Its a question of faith..get it? Faith cant be viewed as neither controling or wrong, nor a bad thing. Exactly when did it become ok to think a person thats found some faith for his heart is stupid or dumb and needs to "go check the information over there" as you so gently put it. I really wish i could have a debate with you, and yes, that means that i aint gonna bother answering anyone else whom i consider to be just trolling or plain stupid to use youre words. Well,hope i got you rattled up=)
@3qk Missler, et. al. aren't claiming merely that their view is attainable by faith, but that it is supported by the science. That is factually false. People aren't dumb or stupid because they "found faith." But neither does their faith inoculate them from being stupid.
I urge you all to join MEism! Its a popular new belief wherein I created reality before time was time, and then with a wink set the ball rolling! I'm omniscient, omnipresent and of course, omnipowerful.The only reason i do not demonstrate said power, or even the reality of my existance to nonbelievers is because i much prefer to watch you all carry on with your zany religious interpretations of that stellar fart you all call the universe! I'm deity incognito!
Just wanted to "jump on the bandwagon", so to speak, with these silly people touting their bibles and religions as a "correct" history of creation. Religion is many things- a code of morale conduct, a history, entertainment, control...- but there is no concrete evidence that any text or set of beliefs was "handed down" by a true deity. Citing Harry Potter as "proof" 2000 years from now doesn't make flying on a broom via magic any less fictitious. I'll bet people will believe it anyway lol!
Wow, I'm really disappointed. I wanted to see an intelligent debate against the Science of God, but instead had to watch someone fumble around for 5 min. (I couldn't make it thru 7:40). You complain about Creationists not being willing to change their minds, using old circular arguments, and broadcasting their beliefs w/o credentials. Maybe so. But you also just discribed yourself. Hypocrite. I'm just glad that only a few people have had to sit through your immature complaining. & clean up
Why is it, whenever something, which to the layman might seem counter-intuitive, occurs in physics, out come the mystics, the spiritual and the religious, all misinterpreting it as supporting god, religion, mysticism or whatever the latest fashion is? Why do people get their physics from these crackpots? I bet they'd only allow a qualified surgeon to perform surgery on them.
Wow, what an interesting thread. I wonder what will happen when you both realize that you both have great faith. You each faithfully believe in what you cannot prove yourselves. You have each chosen to believe in what others before you have said to be true. Without being able to prove your beliefs you have put faith into it. Interesting isnt it.
Humans use words to describe things and relationships between things. I seldom use my mind to "defend atheism." Certainly that wasn't the content or purpose of this video. This series discusses videos that do a good job of presenting science and others that misrepresents science or how it works.
Have you ever seen a good presentation of creationism? I suspect you look hard only for bad science. I have seen good presentations with scientific evidence that would cause arguers for both sides of the issue to pause. Use science to demonstrate that evolution is not a belief. Not just anecdotal evidence. This is your opportunity to convert me. I may be sitting on the fence.
I look hard for good science in creationism. I have read creationist books and articles. I have seen presentations on the web and I washed Duane Gish present. The absolutely startling thing is that in every single instance these "experts" demonstrate profound ignorance of the subject and yet are lauded as brilliant by the true believers. You're not sitting on the fence - and you're not going to evaluate the evidence. You already have your conclusion prior to looking at the evidence.
At this point its important that you understand this! I have a two degrees in science related fields and for many years was an ardent "atheist" even having spent time debating against the existance of a Creator. I used the evidence of science that you say esists to prove that no Creator is possible.
I have debated pators with PHd's, Prfessors of biology who said they believed in God, even well meaning Christians who feared for the loss of my soul, but I never began with a preconceived conclusion that God is there. In fact quiet the opposite. I even had the scientific "evidence" you say is there to support my argument.
I presented evidence there was no God? Refuting claims from the bible is not the same as refuting God. However, the situation is a little confusing. Science and good sense tell us that the story of Jonah is just a story, but science can't address miracles.
Give me an example of the science that shows us that the story of Jonah is simply allegory. I'm not suggesting that you are wrong here but why use this example. Why not ask how an ass can speak although it has no physical means of doing this? Clearly there is allegory in scripture and many things we can't explain but go back and read these stories with a little more care. Now you have shown a personal bias that you can't get beyond. This is preconception and explains your earlier attribution.
You asked for examples, not a complete enumeration, and so I only listed three. If the story of Jonah is interpreted as allegory, then it's not literally in opposition to science. There are people who believe the literal truth of it as well as the literal truth of the creation myth. But it's pretty easy to come in after science has sorted things out and say, "Oh, this part is literal and predates science, but this part is against science and so is figurative."
Now I'm confused. First you provide some "evidence" that the bible is flawed, then say I've reached a conclusion prior to looking at "the" evidence, now you say no evidence will support or disprove the idea of God. Are you just wanting to "win?" If so then I concede and you may go on happily. However, If you'll work to keep a congruent line of thought then I'll be happy to give you some things to think about that perhaps you haven't considered. Of course this begs your next question.
It is a little confusing. The Bible is at odds with science; however, science can't handle miracles. If there is a God and that god intervened to produce a miracle, science can't address it. It can't distinguish "God did it" from "we don't know."
You didn't address my underlying question. Do you have evidence or not. You have given evidence then said none exists. There is science in scripture that predates man's knowledge of science.
I gave good evidence that the bible is false from a scientific perspective. That is not the same as disproving god. I never said that science disproves god or even hinted at it.
There is no more "science" in the bible than there is in the quran or the indian scriptures.
Have you read the quran? Again I suggest that you spend some real time in the Holy bible. Scripture is not something that you can read like a scientific paper. Now on to another question. Do you pray? In the amount of time we have taken to consider this issue you could have spent some time in scripture and prayer and generated some empirical data with which to demonstrate your point.
Yes. I have read the entire Quran. I occasionally re-read certain chapters of the Bible - Eccl, Job, John, Genesis, a few others. I have no inclination to read the entire thing. Why would I pray? Prayer would not have offered me "empirical data."
I appreciate your graciousness in continuing our talk. However, each time I see a response to my post, I read it, respond and then delete the link so that it will be difficult for me to return even if I search. At anytime that you wish for me to stop being "rude" to you, simply stop replying. I will bother you no more. You can get back to convincing your own. If you desire a different route, my email can be made available.
Actually it is an elusive means of promoting your belief. I have seen your you tube account and promotion of atheism is your primary interest. Your psuedoanalysis of "scientific" videos is one of your vehicles.
Proof of atheism is not my primary interest. As a creationist pseudoscientist, it is likely you perceive any objective science that disagrees with your religious assumptions as a promotion of atheism.
Again with the ad hominem. I would once again respectfully ask you to provide some objective science that disagrees with my belief in Christianity (which is the basis of my "religious assumptions")
No more "ad hominem" than your refering to my videos as "pseudoanalysis." Science says the world is billions of years old and that all species are related from one or a few ancient progenitors. I'm not going to be able to enumerate all of the evidence and if I pick 2 or 3, you will likely just ask why I didn't pick some others.
Do you believe any god? Science does not say the earth is billions of years old. Evolutionists have hijacked science, and said that science proves the universe is 20 billion + years old. One cannot use the Scientific Principle to prove anything more accurately than eleven thousand years old and even that is questionable.
I believe in no god. Science indeed does say that the world is billions of years old. "Evolutionists" have not hijacked anything. Creationists are attempting to do so, but their numbers are so low and their collective scientific contributions so few, that they must resort to politics to achieve their aim.
Truth is I was trying to get an idea of who you are. My belief closely follows yours here. Explain the Big Bang. I believe its currently the most plausible idea according to evolutionists yet some serious questions remain unanswered. In your opinion, if the universe started from nothing or a small dense piece of matter, and even space did not exist before that, then how is this issue resolved in the mind of a non believer. The first sentence in Genesis and the big bang are inextricably linked.
Evolution (B.E. for biological evolution) does not rely on the Big Bang (B.B. or cosmological evolution, C.E.). BB is not on the same level as BE; however, it doesn't say the universe came from nothing. The ultimate origin may forever elude scientific analysis. But even if science can never give a good answer, it wouldn't constitute a proof of god.
In fact according to many scientists, BB does suggest that all matter may have appeared without an explanation of its source. Then according to many scientists space also appeared and developed with the expanding universe. But interestingly enough, scientists suggest time did not even exist as we understand it before BB. So in some distant past (~20 BYA say evolutionists)all Time, matter and by extension energy began. How? The answer may elude many scientists but not all people.
"BB does suggest that all matter may have appeared without an explanation of its source. "
That is not the same as saying that it came from nothing.
20 BYA is not said by "evolutionists," but by almost all practicing physicists. Anybody can come up with answers. That doesn't mean they're scientifically justified.
