should explain myself....I was trolling!!
This video did not help me any more than it would have helped a Christian video proving the bible by using the bible. It simply pointed out logical fallacies and then gave examples of people using them...it offered no counter arguments for the fallacies.
Was the title "Refuting Top 25 Creationist Fallacies"
No, it was to show the fallacies and how they are made, and it is a good reference source and shows a christian why those arguments are fallacious so they realize it and can then choose to stop or to willingly dishonestly keep doing it knowing the fallacy.
I am not convinced of any supposed errors as stated. You just explained what they did and how they explained their arguments. What they say seems pretty correct to me...
this is a common way in getting masses to disreguard thinking. as u will see atheists everywhere on youtube and other places not arguiing logically but listning to others and screaming straw man repeately.
out of interest, how is science an alternative to God? also that crocoduck rubbish is so wrong its not even right, and it makes me laugh every time. tictalic is the best transitional fossil I can think of, and its just as weird as that duck.
The fact that theist apologists employ all of these tactics should be enough to show that they have nothing of any substance to offer. No matter how many times they're corrected, e.g. scientific theory, they repeat the same lies, and the gullible eat it up like candy.
@Matur1n Correct. But the Big Bang did not emerge from "nothing." There was already "something," called the singularity. The Big Bang was not a creation event; it was a transition event.
@indignant99-- Whether a singularity counts or not for that argument is unrelated to my point. The video claims that: "The false premise is the universe 'began' to exist". From what you just said, even if we call it a transition event, the universe did have a beginning with such event. Thus it is not a false premise.
Often. The beginning of the United States was a transition from Great Britain. The beginning of Fall is a transition from Summer. Most beginnings in life are a transition from something else. The beginning of our universe could be a transition from something before, we don't know much about what was before. Maybe universes are cyclical, expanding & then collapsing again. None of that means the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of our universe.
@Matur1n It's actually much more complicated. If by beginning, you mean there was nothing before and then the universe or "singularity" appeared, then we can't really say it had a beginning.
@DarkEmergence I don't necessarily mean there was nothing before. The United States had a beginning, it doesn't mean Great Britain didn't have colonies here and North America didn't exist. What we describe as our universe had a start, i.e. a beginning. We define what we mean by our universe and there was a time before that where it didn't exist. At the point it started, i.e. something 1st fit the description of our universe, then that is its beginning.
@Matur1n Yes, and most people just slightly informed know that, but Craig Equivocates it to an uninformed audience and actually argues that it was THE beginning, as in All United States popping up all at once. Maybe it's not "false" so much as out of context or expressed dishonestly.
@DarkEmergence Well it is a bit much to call it a "false premise" when it is undoubtedly true with regard to our universe, the thing that was under discussion. If he had tried to explain that it may not really be the beginning looking at it from a broader point of view or something like that, I would be okay. Calling them out as if they said a provable "falsehood" isn't cricket there.
hay varios ejemplos que me parecen incorrectos, pero la explicacion de cada falacia es correcta, y es muy util difundir este tipo de material.
saludos
lucholombar 1 day ago
I am embarressed to share Ken wanker Ham's accent.
ptango101 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 3 days ago
"Replay it a million times...and I doubt whether anything like Homo Sapiens would ever evolve again." -Stephen Jay Gould. This is not a result of a mined quote. But it addresses the idea of humans being unique and god's favorite.
nash984954 4 days ago
@nash984954 I just threw two dice and they landed to add up to 9 therefor 9 is my favorite number. Low odds have nothing to do with favor and maybe a race of hyper intelligent squid could have risen to take control of the earth.
CleverWendago 2 days ago
@CleverWendago Consider all of the lifeforms that have died out. Humans have no curb on things remaining the same as they are now&may end up in the group of those that havedied out.Thestory of the human species is still playing out. The odds are irrelevant.Only arrogant humans with their little bit of knowledge think they know everything, a belief in god gives them privilege to think that they are above all of life. Humans r just different, not special. Squid could have risen
nash984954 1 hour ago
This is not a tautology: If we did not have idiots like Robin Collins, a Philospher from of Messiah College making stupid statements like he just made then maybe science could be taught intelligently and we could all be educated properly as opposed to having to listen to his fallacious thinking, or his false reasoninjg. Unfortunately, he is in a position that will have people exposed to and who will believe his nonsense.
