Every major scientist know evolutions is impossible. You folks have to find a different lie to dispute the Creator, because your old lie is old, tired and dead.
@HUDARE46B ''Every major scientist know evolutions is impossible. You folks have to find a different lie to dispute the Creator, because your old lie is old, tired and dead.'' 99,8% of the science community accepts evolution as a fact! People like Kent Hovint etc are NOT scientist!
"I can't argue with you evangelicals if you won't take a basic bio class."
According to Max, all one needs to understand biology is a few glances at any site they can pull up on google under the search of "disproving evolution"
It's funny he says that we haven't been able to create new life from as they call it 'matter'. Because I seem to recall in my biology class my professor going over experiments in which scientists have managed to do just that; create organic molecules from the inorganic, and then have these molecules form a 'protocell'.....But if this theory of evolution wasn't real this wouldn't be possible now would it??
@MW2PeteB11 "But if this theory of evolution wasn't real this wouldn't be possible now would it??" Apparently 1. Nobody created life 2. you're kidding yourself dumbo 3. your professor was a liar.
@podoau Maxy is truly a wonder of the vast reaches of human intellect.
He deserves a serious award for his contributions to biology and philosophy, not to mention he can further advance the sum total of human knowledge with his outstanding theories.
You really should listen to him, before you sink further into the fallacious pit known as biological 'evolutionary theory'.
His insight will definitely further our race as a whole.
@KingLeonidaz Oh you poor thing, no argument, no substance, no verification of anything just blubbering and crying. KingDingBat, You don't even have a good insulting insult.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
A dunce is as a dunce does. hahahahahahahahhaaaa
Keep the laughter coming dunce boy, keep the laughter coming.
@manknowyourself i have yet to see a narrow minded atheist fool prove anything other than his own self righteous stupidity. as i recall you didnt give me one fact for evolution, and i dont think you can honestly because there isnt any out there. Winning the arguement? lol if you mean being a dumb ass for the duration and resorting to personal insult to justify your own fucked up mentality then i guess you could say so.
Well, except of course for the nested hierarchies of biology, the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, observed evolution of biological divergence, new morphological and molecular features, speciation, and so on.
@podoau OH YEAH, I KNOW there's mountains, tons, hills and valleys just chock full of evidence for evolution. It's just that one of you poor dumb evotards must have misplaced it. OH look there it is! Piltdown man, Nebraska man, how are you? HAR HAR HAR
"The idea that genetic mutation cannot accumulate in a genome over long periods of time, is virtually impossible in a world governed by physical and chemical laws"
Evolution is not about life springing from nothing. It's about existing life forms undergoing subtle changes over millions of years in order to suit their environments.
Because, obviously, life being "created" because of energy and light etc (even though matter can't actually be destroyed or created but whatever) is less plausible than a man with magic powers creating people to spend their life worshipping him.
@audveltadmuna ''why does he think new life forms in a jar of peanut butter? it's just peanut butter, how could new life form in it?! anyone explain this to me'' Because he is a idiot..
"this is the argument... this is what they are saying to descredit evolution"
Many creationists really do think it's that easy to disprove chemical and biological laws and principles, and over 150 years of empirical data.
And when the scientific community doesn't take their childish endeavors seriously, the creationists scream, "OMG conspiracy!! Tha scientists are hiding tha truth! Conspiracy I tell ya! My proof is flawless and unscientifically-well-founded! derpderpderp"
NO SHIT THERE'S NO LIFE IN PEANUT BUTTER. it's a closed environment, AIR TIGHT. Do you think the Earth is a closed environment? of course not! Sunlight, other worldly particles, they all enter through the atmosphere. There's no fucking lid on this planet, let alone a PLASTIC SEAL.
The obvious truth is that goat herders living in tents 4000 years ago on a supposedly flat earth at the beginning and center of the universe knew more about life, truth, and the universe than modern day scientists do. Duh. These are the same people who have heart attacks while preaching heatedly in church about the "fallacy of evolution" who are then rushed to the hospital and saved by doctors who treat patients not with prayers, but with medicine created based on the study of evolution.
If your sceptical then check out the biblically archeological work of a man named Ron Wyatt. He has discovered Mt Siani, the Red sea crossing, Noahs Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah and was even lead to the Ark of the Covenant by the Holy Spirit. Hard hearted scoffers were prophesied in the bible so your mocking sarcasm is nothing new and according to the bible dead branches bearing no fruit will be tossed into the fire. Just a heads up. Soften your heart and pay attention before you start stuttering in
@N0TS0SUBTLE The Da Vinci Code had some real places and events in it, that doesn't mean it's any less a fictional story. What you are really asking is for us to soften our minds.