The justification is the scientifically measurable radiant spectra that is emitted from bodies at given distances from Earth. This is very interesting indeed. Why Earth. Science has also suggested that Earth is the most likely platform from which these observations can be made. Does earth has special prominance in the universe? Indeed it does and much has been written scientifically with regard to this. Want to hear more?
I'm not sure. I've wasted an unbelievable amount of time following down rabbit holes. Gimme one pointer to a non-religious source - a few paragraphs to determine whether it's worth a greater investment of effort.
Yes. I was raised a Baptist. However, the term "Christian" is ambiguous. Many people define it in such a way that only their particular sect qualifies. So they say Catholics, JWs, Mormons, among others, are not Christians.
The reason some religions say theirs is the only Christian religion is due to the many false interpretations of scripture. Lets be honest many millions have sufferd at the hands of so-called religions including those claiming to be christian. This reality does more harm to Christianity than almost any other kind of danage. Its hypocracy and even those Christians of the body of the church feel its sting. Try reading more than just large tracts of the Holy bible without man's interpretation.
Begin your research with covenant. This is key to understanding scripture and it will take some time. Just like your mind is open to the belief that radiologic data is correct,which i suspect you have have not fully proven to your satisfaction but have allowed someone to convinvce you of its science, allow yourself-no use some method to force yourself-to remain open minded about what you read. I agree it would be difficult but you have shown that you are intelligent and fair.
I have very limited time and have chosen to limit my investigations to certain areas. I have no interest whatever in trying to understand religion(s). I read the bible nowadays almost strictly for pleasure. I haven't a remote reason to suspect it would be worth investing more time. I spend most of my research time on thermodynamics, probability and complex adaptive systems. I understand the math behind radiometric dating and I understand what can cause bad dates.
Proceed with what? I didn't say I was an expert on thermodynamics; I said I'm researching the subject (not original research at this point, but review).
It is absolutely absurd to say such a thing. The word "prove" is an anachronism. It is shown beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is much more than 10e9 yrs old and that earth itself is more than 4 by. I have no idea what you mean by "the Scientific Principle," but it's doubtful that many practicing scientists would associate it with the actual scientific method.
Most repeatable actions have been studied and had scientific principles applied to them but the scientific principle is a precept upon which the scientific method was developed. And I hope you're correct about practising scientists.
I agree that Evolution can be counted a scientifc principle by definition but not in the sense of evolving from one form of complex life with extremely specific requirements into another with a different set of requirements. This is clearly an extrapolation based upon what all of us can observe. (I.E. Mendelson). But there is no real evidence of this kind of massive change, only conjecture, albeit fascinating.
I think you mean 'Mendel'? Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. All theories are extrapolations. We don't have to a thing to have confidence in its existence. Nobody has seen an electron - we 'know' of them only from inference. Nobody has seen gravitation; we know it from inference. On the other hand, we have witnessed evolution.
Everything we know about science has been postulated by great minds. Few of us have actually done the research to verify. So we are in a state of trust. That makes science a cooperate endeaver. It would be impossible for us to perform each scientific experiment to our satisfaction. You haven't personally seen gravity! You haven't personally determined the mass of air! I suspect most of us have not personally proven that the earth is round. But all of this is true.
NOBODY has EVER seen gravity. They have seen an effect which they have interpreted as being due to gravity.
"But all of this is true."
I'm not sure 'true' is the right word, but they are all considered facts. Moreover, all of these ideas are capable of being disproved if they are wrong, i.e. they are falsifiable.
Now you have almost stumbled upon science and we have circumnavigated back to my original question; name a point in scripture that can be falsified and name an instance of that being done by science. And since you have said that these ideas can be falsified then you should avoid going back to your previous statement that suggests science cannot prove or disprove scripture (which is the foundation of believing in God).
"Scripture" is not the foundation for believing in God. It is the foundation for believing in your version of God. These ideas ARE NOT falsifiable, b/c if they disagree with science one simply says that a miracle occurred to explain them. I have already given examples. The literal story of creation is technically falsified by science; however, any disagreement can be explained away by recourse to miracles. Same with Noachic flood or 40 years wandering in desert, etc.
I've never mentioned a miracle or magic etc. etc. Nothing in science disagrees with the Holy bible. Any statement in the holy bible is able to be tested. But the most important test is prophecy. There is no reputable historical document in existance anywhere that is in disagreement with the Holy bible. You tell me. Doesn't the quaran even admit to the life and death of Christ but not his diety?
Species popping into existence ex nihilo qualifies as magic. To the extent that we can test statements in the Bible, we know that some of them are false. The literal account of creation is not in agreement with science. Claims of alleged prophecies are just claims. "Prophecy" is among the sillier "proofs," but I won't digress to non-science. You simply discount anything that disagrees with your forgone conclusion.
We know that the world is vastly older than 6,000 years. We know there was no flood that covered the entire world. We know that all of the species did not pop into existence over the course of 6 days. We know that nobody lived in the belly of a whale for days. We know that millions of people never roamed the desert for 40 years.
@TheFallibleFiend There are some amazing assumptions you just made. If you would check out Gerald Schroeder and how 6 days and billions of years can be the same thing... the Bible does not say that Jonah lived in the belly of the fish (that's Disney), if they stop looking on the Sinai Peninsula and start looking in Saudi Arabia, they might find the 40 year artifacts. It's hard to argue against a Book, if you do not know very much about it. It's amazing how much you "know".
@brainey8 I don't know anything about Disney. It *IS* in the Bible.
Jonah 1:17 And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
@TheFallibleFiend I do not see anything in the two scripture references you gave that say anything about him staying alive for three days and three nights. Remember, Jesus, in the Bible record was risen from the dead. Now you can say that you do not believe that anyone could rise from the dead after three days... but that is a different issue than saying that the bible says that Jonah was alive for three days and nights in the belly of a fish. it does not say that in your references.
Jonah 1:17 And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
What? Was he dead in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights? You're playing word games instead of reading this idiotic passage as you would any other book. Go away.
@brainey8 We have satellite imagery that can see where 2 people have camped in the desert for one night 10,000 years ago. There is no place in any desert on Earth showing where millions of people camped for 40 years. There is no evidence of any large Jewish presence in Egypt from that period. I'm familiar with Schroeder and am not impressed.
God bless you. I'll trouble you no more. I believe in the literal creation of the universe, but contrary to what you have suggested, and this can be verified by these posts, I never invoked magic, miracles, or anything you couldn't discuss; I met you on your terms. However you suggested an unreasonable method of hypothesis construction, flexibility of scientific terms and vacillated on provableness of the Holy bible. For the sake of posterity respond if you wish but not directly to me.
One final thought this evening: what purpose would it serve a creationist to engage in subterfuge against science in general? Is this kind of accusation another attempt to codify all Creationists into a safe place for you.
The "revealed" truths of the Bible are inconsistent with actual science. But many people innately trust science more than religion with regards to fact. Religionists want their beliefs to be perceived as equal to any scientific opinions. They take 3 approaches:
You spent a lot of time tearing apart the video and saying that there was no real understanding of the disciplines mentioned. But most of us are in the same situaton. Few of us have the mental faculties to deal wth the theories of an Einstein and fewer still would have resources to produce something. On the other hand we all would like to think we are that intelligent. I've published nothing signifcant, Have you? If so may I read it?
I have published, but nothing significant, although I did coauthor a simulation paper that won an award. I have other papers, but they are proprietary papers owned by my company. Only two are peer reviewed. None are directly relevant to evolution (although I'm working on a few now that are).
We don't have to publish papers to critique Creationist videos any more than they have to publish papers to make them. We follow the reasoning. Where it's correct, we make note. Where it's incorrect, we do the same. Where Missler uses pnut butter to illustrate how the entire food industry assumes abiogenesis is false is an example of erroneous thinking - either he doesn't get it or he's lying or he just doesn't care.
I among the people that innately trust science. suppose for that our discussion didn't involve any spectral assertation. I would have to exclude God, and you would be forced to demonstrate repeatable evoulution from one species into a new species. If you can't do that then your method doesn't follow conventional science and becomes a "best guess". But we can begin an experiment that is science. One of us should return in several billion years to see if you're correct. I volunteer. Join me?
You also don't apparently understand how hypotheses are constructed or how they fit together to support theories. This would take more space to explain that 500 chars. Here's a different take: watch?v=Un-I0mRq8Dw
This contains some stuff extraneous to our discussion, but does explain what theories are.
First, they attempt to show that their view, is after all, the truly scientific view. In other cases, they will exaggerate the failings of science. And finally, they attempt to misrepresent what science is and how it works.
This is not always done out of malice. Most of the time, creationists just haven't done their homework. They swear up and down that they HAVE TOO done ENOUGH ... and then go on to demonstrate they haven't.