nash984954 4 days ago
Transitional form: baby human to adult human. Human fetus goes through all stages that have grown since the pre-biotic environment and began as elements floating around and reacting chemically with the other elements surrounding them in the forms of vesicles, that house these elements. H2O anyone? Theelements hydrogen and oxygen react chemically& become what is all over: water. The pre-bioticworld is not the world of today, there was not much oxygen in the atmosphere, life's chemistry created it
nash984954 4 days ago
@JohnnyNyberg Do a video showing the "other side" of this. This is the side of non-science, but of religion, which teaches you 'what' to think, not 'how' to think. Science education teaches you 'how' to think. Do your video on the science side that you say is guilty of the same fallacies you claim they both are guilty of. Show numerous examples, as the ones FluffyAtheist has done, please. I will be waiting, but I really doubt you will do one. You only want to blur the lines&dumb folks down
nash984954 4 days ago
@Mogley52 You are good at one thing, copying and pasting all of your comments into many youtube video's comment sections.and assuming having them in different places strengthens your argument for creationism, it doesn't, you just put out out the same old tired arguments. Just as in this video you should watch, as it is obvious you havent't done.
nash984954 4 days ago
Okay, I'm a Christian and I watched your video and I am no less Christian than I was when I watched it. So you fail.....=)
Although I find it odd that you atheist spend so much time spreading your garbage. So you don't believe in God? Okay.....but then you spend hundreds if not thousands of hours trying to convince others to have no hope. Just odd.... Also, FluffyAthiest < YOU SPELLED ATHEIST WRONG =) So please don't talk about intelligence =)
TheGreekMan1981 1 week ago
@TheGreekMan1981 Well I think his purpose was to convince people that creationists frequently make fallacious arguments, and thereby imply that creationism is false.
Not being a creationist doesn't mean you have to not be a Christian.
Also it's pretty common for people to try and convince everyone that their opinions are correct or better, that's not weird.
Though you're right, shame about the spelling.
TarquinUnderspoon 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 1 week ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Shut up and watch the video as you might learn about your faulty thinking processes
Rockster969 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). "
( I want an actual definition of "kinds" so that when you make this claim I can show Evolution by Natural Selection is predictive and creationism is silly.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "The supernatural cannot be proved by science "
Neither can Leprechauns, and for the exact same reason
"science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe"
Your inability to come up with another option is not "scientific evidence", all you are doing is using special pleading because your faulty reasoning led you to an infinite regress. That is the exact opposite of science.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed?
Mogley52 1 week ago
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site. The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation).
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it. "
johnrainrules 1 week ago
Your foundation bias seems to be confirmation bias. Maybe you got it mixed up?
shadywolf91 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think anyone has the right to believe they evolved from an ass-sniffing primate. !!
nickrambus 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
based on the battle between evolution and creation, check out our new sci fi movie EVOLUTION CREEK decide for yourself!
chauncyhead 2 weeks ago
both sides are guilty of all of these fallacies...
JohnnyNyberg 2 weeks ago
ppsimmons>fluffy athiest
crucibull 2 weeks ago
@FluffyAthiest
*SIGH*
@16:50
Craig is NOT a creationist , I love how you skiped over every video were he gives reasons to think the universe began to exist
1)BGV theorm 2)Hilberts hotel 3)2nd law of thermodynamics 4) you can't add finite things together (e.g. past events) to get infinte past events 5) the Big Bang model pradicts a beginning in spacetime.
lxAgnosticxl 2 weeks ago
I have an idea for how to explain that natural selection isn't random. Take a random number generator, and screen the numbers for a preset attribute. The RNG represents the random nature of mutations and genetic drift, while the screening process represents natural selection.
Is this a good way of thinking about it?
Gameguy602 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Gameguy602 3 weeks ago
A doctorate in education from a non-accredited school? What does that qualify you for, principal of a Baptist elementary school somewhere in Kansas? That or Secretary of State during a Republican Presidency. But certainly not an expert in science.
YourDogIsDeadHAHA 3 weeks ago
Very clearly presented video.
EclecticSceptic 3 weeks ago
No Crockoduck?
What about the platypus?
xTheuglytruthx 1 month ago
I dont know if this video is a joke, but it almost seems like he's on the creationists side in some arguements.
xTheuglytruthx 1 month ago
@xTheuglytruthx
"it almost seems like he's on the creationists side in some arguements."
Huh?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@xTheuglytruthx I can't remember, but maybe there was some sarasm you didn't catch. He definitely isn't supporting the creationists.
EclecticSceptic 3 weeks ago
@EclecticSceptic Ever heard of trolling?
xTheuglytruthx 3 weeks ago
@xTheuglytruthx Ha, fairly weak trolling. I just thought there might have been some parts that I didn't hear which could be interpreted as supporting the theists. Troll harder.
EclecticSceptic 3 weeks ago
@EclecticSceptic I would like to troll some of you guys a bit more (I say you guys, as in,the people that fell for it, not just religious people) but now i feel bad and i feel i should explain myself....I was trolling!!