If the bible is a fairy tale why then are there Jews today since there are over 400 prophecies in the OT alone which point to a coming Messiah in which only Jesus could have fulfilled. Wouldnt you think the Jews who just made it all up would have seen the Messiah they arbitrarily and seemingly unknowingly concocted? Until scientist can spontaneously generate life from nothing, ill stick to Gods version.
@N0TS0SUBTLE Amen SCIENCE WILL NEVER HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO THINGS WE CANT SEE.. ITS JUST THERE AND WE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT. ALL WE CAN DO IS PROVIDE THEM WITH THE TRUTH.. IF THERE IGNORANT THEY ll FIND OUT ON JUDGEMENT DAY
"Amen SCIENCE WILL NEVER HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO THINGS WE CANT SEE"
True. Science cannot prove something that cannot be observed, interacted with, or logically deduced from data. Supernatural entities fall under childrens' fairytales.
"THEY ll FIND OUT ON JUDGEMENT DAY"
LULZ. There has not been a judgement day for over 4.5 billion years.
It's sad how little people appreciate the infinitesimal odds that created our form of life. To think the amount of random occurrences that occur in non life matter in just Earth alone is a big enough sample size to disprove our birth cheapens our existence.
It's astonishing how ignorant Christians sometimes are. While there's nothing wrong with not knowing much about science per se, to go on like you do know when everything you say shows otherwise is an invitation to ridicule. I almost feel sympathetic embarrassment for these people.
Amen to this. People think SCIENCE will have all the ANSWERS TO LIFE.. The answers to millions of galaxies and solar systems.. But it simply NEVER WILL. They think theres nothing more to life then what we a can SEE... HOW ABSURD
"swab that shit and put it in a pantery dish and tell me theres no fucking bacteria"
bacteria? Christians dun believe in no germ THEORY. If it wuz true it wud aint no be no dang thurrry now wud eet? Da bibel and Jeesus nevur said nuthin about no germs so it mus be wrung
PUBLIC NOTE: MaximusArurealius DON'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM!
The evidence :''Here's what MrThaPatrick said to the whole comment section:"No we are the idiots who get pwnd all the time by the mighty max and jack!!"
HAR HAR HAR
SELF-PWNING AT ITS FINEST''
Way to go max, how many times now you proved to everyone you don't understand sarcasm?
Or are you under the impression some one really believes I meant that to be serious?You do? Ah you'er stupidity really knows no boundary's!
@MrThaPatrick Stop picking on me just because I are stupid. I cant help it. Leave me alone assholes. I hate you all. HAR HAR DRR HAR DRR DRR HAR DRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
@MaximusArurealuis aka foxlake aka odinata. Great clone dimbulb!!! Thanks for the laughs. You did a good job on it. BUT it just goes to show how bad you hate me for pwning you all the time. "snakes are fish" HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
BTW thanks for the compliment. I will show all my friends this clone so they can laugh about it too. Like I said before I AM A YOUTUBE ICON a REAL celebrity and YOU? You're just a wanna be little shit with no brains. Brainwashed into believing bullshit.
@MaximusArureaLUIS aka odintaClairelake02 The "homeschooled" was a nice touch. They didn't do homeschool when I was in school because they weren't dumbed down yet. But the fact that you try to insult saying "homeschooled" just shows what a lying brainwashee you are. Home schoolers across the board outperform public school drones on college entrance exams. It's proof that public schools are centers of indoctrination rather than education.
@MaximusArurealuis Amen to this. People think SCIENCE will have all the ANSWERS TO LIFE.. The answers to millions of galaxies and solar systems.. But it simply NEVER WILL. They think theres nothing more to life then what we a can SEE... HOW ABSURD
@MrPatThaDick, HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR allllll pissed off? Pissed because I caught you pwning yourself and then trying to rationalize it? HUH???? HAR HAR HAR
I just loved it when you said "No we are the idiots who get pwnd all the time by the mighty max and jack!!!"
If evolution (the belief that mankind descended from inorganic molecules) is true, then we should be able to verify it by means of independent testing in lab controlled environments. Testing is, after all, the basis of scientific knowledge. Since no such experiment exists, then the grand claim of evolution is pure speculation only...not a scientific theory...and no one ought to believe it to be scientific.
@sbgtrading "Since no such experiment exists" is not equivalent to "Since I can't be bothered to do any research and examine the experiments that have in fact been done"
speciation has been observed in the lab. look up "drosophilia evolution"
@transtlantic abiogenesis is related to broad scale evolution. Broad scale evolution is the alternative to a supernatural creation they are mutually exclusive in their full scale. Therefore, abiogenesis is required for broad scale evolution.