Tree ring data alone show it to be 16K years old, varves and ice cores at least in the 100s of Ks, and radiometric techniques in the billions. Contrary to exaggerations and outright falsehoods promulgated by creationist ineptitude, there is no reason to suspect radiometric techniques are so grossly mistaken.
You apparently don't understand dendrochronology. But I'll concede if you demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that carbon 14 dating or any other dating is accurate beyond 11,000 years
I don't misunderstand, but I did misremember. 11K is about right for tree ring data. The info on radiometric dating is readily available to anyone who gets it from actual science sources. Almost all practicing scientists accept that these dates are accurate beyond a reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not a "reasonable doubt" and you are not the arbiter of what consitutes "reasonable doubt" to anyone but yourself.
With regard to randomness, although I really don't see it as sgnifcant. Are you suggesting that C14 degrades randomly from organic objects and that is a true randomness that could be measured at least in theory?
I'm having difficulty deciphering what you're asking. I don't remember mentioning randomness. The decay of any particular 14C (or other) atom is random so far as we can tell. It's only when we observe a lot of atoms that we can recognize patterns and deduce decay rates. The decay rate is not affected by the organic or inorganic origin of the atoms.
Review your video post. I just have a question that I cannot wrap my mind around; If degrdation of carbon 14 is truly random, then how can radiologic data be reliably based upon a constant rate of decay?
Ah...the video! Good! Random does not mean that "anything goes." Random events still occur according to a distribution. Nuclear power plants work because we understand these distributions. Radiometric dating doesn't depend on the random decay of an individual atom, but on the distribution of random decays that we absolutely depend on to run power plants safely.
Then the liklihood of random numbers being generated by an algorythm should prove to have the same type of randomnes of the decay of carbon 14 within the set of parameters you have defined. Both are subsets of a parameter with finiteness.
Nope. Neither Chuck nor I maintain this. It's not the same type of randomness, but we hope the results are similar. "Random" numbers generated by algorithms are pseudo-random; however, in simulations we use pseudo-random and assume that the results should be similar. (I think there is a more rigorous explanation for this, but my background is not in math or probability theory, but in applied math.)
Then you postulate another unprovable idea. If you could in theory connect a computer to a rock and quantify its loss of carbon 14, there is still no way you can say its random loss of an isotope is different than the randomness of a number generated by an algorithm.
I'm not postulating anything. I'm telling you what everyone conversant with probability already knows. A number generated by an algorithm can ONLY be pseudo-random, by definition. Even Chuck Missler agrees with that. There is no algorithm by which we can predict the decay of a specific atom.
But I have a question for you! Why did I even care to argue the issue? It was a waste of my time to try to convince someone that God did not exist. I will agree that Hovind's situation has become an embarrassment to many. And much of what Creationist say is conjecture. Most real Creationists would not have troubled themselves with evolutionists for very long.
Hovind ought to have been an embarrassment long before his situation. Almost everything he argued was not just wrong, but stupid. Same with AiG, IC, and Creation Ministries. There has been a great deal of good science that turned out to be wrong. Modern creationism is not among that science.
We speak different languages. You have been given over to a depraved mind. You seem to be a expert about all things. Your research into creationist arguments have given you a unique and powerful perspective of truth. You have employed your knowledge and communication skills to prove that you did evolve from single celled organism. To translate I would tell you the truth is you were created and your sinful nature has allowed you to be deceived by fine words of other learned people.
Your post is not pertinent to my video, but I'll respond anyway. It isn't "sinful nature" that makes me an evolutionist, but logic and evidence. Creationists believe that logic and evidence are wrong if they disagree with their holy book. They reason poorly, even when they attempt it, so their judgment about the holy book is hopelessly muddled.
Perhaps then, we are finally reaching the same conclusion. It is apparent that you have no idea of my reasoning. Have you read the entire Holy Bible, and made a real effort to find faults in its science?
I have read large parts of the bible, but not all. I have not attempted to find fault in it at all. Rather, certain faults leap out at one who reads it as he would any other book.
By answering this question with integrity, you've demonstrated a point. I think something inside of each of us generates a sense of right and wrong. We know its wrong to lie and so you didn't. Will you now say that it is a cultural norm at play. If so why do all civilizations incorporate this more into their culture? You know where I'm going.
It seems like you're going the C.S. Lewis route (cf "The Abolition of Man"), i.e. there must be a God to explain the source of a common morality. I don't think we need a God to explain certain baseline commonalities in morality. Even if science could never explain it, making up a God to explain is no real explanation.
Religionists insist that we accept their judgment about this alleged holy book, but every iota of evidence is that their judgment is impaired. The root cause is their arrogance, which eventually leads to their dismissal of anything remotely resembling a logical argument and their generally contemptuous attitude towards people who look for and evaluate evidence before arriving at firm conclusions.
You mistake an honest attempt at evangelism as arrogance. The truth is we Christians believe we are called to tell others good news. I reluctantly accept that you disagree with Christian theology, yet that doesn't give me permission to cower away from telling the truth. By the way, I challenge you to look up the word "religion" and then find an example of evolution that is not religion.
Evangelism is rude. The fact that it's mandated by a holy book makes it no less rude. What you are telling is not "the truth," but your perception of it. The only people who think evolution is a religion are the ones who have a comic-book understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
I did not mean to place a stumbling block in front of you. I am only telling you what I have learned to be true for us both in the process of trying to prove otherwise. I learned about science at a public institution as you must have. Hours of professors teaching the "truth" as they understood it. I haven't resorted to insults toward you by suggesting that you wern't using your mind. And yet I infer from your comment that you believe I have been reading too many comics.
2. Evolution is not "religion." I didn't say you read too many comic books. I said the only people who would assert evolution is a religion are people who have a comic-book understanding of it. That's my empirical conclusion based on hundreds of conversations with them over the years.
Well said. Missler does a survey of science to demonstrate his "knowledge" but either purposefully or through ignorance, skews the knowledge, in favor of fantastical explanations and coincidences.
yes. They're my opinion. The purpose of my channel is to promote clear thinking and oppose magical thinking. My best and worst of the tube videos are pointing out other videos that are good or bad by that criterion.
Wrong because I did not say you are atheist but he tried to give simplest example like the jar story to remove any deadlock in the listener mind. He did not say random number does not exist in Math and he gave example of infinity limit also. But he said in realty. I am doing PhD on prior simulation for electromagnetic devices. In approximated simulation using pseudo number might be useful to bring you nearest to reality but in accurate model there is sequence of linked events and nothing random
Atheism thinking usually began when logical thinking sequence is broken or because of some psychological pressure. Otherwise God presence is so obvious and clear like still air around us. When believer discuss atheist, he tries to find the deadlock to remove it from atheist mind, not as you thought that believer tries to fight you in the area you do not know. Believer heart is always filled of warm faith and loves to share it with every one. Some time takes some wrong means. No one is perfect
1-You contradict your self three times you said He is wrong then said he is good then said bad. So you are wrong.
2-Computers can not generate random numbers. Nuclear generator usually is not a part of logic circuitry and you agree with this.
Nuclear decay sequence process is not 100% clear yet. So it might be governed very good one or more successive pseudo generators formulas with very long variable seed. So, nuclear decay may not be really a random process. so you are wrong
1. I may be wrong, but you have failed to show where.
2. I said he (Missler) is right about some things and wrong about others.
3. Computers 'could' generate rnd #s IF THEY WERE HOOKED UP TO nuclear decay. Missler said such #'s don't exist. I am not wrong - at least not for the reasons you cited.
wow, responding to Missler's video - and talking for how long? 7 min. 45 sec. and saying nothing - is this new art or just a mental fart? Some people know how to grab your attention; say something that makes sense.
I was responding to 2 hrs of video in less than 10 minutes. I didn't say as much as I could have, but I said enough, if you were paying attention. Summary: Missler's video is a waste of time. I watched both of them twice - far more effort than it was worth.
open the Bible and research it..do have one?:Revelation 16 verse.16. Quote KJV..And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.or, in the Jewish Bible"Har Megiddo"..this is the Future about 7 or so,years from now.Jews will be protected in "Petra"=greek."Sela=Hebrew, 6th century fortress in Rock. go to google: given you all I can, it's up to you. Faith is a requirment. you'll have to learn the hard way - Tribulation .
How can this be a prophecy if it hasn't come true yet? I'm extremely busy. I know lots of people are busy, but I'm particularly busy these days. If you've thought this through as carefully as you think, then you should be able to give me something better than "go over there and look for this ... and oh, by the way, you need to believe in this connection in order to see it."
I never said he wasn't educated. I believe he's a smart guy and knows a lot of things. I think he went to a real university and got a real degree. It's pretty clear from his videos that he isn't very conversant in how science works and particularly what evolutionary theory says. Engineering is not science.