Have a nice day :)
xTheuglytruthx 3 weeks ago
This video did not help me any more than it would have helped a Christian video proving the bible by using the bible. It simply pointed out logical fallacies and then gave examples of people using them...it offered no counter arguments for the fallacies.
DanielSchaffiro 1 month ago
@DanielSchaffiro
Was the title "Refuting Top 25 Creationist Fallacies"
No, it was to show the fallacies and how they are made, and it is a good reference source and shows a christian why those arguments are fallacious so they realize it and can then choose to stop or to willingly dishonestly keep doing it knowing the fallacy.
Feralus69 1 month ago
theWocky approves this video.
wwwWOCKYme 1 month ago 2
Crocoduck
I loled hard
brodythompson1 1 month ago
Nicely done.
ElectroPagan 1 month ago
I am not convinced of any supposed errors as stated. You just explained what they did and how they explained their arguments. What they say seems pretty correct to me...
peace to you...
yapperdapperdoo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FluffyAthiest Thanks for the time and effort you put in to make this video
IronMan50780 1 month ago
@ FluffyAthiest Thanks for the time and effort you put in to make this video
IronMan50780 1 month ago
this is a common way in getting masses to disreguard thinking. as u will see atheists everywhere on youtube and other places not arguiing logically but listning to others and screaming straw man repeately.
lravenhill 1 month ago
this video makes me wanna play mr potato head with my terds.
lravenhill 1 month ago
You rock, woohoo!
WCdragoninja 1 month ago
Lol i still have yet to understand how a crocoduck is an argument
lilrodswag 1 month ago
Excellent video. Very well done.
BottleConcreteBlond 1 month ago
out of interest, how is science an alternative to God? also that crocoduck rubbish is so wrong its not even right, and it makes me laugh every time. tictalic is the best transitional fossil I can think of, and its just as weird as that duck.
mrbearbear83 1 month ago
This video is an intellectual work of art...
usazar 1 month ago
Kirk Cameron is an idiot.
5jerry1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!
RoDJ99 1 month ago
The fact that theist apologists employ all of these tactics should be enough to show that they have nothing of any substance to offer. No matter how many times they're corrected, e.g. scientific theory, they repeat the same lies, and the gullible eat it up like candy.
YY4Me133 1 month ago
I am not a creationist, but our universe began with the Big Bang. To say otherwise contradicts all of modern scientific thought.
Matur1n 1 month ago
@Matur1n Correct. But the Big Bang did not emerge from "nothing." There was already "something," called the singularity. The Big Bang was not a creation event; it was a transition event.
indignant99 1 month ago
@indignant99-- Whether a singularity counts or not for that argument is unrelated to my point. The video claims that: "The false premise is the universe 'began' to exist". From what you just said, even if we call it a transition event, the universe did have a beginning with such event. Thus it is not a false premise.
Matur1n 1 month ago
@Matur1n Since when does a TRANSITION count as a BEGINNING? BZZZT! Fail!
indignant99 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"when does a TRANSITION count as a BEGINNING?"
Often. The beginning of the United States was a transition from Great Britain. The beginning of Fall is a transition from Summer. Most beginnings in life are a transition from something else. The beginning of our universe could be a transition from something before, we don't know much about what was before. Maybe universes are cyclical, expanding & then collapsing again. None of that means the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of our universe.
Matur1n 1 month ago
@Matur1n It's actually much more complicated. If by beginning, you mean there was nothing before and then the universe or "singularity" appeared, then we can't really say it had a beginning.
DarkEmergence 1 month ago
@DarkEmergence I don't necessarily mean there was nothing before. The United States had a beginning, it doesn't mean Great Britain didn't have colonies here and North America didn't exist. What we describe as our universe had a start, i.e. a beginning. We define what we mean by our universe and there was a time before that where it didn't exist. At the point it started, i.e. something 1st fit the description of our universe, then that is its beginning.
Matur1n 1 month ago
@Matur1n Yes, and most people just slightly informed know that, but Craig Equivocates it to an uninformed audience and actually argues that it was THE beginning, as in All United States popping up all at once. Maybe it's not "false" so much as out of context or expressed dishonestly.
DarkEmergence 1 month ago
@DarkEmergence Well it is a bit much to call it a "false premise" when it is undoubtedly true with regard to our universe, the thing that was under discussion. If he had tried to explain that it may not really be the beginning looking at it from a broader point of view or something like that, I would be okay. Calling them out as if they said a provable "falsehood" isn't cricket there.
Matur1n 1 month ago
Thoroughly explained and very informing, this will come in handy.
triovani 1 month ago