"If evolution (the belief that mankind descended from inorganic molecules) is true then we should be able to verify it by means of independent testing in lab controlled environment"
Evolution is the belief (based on observed facts) that animals share a direct genetic link via inheritance and they subsequently improve by changes to the nucleic acid sequence
This genetic inheritance can be tested in the lab, and novel and advantageous DNA mutations can also be observed
"(the belief that mankind descended from inorganic molecules)"
Nope, life on earth is carbon based. Inorganic life may be possible on other planets but organic life has out-competed it here.
There is no distinction between non-living and "living" molecules. Any particle in life is non-living. DNA is non-living, phospholipid bubbles are non-living, proteins are non-living, water is non-living. Life is when these all provide complimentary functions in unison.
These folks have the nerve to declare theories of science, fairy tales? They don't have the right. Their Bible contains references to witches, sea monsters, unicorns (it's true, check it out), wise old giants, talking intelligent serpents, and more fairy-tales. They have/must believe that all other ideas are wrong or they won't get to live forever. It is a defense mechanism, they can't help it.
@matthewtaylorbrown "These folks have the nerve to declare theories of science, fairy tales?" Not at all. There IS no theory of evolution. Not one of you can agree as to what it is. Every one of you contradict yourselves. If it were a scientific theory there wouldn't be any argument about it. It's all bullshit. Now tell me WHICH theory of evolution do YOU believe in? OH you didn't KNOW there are different theories? Just as I thought.
(4) If the eyes had evolved in this way, where did our eye-lids come from, and the tear factor to protect our eyes from dirt and dust? Would someone PLEASE EXPLAIN these factors.
@sethblatt Vertebrate eyes began evolving billions of years before humans emerged. Simple light & motion sensitive cells would have been favoured for obvious survival reasons. The same goes for eye lids & tears (although a later development). organisms with these protection mechanisms would be favoured by natural selection & thus passed on down the generational line.
We can even see the different evolutionary stages by observing more primitive eyes in other organisms.
So I just have some questions about what was said. (1) If the eye had evolved in this way, how would the optic nerves find it's way to the right part of the brain and how would the brain know what to do with them? (2) If the eyes had evolved in this way, then why wouldn't we have eyes all over our body and even on our hands? (3) If the eyes had evolved in this way, why would we have two of the exact same eyes, wouldn't they be different?...
@sethblatt (1) Your mistake seems to be visualizing a modern brain with an evolving eye. At the time when the eye evolved optical nerves, brains would've been more primitive. Humans wouldn't have existed at this point.
(2) + (3) Natural selection only selects what is beneficial for survival & reproducibility. Two eyes are sufficient to avoid predators & catch prey. We have four limbs to enable better balance. Survival is the reason why symmetry is favoured by evolution
Okay, if it is true that the eye used to be a flat layer of light-sensitive skin that gradually sank in to form a bowl. And eventually sank further to form a type of ball with a hole at the front. Now the outline of the eye was complete. After all of this, fundamentally the Iris, refractive lens, optic nerves, and cornea came to be, making the perfect eye. Correct me on anything I might have gotten wrong....
Why is an "engineer" speaking about aboiogensis? Is he known in that field? Someone better post up a portfolio of his works, because I need to steer clear fr it!
oh dear god......these people have no idea how evolution works in the first place......it would have to be ORGANIC material with amino acids and other things in order to create life.
"You're obviously in an emotional state and your own little world because everyone of your comments seems angry and this one is inaccurate. slow the fuck down guy"
OK....LMAO....I've been argueing off & on all day with Creationist Knuckle Heads and their Idiocy when it comes to Evidence....they just don't seem to grasp what qualifies as evidence.
They have VERY loose standards when it comes to the Bible.
I certainly misread your post...upon a quick read of it, I was decieved...lol.
This video makes no sense in 1000 different ways. How could mould grow inside a sealed peanut butter jar? The reason they seal it is so the peanut butter stays fresh.
What's even scarier is that these people can vote. And these people vote for people who think like them. Its no wonder we're fucked ten ways to Sunday.
@gmet "What's even scarier is that these people can vote. And these people vote for people who think like them"
Correct. And that is teh answer to the question,,, ""if your an atheist, why do you care about peoples religious beleifs"" We care because nut jobs vote in more nut jobs. They also try to influence the education system and peoples personal lives. This is why we care
... The complete and unparalleled ignorance of this argument is striking. Let me clarify a few things. The theory of evolution does not state that subjected to energy, matter may make new life. The correct materials and environmental conditions must be present. Neither of these are present in a JAR OF FUCKING PEANUT BUTTER! Also, it would take MASSIVE amounts of energy to make new life, not just some heat and light.