You poke fun at chuck saying he doesn't understand philosophy, among other things, and then you go and say you are interested what can be disproved? If you had any understand of well, anything, you wouldn't make such an absurd comment. And you think everyone else is arrogant, or in a cult. Could it be that your own ego is so huge, you can't even see the limits of it, and therefore, you don't even know it exists?
Your sentences are barely coherent. I believe I said I don't think chuck understand philosophy OF SCIENCE very well and he certainly doesn't understand evolution very well. Science concerns itself with what can be disproved - that is the essence of the philosophy of science. I didn't say I think everyone else is arrogant. I do think that most creationists tend to be pretty arrogant, because they make grandiose assertions in areas where they haven't done an honest day's worth of homework.
Most of what chuck said is accurate. And lets say its not though. You basically gave no evidence to support why its not even worth watching. Did you even watch the whole thing, or just fast forward to hear bits here and there? And no, when one check up one finds the most historical accurate religious text there is. You haven't check up or else you wouldn't say such an absurd statement.
Almost everything Chuck said was either trivial or false. I have 10 minutes for this segment, approx 5 for worst of the tube and 5 for the other. Five minutes is not sufficient to give a thorough refutation of every wrong thing he said. I watched the entire video - both segments twice, very carefully, no skipping. I always spend more time on the worst than the best.
Dearest F.f. I just typed out a rundown to a guy with a question.. long story short.. go here and read my comment to him.. because it is to YOU TOO.. I just can't be typing to everyone all the time.. -- youtube-- TheFarcicalCourt----Check out on Google for Proof: China's raod construction leading to the euphrateds River, which the Bible predicted woud be cross over by them at the Battle of armegeddon.. just one piece of the prophecy... coneing true now. many more
..rember the thief on the cross? next to Jesus?.. he beleived, just like that.. and didn't think he was good enough. Jesus promised him, Paradise. which also indicates that there is another place that HE saved the man from.. Hell..Listen you have to do this ,, get a hold of Chuck.. Love yah man. want the best for yah. Please do it. nanc
Oh yeah, good rebuttals moron. You were so eloquent and convincing the way you fumbled through trying to explain about 1.5 of chucks ideas out of a 2 hour presentation. I wish you actually had more substance in that lousy rebuttal that I could talk about, but being that I could hardly understand you as you tripped over your own words, I guess I'll just recommend some rehearsal next time, and maybe a shave so you don't like like a total idiot next time. Well done.
You inadvertently responded to someone who agrees with you instead of me. The purpose was to give a viewer a flavor of the content and to give a few points of why it was wrong - not to give a point-by-point refutation. I'm sure that you had trouble understanding me, you being such a genius and all.
I'm sure that in your mind what you are saying sounds high-minded and reasonable. There is not a shred of reliable evidence to suggest that it is remotely true. I'm sure Chuck is very nice and extremely knowledgeable about the things he actually understands. I'm pretty sure, however, that evolution, science, and philosophy are not among the things with which he is intimately familiar.
-G-d can make the earth look as old as he wants he's G-d. Now to get to the point. I really care about you. I would love to see you ask Jesus into your heart. and not see you left behind. the rapture is about to happen. and then all Hell on earth will break loose. YOUR DAD LOVES you. yah, your REAL dad. G-d/Jesus.there isn't enough space to detail. just look to Chuck's Myspace.. don't waste another minute. As rapture happens(Bombs anti-christ will arise to clean up the mess (civilization),
You may not realize it - or perhaps you do - but what you are attempting is to emotionally manipulate me. This is very common among cult-members. Unfortunately, people who are in cults seldom perceive that they are in a cult. Nothing you have said has any support at all in the observable facts. It's a conclusion you reached by yourself being manipulated.
I would like to see you and chuck debate. but it would frustrate you to hear him inject Jesus.. and you injecting other Mens philosophies..book knowledge .. when G-d created the world, he made it look really old. the trees were mature. the grass was not freshly seeded. it was all made of mature stuff. with fruit , ready to eat. so measuring it's age can be confussing to "almighty man"... cont..
If Chuck and I debated, Chuck would destroy me, as would the least creationist on youtube. I'm not a debater. It should be obvious from my videos that I'm pathetic as a public speaker. I have considered the possibility of a universe created in an aged-state. This is not a possibility that is subject to scientific analysis.
.. stuck on a debate that has answers if you move forward . like reading a book 1/2 way through, and finishing it that way...look at the entire picture, you will believe, guarented.. if you research it as much as you have in your topic of interest.Chuck's format with peanut butter example was a simplistic laymons approach,you should understand that, as you have more background. ... cont
I don't know when I see the entire picture. How can any person know when he sees the entire picture. I see what I see. I search. I try to understand. Chuck's approach was a gross and misleading oversimplification.
hi again F.F... Evolutionist, Creationist.Spritualist,etc...man made names. titles.. Your main concern should be Proof right?..the Bible is a book of the past ,present and Future. do you know anyother book which has had each event come true, according to secular accounts...don't just isolate yourself with this topic.. move across time in the Bible.. but at this point. the conclusion is about to happen. your still "Back there"...
I'm more concerned with what can be disproved. People claim the events in the Bible come true, but when one checks up on it, one discovers a lot of hand-waving and wishful thinking.
to Faliblefiend---I watched your comments.. Being a Creationi-st is a Gift. from G-d. G-d will only give Proof HIS way, not mans .. He is looking for Faith in HIM... a rare quality. G-d chose leaders in the Bible based on this -Satan knows the Facts & truth of his end.,yet dosen't follow G-d. His majority rules the earth,More people will follow him to Hell then heaven., and is about to make his grand appearance soon,666, opinions won't matter, one mind, his mind. see Veri-chip on utube.
I'd LOVE to see your presentation on physics, or any other science for that matter. "No, you're wrong," the epitome of scientific method. Great work!
salmagnum 1 year ago
Its a question of faith..get it? Faith cant be viewed as neither controling or wrong, nor a bad thing. Exactly when did it become ok to think a person thats found some faith for his heart is stupid or dumb and needs to "go check the information over there" as you so gently put it. I really wish i could have a debate with you, and yes, that means that i aint gonna bother answering anyone else whom i consider to be just trolling or plain stupid to use youre words. Well,hope i got you rattled up=)
3qk 1 year ago
@3qk Missler, et. al. aren't claiming merely that their view is attainable by faith, but that it is supported by the science. That is factually false. People aren't dumb or stupid because they "found faith." But neither does their faith inoculate them from being stupid.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
I urge you all to join MEism! Its a popular new belief wherein I created reality before time was time, and then with a wink set the ball rolling! I'm omniscient, omnipresent and of course, omnipowerful.The only reason i do not demonstrate said power, or even the reality of my existance to nonbelievers is because i much prefer to watch you all carry on with your zany religious interpretations of that stellar fart you all call the universe! I'm deity incognito!
rafetizer 2 years ago
Just wanted to "jump on the bandwagon", so to speak, with these silly people touting their bibles and religions as a "correct" history of creation. Religion is many things- a code of morale conduct, a history, entertainment, control...- but there is no concrete evidence that any text or set of beliefs was "handed down" by a true deity. Citing Harry Potter as "proof" 2000 years from now doesn't make flying on a broom via magic any less fictitious. I'll bet people will believe it anyway lol!
rafetizer 2 years ago
Wow, I'm really disappointed. I wanted to see an intelligent debate against the Science of God, but instead had to watch someone fumble around for 5 min. (I couldn't make it thru 7:40). You complain about Creationists not being willing to change their minds, using old circular arguments, and broadcasting their beliefs w/o credentials. Maybe so. But you also just discribed yourself. Hypocrite. I'm just glad that only a few people have had to sit through your immature complaining. & clean up
baronshober 2 years ago
The video never claimed to offer a debate. Clearly you have reading comprehension problems. Suggest you troll elsewhere.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 2
Missler has no understanding of physics.
Why is it, whenever something, which to the layman might seem counter-intuitive, occurs in physics, out come the mystics, the spiritual and the religious, all misinterpreting it as supporting god, religion, mysticism or whatever the latest fashion is? Why do people get their physics from these crackpots? I bet they'd only allow a qualified surgeon to perform surgery on them.
Zantorc 2 years ago
Nice Going FableFiend,let them know. "you can fool some people sometimes but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Darshuiami 3 years ago
all I heard was ah uh and um blah blah blah you aren't even on chucks level
THEHRHOFTIME 3 years ago 2
Thank heavens!