@jonnyneo53 ''You're also wrong. About everything you believe in.'' Just saying that has no meaning what so ever! Go ahead prove your claims! If you can't do your self a favor and shut up you are only digging a deeper grave
"You're also wrong. About everything you believe in"
I don't know why you posted to me. But I'm going to tell you the same thing I told you the last time. PICK UP SOME HISTORY BOOKS...Books on ANCIENT HISTORY.
Not a DAMNED LICK...not 1 iota of the so called History in the Bible lines up with REAL WORLD HISTORY...EVERY SINGLE CULTURE surrounding The Hebrews tell a DIFFERENT Story but yet confirm each other...The Greeks,Romans,Egyptians etc... ALL line up with each other.
@Urfullobull I dont know what history books you're reading, but almost everything in the Bible has been historically proven. So..... You're wrong. Again.
"I dont know what history books you're reading, but almost everything in the Bible has been historically proven. So..... You're wrong. Again."
BULLSHIT Slick...There was NO world wide flood....There was NO Hebrew enslavement and an EXODUS from Egypt....There was NO man named Jesus wandering around doing miracles or even Crusified. NONE of REAL WORLD HISTORY lines up with the Bible....the ONLY thing that lines up in the Bible are names of cities....and that is ALL.
"I dont know what history books you're reading, but almost everything in the Bible has been historically proven. So..... You're wrong. Again.'
OBVIOUSLY you're NOT Reading any!! Really Dude....get your ass back in school...and while you're at it read how Men were POLYTHEIST for THOUSANDS of yrs before MONOTHEISM was even INVENTED...you might also want to READ about the HISTORY of the WRITING of the Bible when it was started..what Babylonian & Sumerian MYTHS it STOLE etc
@jonnyneo53 '' I dont know what history books you're reading, but almost everything in the Bible has been historically proven. So..... You're wrong. Again.'' Name one thing and show me the evidence for it! If you ignore this request you prove you are lying...
@MrThaPatrick "name one thing and show me the evidence for it"
That's not his job. You're saying your book has been prove. Please pick one thing and send us a link that proves that it is real. We dont have to prove that you're wrong, you have to convince us you're right.
"We dont have to prove that you're wrong, you have to convince us you're right."
Sorry Dude....that's NOT how the REAL WORLD works....those who make a positive CLAIM of something(s) /existance IS the ONE who has to provide the PROOF.
If you say you have a purple INVISABLE Dragon in YOUR Garage....It's NOT up to me to PROVE you wrong...YOU made the CLAIM...NOT ME.
If YOU SUE someone...YOU BETTER HAVE THE EVIDENCE...a CLAIM in Court is WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
@Urfullobull I totally agree with you i didnt realize that "mrthapatrick" was responding to jonnyneo32. You and MrThaPatrick are absolutely correct and thats exactly what i was trying to say. my comment is directed at the comment that said "almost everything in the bible has been proven correct" and then he asked that you prove him incorrect somehow.
@Fulloshit "If you say you have a purple INVISABLE Dragon in YOUR Garage....It's NOT up to me to PROVE you wrong" Yeah, but if YOU say there is no God then the monkey is on your back. AND don't go into this I don't know if there's a God and then claim to be an atheist. btw DUMMASS try to learn to spell "invisible" ya dope.
I'm quite sure though that you have NO Interest in the TRUTH about the Bible and it's History...NOT the psudeo History contained in it's pages....but the History of the INVENTION of it...the WRITING of it....Moses NEVER EXISTED Dude. Of course you will take it upon yourself to IGNORE ALL Facts & Evidence that PROVES the Bible is the BIGGEST LIE & Farce ever pulled on Mankind.
I have a DEGREE in ANCIENT HISTORY Slick, so I know FAR, FAR More than you do on this matter.
"There is no direct evidence on Moses"<-----PAY ATTENTION to that part...NO DIRECT EVIDENCE MEANS that any & ALL indirect Evidence is INVALID,the ONLY indirect "so called" Evidence you have is Hebrew CLAIMS in the Bible,I say AGAIN,STUDY HISTORY !!
Indirect Evidence is NOT nor EVER HAS been considered VALID EVIDENCE unless there was some,at least a little DIRECT Evidence to back it up.As usual U PROVE NONE of U knows what Evidence is.
@Urfullobull No direct evidence doesnt mean he didnt exist. He very well could have still existed. After all, your asking for direct evidence on ONE man over 4000 years ago. So yes, the indirect evidence gives plenty of credibility to Moses' existance, and all that indirect evidence is based on HISTORY, not the Bible.
So once again, you're wrong. No surprize there though, after all, you are deranged.
Tell me, there is No current evidence that there is Gold on Saturn. Does that mean there is no Gold on Saturn? No. There very well might be. How about, say, Santa? I dont believe in Santa, not because there is no evidence that he exists, but because there IS evidence that he DOESN'T exist! There is nobody at the north pole with a Toy factory, Nobody flies around the world delivering gifts. ........
@podoau ....... As for Moses, nobody has shown evidence that he doesn't exist, but there is plenty of indirect Evidence that gives him Credibility. It might not classify Moses as a Historical fact, but the indirect evidence gives great credibility that he existed.
OK Dumb Ass...keep on with the Dumb ass shit....there are PLENTY of SINGLE ONE PERSON ENTITIES that have TONS of EVIDENCE to Collaberate their Existance. INDIRECT EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE !!!!<---get that into your THICK ASS SKULL..Slick.
Take some indirect evidence to Court and see how fast you get a conviction. Indirect Evidence won't even make it past the Judges Chamber into the Court room.
@Urfullobull lol. Lets see if that stubborn brain of yours can understand this. Indirect evidence is a type of Evidence. There is Indirect and Direct Evidence. therefore your statment "INDIRECT EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE" is completly false. Indirect Evidence (Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which a person might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute) can certainly......
"Lets see if that stubborn brain of yours can understand this. Indirect evidence is a type of Evidence."
Yeah Dumb Fuck it's a type of Evidence that is NOT accepted in ANY Court of LAW or by ANYONE who got ANY Sense and Knows that Indirect Evidence is NOT Evidence.
ie. of Indirect Evidence;If I see someone waving at me...does that really mean he's waving at me? Or is he waving at the person behind me?
A book (ie.The Bible) claiming things to be True is INDIRECT EVIDENCE of the Claims...but since the Claims CAN NOT be Validated then of course it's INVALID.
The ONLY Evidence that the Bible provides is that MEN wrote it.
You and the rest of your RETARDED ilk have a very, very hard time understanding the LAWS OF EVIDENCE.
@Urfullobull Um... the indirect evidence im talking about is not the Bible. Its historical indirect evidence. And plus, there is also evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God, which gives more weight to the claim that Moses was real.
"Its historical indirect evidence. And plus, there is also evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God'
There is NO indirect Historical Evidence and the sure as the fuck is NO Evidence the Bible is God inspired...if it was God inspired then God is a bigger MORON than you.
@donohue100 the Bible is Historically accurate with Historic evidence to back it up. It has scientific accuracy, and MANY Prophecies that have come true flawlessly. Not to mention other evidence that it is God's word. Also there is some evidence that points to the Historicity of the great flood. So clearly its Gods word. So if the Bible says that a Snake spoke, since its Gods word, that snake did in fact speak. So you can laugh ignorantly or actually sit and Study the Bible.
They INSIST on being RETARDED...they purposely FORCE themselves to be IDIOTS...and not a NARY 1 of them own a DICTIONARY or have any familiarity with one nor care to own a dictionary.
I continually find myself posting deffinitions from the Dictionary and Believe it or not...they want argue about the deffinitions too.
They choose Willfull IGNORANCE over Knowledge...their Bible even applauds that with a Wise man is a Fool.
ROTFLMFAO....just like I said...you give them the deffintion and they still argue.....not a hot minute after I posted to you & Johnny, Johnny comes right back arguing about the deffintion of Indirect Evidence and how it applies to Moses and tries to play games & dance around what we've been arguing over for hours.
@Urfullobull ...... lend Credibility (referance to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message) to the History of Moses. So ONCE AGAIN, you're wrong slick. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? ;)
OK once AGAIN DUMB ASS: Indirect Evidence is NOT VALID....Indirect Evidence equates to RUMOR & HEARSAY unless there IS some DIRECT EVIDENCE to back it up & it necissarily doesn't have to be a lot....just some.
HEARSAY, RUMOR, INDIRECT EVIDENCE & CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE doesn't cut it you Fucking RETARD.
Goddamned but you are one Super Stupid Dumb Fuck.
Hey Dumb Fuck check out the video above called: Religion - And it's disconnect from Reality....it's ALL about EVIDENCE.
@Urfullobull Wow. You just dont get it, do you? If indirect evidence didnt count for anything, they wouldnt call it 'Indirect EVIDENCE'. The word 'Evidence' would even be in the phrase. Plus, in regards to Moses, the Egyptians were not above altering historical records when the truth proved to be embarrassing or went against their political interests. When Thutmose III came to power, he tried to obliterate the memory of his predecessor, Hatshepsut. Maybe the.....
"You just dont get it, do you? If indirect evidence didnt count for anything, they wouldnt call it 'Indirect EVIDENCE'
No you just don't fucking get it RETARD...you don't understand THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE I'LL say it once more: INDIRECT EVIDENCE IS invalid unless....now PAY ATTENTION to the NEXT part UNLESS there is SOME Direct Evidence to back it up.