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Creationists and other apologists haven't done their homework:
watch?v=nrTC068aHFg#GU5U2spHI_4
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Proverbs 24:7
Proverbs 24:11
Proverbs 27:22
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Bible quotes are irrelevant to scientific discourse.
watch?v=ubmqYNWE-ig
watch?v=EjOhunmMMZE
watch?v=J7jtnskYyzQ
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Wow, what an interesting thread. I wonder what will happen when you both realize that you both have great faith. You each faithfully believe in what you cannot prove yourselves. You have each chosen to believe in what others before you have said to be true. Without being able to prove your beliefs you have put faith into it. Interesting isnt it.
CtrlAltDel08 4 years ago
It is interesting that you have so faithfully misrepresented the facts.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
You aren't illiterate, but why use your mind to defend atheism? Why do atheists even feel the need to give their lack of faith a title?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Humans use words to describe things and relationships between things. I seldom use my mind to "defend atheism." Certainly that wasn't the content or purpose of this video. This series discusses videos that do a good job of presenting science and others that misrepresents science or how it works.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Have you ever seen a good presentation of creationism? I suspect you look hard only for bad science. I have seen good presentations with scientific evidence that would cause arguers for both sides of the issue to pause. Use science to demonstrate that evolution is not a belief. Not just anecdotal evidence. This is your opportunity to convert me. I may be sitting on the fence.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I look hard for good science in creationism. I have read creationist books and articles. I have seen presentations on the web and I washed Duane Gish present. The absolutely startling thing is that in every single instance these "experts" demonstrate profound ignorance of the subject and yet are lauded as brilliant by the true believers. You're not sitting on the fence - and you're not going to evaluate the evidence. You already have your conclusion prior to looking at the evidence.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
At this point its important that you understand this! I have a two degrees in science related fields and for many years was an ardent "atheist" even having spent time debating against the existance of a Creator. I used the evidence of science that you say esists to prove that no Creator is possible.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Atheism is not directly related to evolution or science. Science cannot address the existence or non-existence of a creator.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Wrong
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Atheism is not directly related to evolution or to science. That is correct.
Science cannot address the existence or non-existence of a creator. That is correct.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I disagree with both statements.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I have debated pators with PHd's, Prfessors of biology who said they believed in God, even well meaning Christians who feared for the loss of my soul, but I never began with a preconceived conclusion that God is there. In fact quiet the opposite. I even had the scientific "evidence" you say is there to support my argument.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I don't know what scientific evidence there is to support or disprove the idea of God. Science is incapable of addressing the existence of God.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
The why did you attempt to provide some evidence earlier in our thread? Our conversation is circuitous. You must be thrilling yourself.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I presented evidence there was no God? Refuting claims from the bible is not the same as refuting God. However, the situation is a little confusing. Science and good sense tell us that the story of Jonah is just a story, but science can't address miracles.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Give me an example of the science that shows us that the story of Jonah is simply allegory. I'm not suggesting that you are wrong here but why use this example. Why not ask how an ass can speak although it has no physical means of doing this? Clearly there is allegory in scripture and many things we can't explain but go back and read these stories with a little more care. Now you have shown a personal bias that you can't get beyond. This is preconception and explains your earlier attribution.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
You asked for examples, not a complete enumeration, and so I only listed three. If the story of Jonah is interpreted as allegory, then it's not literally in opposition to science. There are people who believe the literal truth of it as well as the literal truth of the creation myth. But it's pretty easy to come in after science has sorted things out and say, "Oh, this part is literal and predates science, but this part is against science and so is figurative."
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Now I'm confused. First you provide some "evidence" that the bible is flawed, then say I've reached a conclusion prior to looking at "the" evidence, now you say no evidence will support or disprove the idea of God. Are you just wanting to "win?" If so then I concede and you may go on happily. However, If you'll work to keep a congruent line of thought then I'll be happy to give you some things to think about that perhaps you haven't considered. Of course this begs your next question.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
It is a little confusing. The Bible is at odds with science; however, science can't handle miracles. If there is a God and that god intervened to produce a miracle, science can't address it. It can't distinguish "God did it" from "we don't know."
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
You didn't address my underlying question. Do you have evidence or not. You have given evidence then said none exists. There is science in scripture that predates man's knowledge of science.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I gave good evidence that the bible is false from a scientific perspective. That is not the same as disproving god. I never said that science disproves god or even hinted at it.
There is no more "science" in the bible than there is in the quran or the indian scriptures.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Have you read the quran? Again I suggest that you spend some real time in the Holy bible. Scripture is not something that you can read like a scientific paper. Now on to another question. Do you pray? In the amount of time we have taken to consider this issue you could have spent some time in scripture and prayer and generated some empirical data with which to demonstrate your point.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Yes. I have read the entire Quran. I occasionally re-read certain chapters of the Bible - Eccl, Job, John, Genesis, a few others. I have no inclination to read the entire thing. Why would I pray? Prayer would not have offered me "empirical data."
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I appreciate your graciousness in continuing our talk. However, each time I see a response to my post, I read it, respond and then delete the link so that it will be difficult for me to return even if I search. At anytime that you wish for me to stop being "rude" to you, simply stop replying. I will bother you no more. You can get back to convincing your own. If you desire a different route, my email can be made available.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
"simply stop replying."
Glad to, so long as there is nothing to clear up ... like this:
"You can get back to convincing your own. "
The purpose of the videos and thread is not to convince, but to elucidate.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Actually it is an elusive means of promoting your belief. I have seen your you tube account and promotion of atheism is your primary interest. Your psuedoanalysis of "scientific" videos is one of your vehicles.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Proof of atheism is not my primary interest. As a creationist pseudoscientist, it is likely you perceive any objective science that disagrees with your religious assumptions as a promotion of atheism.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Again with the ad hominem. I would once again respectfully ask you to provide some objective science that disagrees with my belief in Christianity (which is the basis of my "religious assumptions")
texaslawns1 4 years ago
No more "ad hominem" than your refering to my videos as "pseudoanalysis." Science says the world is billions of years old and that all species are related from one or a few ancient progenitors. I'm not going to be able to enumerate all of the evidence and if I pick 2 or 3, you will likely just ask why I didn't pick some others.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Do you believe any god? Science does not say the earth is billions of years old. Evolutionists have hijacked science, and said that science proves the universe is 20 billion + years old. One cannot use the Scientific Principle to prove anything more accurately than eleven thousand years old and even that is questionable.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I believe in no god. Science indeed does say that the world is billions of years old. "Evolutionists" have not hijacked anything. Creationists are attempting to do so, but their numbers are so low and their collective scientific contributions so few, that they must resort to politics to achieve their aim.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Do you believe in intelligent life off of our planet?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
1. I don't see the relevance.
2. I think it's possible.
3. I don't know whether it's likely.
4. There is no reason to think it has visited Earth or that it ever will.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Truth is I was trying to get an idea of who you are. My belief closely follows yours here. Explain the Big Bang. I believe its currently the most plausible idea according to evolutionists yet some serious questions remain unanswered. In your opinion, if the universe started from nothing or a small dense piece of matter, and even space did not exist before that, then how is this issue resolved in the mind of a non believer. The first sentence in Genesis and the big bang are inextricably linked.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Evolution (B.E. for biological evolution) does not rely on the Big Bang (B.B. or cosmological evolution, C.E.). BB is not on the same level as BE; however, it doesn't say the universe came from nothing. The ultimate origin may forever elude scientific analysis. But even if science can never give a good answer, it wouldn't constitute a proof of god.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
In fact according to many scientists, BB does suggest that all matter may have appeared without an explanation of its source. Then according to many scientists space also appeared and developed with the expanding universe. But interestingly enough, scientists suggest time did not even exist as we understand it before BB. So in some distant past (~20 BYA say evolutionists)all Time, matter and by extension energy began. How? The answer may elude many scientists but not all people.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
"BB does suggest that all matter may have appeared without an explanation of its source. "
That is not the same as saying that it came from nothing.
20 BYA is not said by "evolutionists," but by almost all practicing physicists. Anybody can come up with answers. That doesn't mean they're scientifically justified.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
The justification is the scientifically measurable radiant spectra that is emitted from bodies at given distances from Earth. This is very interesting indeed. Why Earth. Science has also suggested that Earth is the most likely platform from which these observations can be made. Does earth has special prominance in the universe? Indeed it does and much has been written scientifically with regard to this. Want to hear more?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
"Want to hear more?"