Watch the video you thick headed Dumb Fuck....it might and I say MIGHT help you understand what your missing.
@Urfullobull hahah. Ok, im gonna keep trying to explain to you so you can get it. I know you're retarded, but just try, ok? Indirect Evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become Corroborating Evidence. No Direct Evidence is needed to sustain the Indirect evidence. Even in a court, Indirect Evidence is used to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. .....
@Urfullobull ..... I dont just believe the Bible just because, I believe it because there is tons of Evidence to back up not only what the Bible says, but to prove its the Inspired word of God.
OK DUMB FUCK since you don't own a DICTIONARY or if you do it's DUST COVERED here is the Deffinition of Indirect evidence from the Merriam Websters DICTIONARY word for fucking word:
Indirect Evidence noun (1824): evidence that establishes immediately Collateral Facts from which the Main fact my be inferred: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
There DUMB ASS do you understand that? Or will I have to break down that deffinition for piece by piece?
@Urfullobull All you proved was my point. Indirect Evidence (Circumstantial Evidence) 'establishes immediately Collateral Facts from which the Main fact may be inferred' (the main fact being Moses' existance in this case). In other words, Indirect (Circumstancial) Evidence establishes collateral facts from which Moses' existance may be inferred. Thanks for proving my point, slick!
OK let me break down for you DUMB FUCK...you have to have the COLLATERAL FACTS (evidence) FIRST for the Indirect Evidence to count....You FUCKING DUMB FUCK that's the whole FUCKING POINT...YOU DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE,THE FACTS....if you did you wouldn't be trying to push your so called Indirect Evidence.
PROVIDE THE DIRECT EVIDENCE THE COLLATERAL FACTS.
It's like I explained to you earlier you MUST have at least SOME DIRECT EVIDENCE for the INDIRECT EVIDENCE to COUNT.
@Urfullobull Really? What a fool. Definition of Collateral Facts: "Facts unconnected with the issue or matter in dispute."
Collateral Facts is NOT Direct Evidence. So you DON'T need direct evidence to sustain the Circumstantial Evidence. Nice try, next time though, know what the definition means before you quote the dictionary. And I saw the video, and he refferes to people with retarded answer that in no case cualify as evidence. ......
@Urfullobull "...CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS**NOT**I REPEAT**NOT** ADMISSABLE IN A COURT OF LAW."
You can repeat all you want, it still doesn't make it true. and the Merrium-Webster dictionary DID say Collateral Fact, so dont say you misspelled it! The Merrium-Webster definition of Circumstancial Evidence: "evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue " .......
Indirect Evidence noun (1824): evidence that establishes immediately Collateral Facts from which the Main fact my be inferred: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
LOOK IN THAT DEFFINITION does it NOT say MAIN FACT.
I did NOT claim to misspell it...I claimed to have made a mistake ....how the fuck can I misspell Collateral into MAIN?
Unlike you fucking IDIOTS who are NEVER WRONG and make no mistakes according to you guys.
@Urfullobull Notice the merrium-webster definition for Circumstancial Evidence: "evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue "
The end it says "Fact at issue". Whats the fact at Issue? The existance of Moses. Similarly, The definition you provided: "evidence that establishes immediately Collateral Facts from which the Main fact my be inferred" ......
@Urfullobull ..... What is the "Main fact to be inferred"? The existance of Moses. So when it says "Main Fact", its not reffering to Direct Evidence. Similarly to the Merrium-Webster definition, it reffering to, in this case, The existance of Moses.
@Urfullobull ......So the inference that Moses existed is Reasonable when presented with Circumstancial Evidence! According to Wikipedia: "A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence... In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. .......
@jonnyneo53 " "A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.."
But first you need direct evidence. circumstantial evidence can be used to support direct evidence, but circumstantial evidence is wortheless on its own
@Urfullobull ....... Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict." If you needed Direct Evidence to present the Circumstancial evidence, then you would NEVER need to present Circumstancial evidence because you have the direct evidence! It makes no sense! The FACTS: You DON'T NEED DIRECT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN OR VALIDATE CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE.
I thought you were going to ply me with Evidence of Moses?
What happened?.
I'll see what you say tomorrow....it's late and I have to get up VERY early tomorrow.
"If you needed Direct Evidence to present the Circumstancial evidence, then you would NEVER need to present Circumstancial evidence because you have the direct evidence! It makes no sense!"
It makes plenty of sense...the MORE Evidence you have the STRONGER the case the Higher the success of a Conviction.
so stupid i feel my iq points decreasing
SShamit1 2 hours ago
This man knows as little about science as my 10yo brother!!!!
DanielDyberg 8 hours ago
@DanielDyberg Did your 10 year old brother tell you that? HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 3 hours ago
Every major scientist know evolutions is impossible. You folks have to find a different lie to dispute the Creator, because your old lie is old, tired and dead.
HUDARE46B 8 hours ago
@HUDARE46B
"Every major scientist know evolutions is impossible"
Oh, you mean every major christian "scientist" who's field of study has nothing to do with biology or chemistry?
Yeah, most of those people would tend to agree with their religion rather than with the facts.
confettibrains 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HUDARE46B ''Every major scientist know evolutions is impossible. You folks have to find a different lie to dispute the Creator, because your old lie is old, tired and dead.'' 99,8% of the science community accepts evolution as a fact! People like Kent Hovint etc are NOT scientist!
MrThaPatrick 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HUDARE46B "Every major scientist know evolutions is impossible"
Really ? Name some.
" You folks have to find a different lie to dispute the Creator"
And you folks need to provide some testable, repeatable evidence for his existance.
podoau 7 hours ago
I rage quit. I can't argue with you evangelicals if you won't take a basic bio class.
byouno93 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@byouno93
"I can't argue with you evangelicals if you won't take a basic bio class."
According to Max, all one needs to understand biology is a few glances at any site they can pull up on google under the search of "disproving evolution"
vvv,jesus4evacreationistru,com
confettibrains 8 hours ago
there could be microscopic life. but before it can evolve...you eat it
eeveedude632 15 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eeveedude632
"there could be microscopic life."
Just as creationists don't believe evolution, they don't believe germ theory either
confettibrains 12 hours ago
It's funny he says that we haven't been able to create new life from as they call it 'matter'. Because I seem to recall in my biology class my professor going over experiments in which scientists have managed to do just that; create organic molecules from the inorganic, and then have these molecules form a 'protocell'.....But if this theory of evolution wasn't real this wouldn't be possible now would it??
MW2PeteB11 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MW2PeteB11 "But if this theory of evolution wasn't real this wouldn't be possible now would it??" Apparently 1. Nobody created life 2. you're kidding yourself dumbo 3. your professor was a liar.
MaximusArurealius 11 hours ago
Americans.
Xander51 17 hours ago
God damn this guy is one of the biggest dickwads I've even seen before.
RequiemFear 18 hours ago
@podoau Maxy is truly a wonder of the vast reaches of human intellect.
He deserves a serious award for his contributions to biology and philosophy, not to mention he can further advance the sum total of human knowledge with his outstanding theories.
You really should listen to him, before you sink further into the fallacious pit known as biological 'evolutionary theory'.
His insight will definitely further our race as a whole.
KingLeonidaz 20 hours ago
@KingLeonidaz Oh you poor thing, no argument, no substance, no verification of anything just blubbering and crying. KingDingBat, You don't even have a good insulting insult.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
A dunce is as a dunce does. hahahahahahahahhaaaa
Keep the laughter coming dunce boy, keep the laughter coming.
MaximusArurealius 18 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealius
"Oh you poor thing, no argument, no substance, no verification of anything"
"No verification of anything." HAHAHA oh the sweet fucking irony.
Max has the fact checking ability of a Fox News reporter. LOL
confettibrains 17 hours ago
Oh shit is Maxy still on here ranting?
LOL
KingLeonidaz 21 hours ago
@manknowyourself i have yet to see a narrow minded atheist fool prove anything other than his own self righteous stupidity. as i recall you didnt give me one fact for evolution, and i dont think you can honestly because there isnt any out there. Winning the arguement? lol if you mean being a dumb ass for the duration and resorting to personal insult to justify your own fucked up mentality then i guess you could say so.
SamuelJCir 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SamuelJCir
"there isnt any"
Well, except of course for the nested hierarchies of biology, the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, observed evolution of biological divergence, new morphological and molecular features, speciation, and so on.
MrGralgrathor 1 day ago
@SamuelJCir "you didnt give me one fact for evolution, and i dont think you can honestly because there isnt any out there."
You dont get out much do you.
podoau 22 hours ago
@podoau OH YEAH, I KNOW there's mountains, tons, hills and valleys just chock full of evidence for evolution. It's just that one of you poor dumb evotards must have misplaced it. OH look there it is! Piltdown man, Nebraska man, how are you? HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 20 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealius "OH look there it is! Piltdown man, Nebraska man, how are you?"
These examples show the scientific method at work. Test, test, and retest. When the evidence falls down so does the theory.
podoau 7 hours ago
Peanut butter is people!
YeagerbombandTim 1 day ago
What the fuck am I watching?