I'm not sure. I've wasted an unbelievable amount of time following down rabbit holes. Gimme one pointer to a non-religious source - a few paragraphs to determine whether it's worth a greater investment of effort.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
My parents were not Christians. Were yours?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Yes. I was raised a Baptist. However, the term "Christian" is ambiguous. Many people define it in such a way that only their particular sect qualifies. So they say Catholics, JWs, Mormons, among others, are not Christians.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
The reason some religions say theirs is the only Christian religion is due to the many false interpretations of scripture. Lets be honest many millions have sufferd at the hands of so-called religions including those claiming to be christian. This reality does more harm to Christianity than almost any other kind of danage. Its hypocracy and even those Christians of the body of the church feel its sting. Try reading more than just large tracts of the Holy bible without man's interpretation.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Begin your research with covenant. This is key to understanding scripture and it will take some time. Just like your mind is open to the belief that radiologic data is correct,which i suspect you have have not fully proven to your satisfaction but have allowed someone to convinvce you of its science, allow yourself-no use some method to force yourself-to remain open minded about what you read. I agree it would be difficult but you have shown that you are intelligent and fair.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I have very limited time and have chosen to limit my investigations to certain areas. I have no interest whatever in trying to understand religion(s). I read the bible nowadays almost strictly for pleasure. I haven't a remote reason to suspect it would be worth investing more time. I spend most of my research time on thermodynamics, probability and complex adaptive systems. I understand the math behind radiometric dating and I understand what can cause bad dates.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Of course this should be right up your thermodynamic alley. So rejoice, you have me at a human disadvantage. Proceed with that.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Proceed with what? I didn't say I was an expert on thermodynamics; I said I'm researching the subject (not original research at this point, but review).
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
It is absolutely absurd to say such a thing. The word "prove" is an anachronism. It is shown beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is much more than 10e9 yrs old and that earth itself is more than 4 by. I have no idea what you mean by "the Scientific Principle," but it's doubtful that many practicing scientists would associate it with the actual scientific method.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Most repeatable actions have been studied and had scientific principles applied to them but the scientific principle is a precept upon which the scientific method was developed. And I hope you're correct about practising scientists.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Evolution is a scientific principle that explains the origin of species, among other things. Creationism is not a scientific principle at all.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I agree that Evolution can be counted a scientifc principle by definition but not in the sense of evolving from one form of complex life with extremely specific requirements into another with a different set of requirements. This is clearly an extrapolation based upon what all of us can observe. (I.E. Mendelson). But there is no real evidence of this kind of massive change, only conjecture, albeit fascinating.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I think you mean 'Mendel'? Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. All theories are extrapolations. We don't have to a thing to have confidence in its existence. Nobody has seen an electron - we 'know' of them only from inference. Nobody has seen gravitation; we know it from inference. On the other hand, we have witnessed evolution.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Actually, I meant Mendelism. Thank you.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Everything we know about science has been postulated by great minds. Few of us have actually done the research to verify. So we are in a state of trust. That makes science a cooperate endeaver. It would be impossible for us to perform each scientific experiment to our satisfaction. You haven't personally seen gravity! You haven't personally determined the mass of air! I suspect most of us have not personally proven that the earth is round. But all of this is true.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
"science a cooperate endeaver"
agreed.
"You haven't personally seen gravity!"
NOBODY has EVER seen gravity. They have seen an effect which they have interpreted as being due to gravity.
"But all of this is true."
I'm not sure 'true' is the right word, but they are all considered facts. Moreover, all of these ideas are capable of being disproved if they are wrong, i.e. they are falsifiable.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Now you have almost stumbled upon science and we have circumnavigated back to my original question; name a point in scripture that can be falsified and name an instance of that being done by science. And since you have said that these ideas can be falsified then you should avoid going back to your previous statement that suggests science cannot prove or disprove scripture (which is the foundation of believing in God).
texaslawns1 4 years ago
"Scripture" is not the foundation for believing in God. It is the foundation for believing in your version of God. These ideas ARE NOT falsifiable, b/c if they disagree with science one simply says that a miracle occurred to explain them. I have already given examples. The literal story of creation is technically falsified by science; however, any disagreement can be explained away by recourse to miracles. Same with Noachic flood or 40 years wandering in desert, etc.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I've never mentioned a miracle or magic etc. etc. Nothing in science disagrees with the Holy bible. Any statement in the holy bible is able to be tested. But the most important test is prophecy. There is no reputable historical document in existance anywhere that is in disagreement with the Holy bible. You tell me. Doesn't the quaran even admit to the life and death of Christ but not his diety?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Species popping into existence ex nihilo qualifies as magic. To the extent that we can test statements in the Bible, we know that some of them are false. The literal account of creation is not in agreement with science. Claims of alleged prophecies are just claims. "Prophecy" is among the sillier "proofs," but I won't digress to non-science. You simply discount anything that disagrees with your forgone conclusion.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
What is false?
knmleaguecity 2 years ago
We know that the world is vastly older than 6,000 years. We know there was no flood that covered the entire world. We know that all of the species did not pop into existence over the course of 6 days. We know that nobody lived in the belly of a whale for days. We know that millions of people never roamed the desert for 40 years.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
@TheFallibleFiend There are some amazing assumptions you just made. If you would check out Gerald Schroeder and how 6 days and billions of years can be the same thing... the Bible does not say that Jonah lived in the belly of the fish (that's Disney), if they stop looking on the Sinai Peninsula and start looking in Saudi Arabia, they might find the 40 year artifacts. It's hard to argue against a Book, if you do not know very much about it. It's amazing how much you "know".
brainey8 2 days ago
@brainey8 I don't know anything about Disney. It *IS* in the Bible.
Jonah 1:17 And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
TheFallibleFiend 2 days ago
@TheFallibleFiend I do not see anything in the two scripture references you gave that say anything about him staying alive for three days and three nights. Remember, Jesus, in the Bible record was risen from the dead. Now you can say that you do not believe that anyone could rise from the dead after three days... but that is a different issue than saying that the bible says that Jonah was alive for three days and nights in the belly of a fish. it does not say that in your references.
brainey8 1 day ago
@brainey8 Can you not read?
Jonah 1:17 And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
What? Was he dead in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights? You're playing word games instead of reading this idiotic passage as you would any other book. Go away.
TheFallibleFiend 1 day ago
@brainey8 We have satellite imagery that can see where 2 people have camped in the desert for one night 10,000 years ago. There is no place in any desert on Earth showing where millions of people camped for 40 years. There is no evidence of any large Jewish presence in Egypt from that period. I'm familiar with Schroeder and am not impressed.
TheFallibleFiend 2 days ago
God bless you. I'll trouble you no more. I believe in the literal creation of the universe, but contrary to what you have suggested, and this can be verified by these posts, I never invoked magic, miracles, or anything you couldn't discuss; I met you on your terms. However you suggested an unreasonable method of hypothesis construction, flexibility of scientific terms and vacillated on provableness of the Holy bible. For the sake of posterity respond if you wish but not directly to me.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
You seem to have a background in mathematics. Teach me of the math that is used by evolutionists to support their thinking.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
In 500 words or less? You don't have access to a library?
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
One final thought this evening: what purpose would it serve a creationist to engage in subterfuge against science in general? Is this kind of accusation another attempt to codify all Creationists into a safe place for you.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
The "revealed" truths of the Bible are inconsistent with actual science. But many people innately trust science more than religion with regards to fact. Religionists want their beliefs to be perceived as equal to any scientific opinions. They take 3 approaches:
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
You spent a lot of time tearing apart the video and saying that there was no real understanding of the disciplines mentioned. But most of us are in the same situaton. Few of us have the mental faculties to deal wth the theories of an Einstein and fewer still would have resources to produce something. On the other hand we all would like to think we are that intelligent. I've published nothing signifcant, Have you? If so may I read it?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I have published, but nothing significant, although I did coauthor a simulation paper that won an award. I have other papers, but they are proprietary papers owned by my company. Only two are peer reviewed. None are directly relevant to evolution (although I'm working on a few now that are).
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
We don't have to publish papers to critique Creationist videos any more than they have to publish papers to make them. We follow the reasoning. Where it's correct, we make note. Where it's incorrect, we do the same. Where Missler uses pnut butter to illustrate how the entire food industry assumes abiogenesis is false is an example of erroneous thinking - either he doesn't get it or he's lying or he just doesn't care.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I among the people that innately trust science. suppose for that our discussion didn't involve any spectral assertation. I would have to exclude God, and you would be forced to demonstrate repeatable evoulution from one species into a new species. If you can't do that then your method doesn't follow conventional science and becomes a "best guess". But we can begin an experiment that is science. One of us should return in several billion years to see if you're correct. I volunteer. Join me?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I think you misunderstand the notion of repeatability in science. Not 'everything' has to be repeatable.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
The scientific method:
1. Ask Question
2. Construct a Hypothesis
3. Test Hypothesis by Experiment
4. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
How does one test the hypothesis that man came from a single celled ancester common to all life on earth?
Communicate Your Results
texaslawns1 4 years ago
You also don't apparently understand how hypotheses are constructed or how they fit together to support theories. This would take more space to explain that 500 chars. Here's a different take: watch?v=Un-I0mRq8Dw
This contains some stuff extraneous to our discussion, but does explain what theories are.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Did you just suggest that a hypothesis is constructed to support a theory?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Yes, however, I meant that as more a statistical hypothesis. Like most scientific terms, "hypothesis" is used in multiple senses.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
First, they attempt to show that their view, is after all, the truly scientific view. In other cases, they will exaggerate the failings of science. And finally, they attempt to misrepresent what science is and how it works.
This is not always done out of malice. Most of the time, creationists just haven't done their homework. They swear up and down that they HAVE TOO done ENOUGH ... and then go on to demonstrate they haven't.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Tree ring data alone show it to be 16K years old, varves and ice cores at least in the 100s of Ks, and radiometric techniques in the billions. Contrary to exaggerations and outright falsehoods promulgated by creationist ineptitude, there is no reason to suspect radiometric techniques are so grossly mistaken.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
You apparently don't understand dendrochronology. But I'll concede if you demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that carbon 14 dating or any other dating is accurate beyond 11,000 years
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I don't misunderstand, but I did misremember. 11K is about right for tree ring data. The info on radiometric dating is readily available to anyone who gets it from actual science sources. Almost all practicing scientists accept that these dates are accurate beyond a reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not a "reasonable doubt" and you are not the arbiter of what consitutes "reasonable doubt" to anyone but yourself.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
With regard to randomness, although I really don't see it as sgnifcant. Are you suggesting that C14 degrades randomly from organic objects and that is a true randomness that could be measured at least in theory?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I'm having difficulty deciphering what you're asking. I don't remember mentioning randomness. The decay of any particular 14C (or other) atom is random so far as we can tell. It's only when we observe a lot of atoms that we can recognize patterns and deduce decay rates. The decay rate is not affected by the organic or inorganic origin of the atoms.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Review your video post. I just have a question that I cannot wrap my mind around; If degrdation of carbon 14 is truly random, then how can radiologic data be reliably based upon a constant rate of decay?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Ah...the video! Good! Random does not mean that "anything goes." Random events still occur according to a distribution. Nuclear power plants work because we understand these distributions. Radiometric dating doesn't depend on the random decay of an individual atom, but on the distribution of random decays that we absolutely depend on to run power plants safely.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Then the liklihood of random numbers being generated by an algorythm should prove to have the same type of randomnes of the decay of carbon 14 within the set of parameters you have defined. Both are subsets of a parameter with finiteness.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Nope. Neither Chuck nor I maintain this. It's not the same type of randomness, but we hope the results are similar. "Random" numbers generated by algorithms are pseudo-random; however, in simulations we use pseudo-random and assume that the results should be similar. (I think there is a more rigorous explanation for this, but my background is not in math or probability theory, but in applied math.)
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Then you postulate another unprovable idea. If you could in theory connect a computer to a rock and quantify its loss of carbon 14, there is still no way you can say its random loss of an isotope is different than the randomness of a number generated by an algorithm.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I'm not postulating anything. I'm telling you what everyone conversant with probability already knows. A number generated by an algorithm can ONLY be pseudo-random, by definition. Even Chuck Missler agrees with that. There is no algorithm by which we can predict the decay of a specific atom.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Note that the decay rate of 14C (or 87Rb or 238U) is not determined by evolutionists, per se. It's determined by physicists.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
The scientific principle operates in the context of objective reality, which basically means two things:
1. The assumption that the observer and observed are completely separate.
2. The assumption that if many observers look at the same thing, it will still be the same thing.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Why would it be your goal to clarify another person's presentation of scienctific information?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
It would be my goal to clarify where certain presenters get it right and where they get it wrong. Chuck Missler's comic book presentation is wrong.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
The purpose of this video was not to debate or convert. The purpose of this video was to analyze and educate.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
But I have a question for you! Why did I even care to argue the issue? It was a waste of my time to try to convince someone that God did not exist. I will agree that Hovind's situation has become an embarrassment to many. And much of what Creationist say is conjecture. Most real Creationists would not have troubled themselves with evolutionists for very long.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Hovind ought to have been an embarrassment long before his situation. Almost everything he argued was not just wrong, but stupid. Same with AiG, IC, and Creation Ministries. There has been a great deal of good science that turned out to be wrong. Modern creationism is not among that science.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
We speak different languages. You have been given over to a depraved mind. You seem to be a expert about all things. Your research into creationist arguments have given you a unique and powerful perspective of truth. You have employed your knowledge and communication skills to prove that you did evolve from single celled organism. To translate I would tell you the truth is you were created and your sinful nature has allowed you to be deceived by fine words of other learned people.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Your post is not pertinent to my video, but I'll respond anyway. It isn't "sinful nature" that makes me an evolutionist, but logic and evidence. Creationists believe that logic and evidence are wrong if they disagree with their holy book. They reason poorly, even when they attempt it, so their judgment about the holy book is hopelessly muddled.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Thank you for responding. Can you give me some logic and evidence that disagrees with the Holy Bible?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
There is evidence:
1. humans cannot live for 3 day sin the belly of another animal.
2. there was not a worldwide flood.
3. the world is vastly more than 10K years old.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
This is logical but it is not "evidence."
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I have no idea what you're reasoning is.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Perhaps then, we are finally reaching the same conclusion. It is apparent that you have no idea of my reasoning. Have you read the entire Holy Bible, and made a real effort to find faults in its science?
texaslawns1 4 years ago
I have read large parts of the bible, but not all. I have not attempted to find fault in it at all. Rather, certain faults leap out at one who reads it as he would any other book.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
By answering this question with integrity, you've demonstrated a point. I think something inside of each of us generates a sense of right and wrong. We know its wrong to lie and so you didn't. Will you now say that it is a cultural norm at play. If so why do all civilizations incorporate this more into their culture? You know where I'm going.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
It seems like you're going the C.S. Lewis route (cf "The Abolition of Man"), i.e. there must be a God to explain the source of a common morality. I don't think we need a God to explain certain baseline commonalities in morality. Even if science could never explain it, making up a God to explain is no real explanation.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Ive never read C.S. Lewis. See Jeremiah 31:33
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Yes. Jeremiah 31:33 is exactly the sort of thing that Lewis was explaining.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Religionists insist that we accept their judgment about this alleged holy book, but every iota of evidence is that their judgment is impaired. The root cause is their arrogance, which eventually leads to their dismissal of anything remotely resembling a logical argument and their generally contemptuous attitude towards people who look for and evaluate evidence before arriving at firm conclusions.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
You mistake an honest attempt at evangelism as arrogance. The truth is we Christians believe we are called to tell others good news. I reluctantly accept that you disagree with Christian theology, yet that doesn't give me permission to cower away from telling the truth. By the way, I challenge you to look up the word "religion" and then find an example of evolution that is not religion.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
Evangelism is rude. The fact that it's mandated by a holy book makes it no less rude. What you are telling is not "the truth," but your perception of it. The only people who think evolution is a religion are the ones who have a comic-book understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I did not mean to place a stumbling block in front of you. I am only telling you what I have learned to be true for us both in the process of trying to prove otherwise. I learned about science at a public institution as you must have. Hours of professors teaching the "truth" as they understood it. I haven't resorted to insults toward you by suggesting that you wern't using your mind. And yet I infer from your comment that you believe I have been reading too many comics.
texaslawns1 4 years ago
1. Evangelism is itself insulting.
2. Evolution is not "religion." I didn't say you read too many comic books. I said the only people who would assert evolution is a religion are people who have a comic-book understanding of it. That's my empirical conclusion based on hundreds of conversations with them over the years.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Well said. Missler does a survey of science to demonstrate his "knowledge" but either purposefully or through ignorance, skews the knowledge, in favor of fantastical explanations and coincidences.
Arianive 4 years ago
these are biased
FeelOfFriction 4 years ago
yes. They're my opinion. The purpose of my channel is to promote clear thinking and oppose magical thinking. My best and worst of the tube videos are pointing out other videos that are good or bad by that criterion.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Wrong because I did not say you are atheist but he tried to give simplest example like the jar story to remove any deadlock in the listener mind. He did not say random number does not exist in Math and he gave example of infinity limit also. But he said in realty. I am doing PhD on prior simulation for electromagnetic devices. In approximated simulation using pseudo number might be useful to bring you nearest to reality but in accurate model there is sequence of linked events and nothing random
Nasir1972u 4 years ago
His simple explanation of the jar is wrong. It is not a comparable situation.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Why.. ready bio chemicals. a lot of Florescent light full UV. give me life
Nasir1972u 4 years ago
Atheism thinking usually began when logical thinking sequence is broken or because of some psychological pressure. Otherwise God presence is so obvious and clear like still air around us. When believer discuss atheist, he tries to find the deadlock to remove it from atheist mind, not as you thought that believer tries to fight you in the area you do not know. Believer heart is always filled of warm faith and loves to share it with every one. Some time takes some wrong means. No one is perfect
Nasir1972u 4 years ago
My video has nothing to do with atheist thinking. It pertains to a discussion of the quality and information in other people's videos.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
You are wrong.
1-You contradict your self three times you said He is wrong then said he is good then said bad. So you are wrong.
2-Computers can not generate random numbers. Nuclear generator usually is not a part of logic circuitry and you agree with this.
Nuclear decay sequence process is not 100% clear yet. So it might be governed very good one or more successive pseudo generators formulas with very long variable seed. So, nuclear decay may not be really a random process. so you are wrong
Nasir1972u 4 years ago
1. I may be wrong, but you have failed to show where.
2. I said he (Missler) is right about some things and wrong about others.
3. Computers 'could' generate rnd #s IF THEY WERE HOOKED UP TO nuclear decay. Missler said such #'s don't exist. I am not wrong - at least not for the reasons you cited.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
wow, responding to Missler's video - and talking for how long? 7 min. 45 sec. and saying nothing - is this new art or just a mental fart? Some people know how to grab your attention; say something that makes sense.
gralith 4 years ago
I was responding to 2 hrs of video in less than 10 minutes. I didn't say as much as I could have, but I said enough, if you were paying attention. Summary: Missler's video is a waste of time. I watched both of them twice - far more effort than it was worth.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
open the Bible and research it..do have one?:Revelation 16 verse.16. Quote KJV..And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.or, in the Jewish Bible"Har Megiddo"..this is the Future about 7 or so,years from now.Jews will be protected in "Petra"=greek."Sela=Hebrew, 6th century fortress in Rock. go to google: given you all I can, it's up to you. Faith is a requirment. you'll have to learn the hard way - Tribulation .
alex9nanc 4 years ago
How can this be a prophecy if it hasn't come true yet? I'm extremely busy. I know lots of people are busy, but I'm particularly busy these days. If you've thought this through as carefully as you think, then you should be able to give me something better than "go over there and look for this ... and oh, by the way, you need to believe in this connection in order to see it."
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I know I know, he is not as educated as you, but at least give him a chance.
mondo223 4 years ago
I never said he wasn't educated. I believe he's a smart guy and knows a lot of things. I think he went to a real university and got a real degree. It's pretty clear from his videos that he isn't very conversant in how science works and particularly what evolutionary theory says. Engineering is not science.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
You poke fun at chuck saying he doesn't understand philosophy, among other things, and then you go and say you are interested what can be disproved? If you had any understand of well, anything, you wouldn't make such an absurd comment. And you think everyone else is arrogant, or in a cult. Could it be that your own ego is so huge, you can't even see the limits of it, and therefore, you don't even know it exists?
mondo223 4 years ago
Your sentences are barely coherent. I believe I said I don't think chuck understand philosophy OF SCIENCE very well and he certainly doesn't understand evolution very well. Science concerns itself with what can be disproved - that is the essence of the philosophy of science. I didn't say I think everyone else is arrogant. I do think that most creationists tend to be pretty arrogant, because they make grandiose assertions in areas where they haven't done an honest day's worth of homework.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Most of what chuck said is accurate. And lets say its not though. You basically gave no evidence to support why its not even worth watching. Did you even watch the whole thing, or just fast forward to hear bits here and there? And no, when one check up one finds the most historical accurate religious text there is. You haven't check up or else you wouldn't say such an absurd statement.
mondo223 4 years ago
Almost everything Chuck said was either trivial or false. I have 10 minutes for this segment, approx 5 for worst of the tube and 5 for the other. Five minutes is not sufficient to give a thorough refutation of every wrong thing he said. I watched the entire video - both segments twice, very carefully, no skipping. I always spend more time on the worst than the best.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
"And no, when one check up one finds the most historical accurate religious text there is. "
I do not follow your meaning. Can you restate this in as a complete thought in a grammatically and orthographically correct sentence?
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Dearest F.f. I just typed out a rundown to a guy with a question.. long story short.. go here and read my comment to him.. because it is to YOU TOO.. I just can't be typing to everyone all the time.. -- youtube-- TheFarcicalCourt----Check out on Google for Proof: China's raod construction leading to the euphrateds River, which the Bible predicted woud be cross over by them at the Battle of armegeddon.. just one piece of the prophecy... coneing true now. many more
alex9nanc 4 years ago
There hasn't been any battle of armageddon. How can this possibly be considered a prophecy?
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
..rember the thief on the cross? next to Jesus?.. he beleived, just like that.. and didn't think he was good enough. Jesus promised him, Paradise. which also indicates that there is another place that HE saved the man from.. Hell..Listen you have to do this ,, get a hold of Chuck.. Love yah man. want the best for yah. Please do it. nanc
alex9nanc 4 years ago
Oh yeah, good rebuttals moron. You were so eloquent and convincing the way you fumbled through trying to explain about 1.5 of chucks ideas out of a 2 hour presentation. I wish you actually had more substance in that lousy rebuttal that I could talk about, but being that I could hardly understand you as you tripped over your own words, I guess I'll just recommend some rehearsal next time, and maybe a shave so you don't like like a total idiot next time. Well done.
mondo223 4 years ago
You inadvertently responded to someone who agrees with you instead of me. The purpose was to give a viewer a flavor of the content and to give a few points of why it was wrong - not to give a point-by-point refutation. I'm sure that you had trouble understanding me, you being such a genius and all.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I'm sure that in your mind what you are saying sounds high-minded and reasonable. There is not a shred of reliable evidence to suggest that it is remotely true. I'm sure Chuck is very nice and extremely knowledgeable about the things he actually understands. I'm pretty sure, however, that evolution, science, and philosophy are not among the things with which he is intimately familiar.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
-G-d can make the earth look as old as he wants he's G-d. Now to get to the point. I really care about you. I would love to see you ask Jesus into your heart. and not see you left behind. the rapture is about to happen. and then all Hell on earth will break loose. YOUR DAD LOVES you. yah, your REAL dad. G-d/Jesus.there isn't enough space to detail. just look to Chuck's Myspace.. don't waste another minute. As rapture happens(Bombs anti-christ will arise to clean up the mess (civilization),
alex9nanc 4 years ago
You may not realize it - or perhaps you do - but what you are attempting is to emotionally manipulate me. This is very common among cult-members. Unfortunately, people who are in cults seldom perceive that they are in a cult. Nothing you have said has any support at all in the observable facts. It's a conclusion you reached by yourself being manipulated.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I would like to see you and chuck debate. but it would frustrate you to hear him inject Jesus.. and you injecting other Mens philosophies..book knowledge .. when G-d created the world, he made it look really old. the trees were mature. the grass was not freshly seeded. it was all made of mature stuff. with fruit , ready to eat. so measuring it's age can be confussing to "almighty man"... cont..
alex9nanc 4 years ago
If Chuck and I debated, Chuck would destroy me, as would the least creationist on youtube. I'm not a debater. It should be obvious from my videos that I'm pathetic as a public speaker. I have considered the possibility of a universe created in an aged-state. This is not a possibility that is subject to scientific analysis.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
.. stuck on a debate that has answers if you move forward . like reading a book 1/2 way through, and finishing it that way...look at the entire picture, you will believe, guarented.. if you research it as much as you have in your topic of interest.Chuck's format with peanut butter example was a simplistic laymons approach,you should understand that, as you have more background. ... cont
alex9nanc 4 years ago
I don't know when I see the entire picture. How can any person know when he sees the entire picture. I see what I see. I search. I try to understand. Chuck's approach was a gross and misleading oversimplification.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
hi again F.F... Evolutionist, Creationist.Spritualist,etc...man made names. titles.. Your main concern should be Proof right?..the Bible is a book of the past ,present and Future. do you know anyother book which has had each event come true, according to secular accounts...don't just isolate yourself with this topic.. move across time in the Bible.. but at this point. the conclusion is about to happen. your still "Back there"...
alex9nanc 4 years ago
I'm more concerned with what can be disproved. People claim the events in the Bible come true, but when one checks up on it, one discovers a lot of hand-waving and wishful thinking.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
to Faliblefiend---I watched your comments.. Being a Creationi-st is a Gift. from G-d. G-d will only give Proof HIS way, not mans .. He is looking for Faith in HIM... a rare quality. G-d chose leaders in the Bible based on this -Satan knows the Facts & truth of his end.,yet dosen't follow G-d. His majority rules the earth,More people will follow him to Hell then heaven., and is about to make his grand appearance soon,666, opinions won't matter, one mind, his mind. see Veri-chip on utube.
alex9nanc 4 years ago