Mandragara 1 day ago
"The idea that genetic mutation cannot accumulate in a genome over long periods of time, is virtually impossible in a world governed by physical and chemical laws"
"Creationists are idiots."
confettibrains 1 day ago
Max has no idea what he's even reading. LMAO
confettibrains 1 day ago
@shitforbrains "Max has no idea what he's even reading" Great argument. Afraid to explain it? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealius
"Great argument. Afraid to explain it?"
I already did. Can't you read? LOL
confettibrains 1 day ago
Why the fuck do I keep trolling myself...my guess is others who came here did the same :)
narcissistinchains 1 day ago
I have a headache now. I thought ray comforts banana was the worst. Well, maybe it still is lol
thinkboutit 1 day ago
*Just face palms*
stuartfarnham 1 day ago
Evolution is not about life springing from nothing. It's about existing life forms undergoing subtle changes over millions of years in order to suit their environments.
DeadlyPastryMan 1 day ago
This is damn funny!!!
Starsandfunk 1 day ago
This is ignorance taken to a whole new level.
MelanizingChameleon 1 day ago
-_-
DominusFortissimus 1 day ago
Because, obviously, life being "created" because of energy and light etc (even though matter can't actually be destroyed or created but whatever) is less plausible than a man with magic powers creating people to spend their life worshipping him.
Indierockandr0ll 1 day ago
why does he think new life forms in a jar of peanut butter? it's just peanut butter, how could new life form in it?! anyone explain this to me
audveltadmuna 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@audveltadmuna ''why does he think new life forms in a jar of peanut butter? it's just peanut butter, how could new life form in it?! anyone explain this to me'' Because he is a idiot..
MrThaPatrick 1 day ago
This can't be serious. It can't.
piratsindre17 2 days ago
Do these guys think the "primordial soup" was peanut butter? That would be an interesting discovery.
MrAttackadactyl 2 days ago
Ohhh I sure will not forget this.. probably not for the reasons he was hoping for though
iWhoremonal 2 days ago
If youre mad you lose.
Aaron7946 2 days ago
this is the argument... this is what they are saying to descredit evolution lmao... oh my god
TEEPO129 2 days ago
@TEEPO129
"this is the argument... this is what they are saying to descredit evolution"
Many creationists really do think it's that easy to disprove chemical and biological laws and principles, and over 150 years of empirical data.
And when the scientific community doesn't take their childish endeavors seriously, the creationists scream, "OMG conspiracy!! Tha scientists are hiding tha truth! Conspiracy I tell ya! My proof is flawless and unscientifically-well-founded! derpderpderp"
confettibrains 2 days ago
NO SHIT THERE'S NO LIFE IN PEANUT BUTTER. it's a closed environment, AIR TIGHT. Do you think the Earth is a closed environment? of course not! Sunlight, other worldly particles, they all enter through the atmosphere. There's no fucking lid on this planet, let alone a PLASTIC SEAL.
CALLOFB00TIE 2 days ago
The obvious truth is that goat herders living in tents 4000 years ago on a supposedly flat earth at the beginning and center of the universe knew more about life, truth, and the universe than modern day scientists do. Duh. These are the same people who have heart attacks while preaching heatedly in church about the "fallacy of evolution" who are then rushed to the hospital and saved by doctors who treat patients not with prayers, but with medicine created based on the study of evolution.
autopsy87 2 days ago
I wasn't aware that peanut butter contained all the building blocks and conditions required to spawn self replicating life.
Rygads 2 days ago
This is hilarious.
riahmatic 2 days ago
All life needs oxygen... -_-
sachatheslayer 2 days ago
If your sceptical then check out the biblically archeological work of a man named Ron Wyatt. He has discovered Mt Siani, the Red sea crossing, Noahs Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah and was even lead to the Ark of the Covenant by the Holy Spirit. Hard hearted scoffers were prophesied in the bible so your mocking sarcasm is nothing new and according to the bible dead branches bearing no fruit will be tossed into the fire. Just a heads up. Soften your heart and pay attention before you start stuttering in
N0TS0SUBTLE 2 days ago
@N0TS0SUBTLE The Da Vinci Code had some real places and events in it, that doesn't mean it's any less a fictional story. What you are really asking is for us to soften our minds.
riahmatic 2 days ago
If the bible is a fairy tale why then are there Jews today since there are over 400 prophecies in the OT alone which point to a coming Messiah in which only Jesus could have fulfilled. Wouldnt you think the Jews who just made it all up would have seen the Messiah they arbitrarily and seemingly unknowingly concocted? Until scientist can spontaneously generate life from nothing, ill stick to Gods version.
N0TS0SUBTLE 2 days ago
@N0TS0SUBTLE Amen SCIENCE WILL NEVER HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO THINGS WE CANT SEE.. ITS JUST THERE AND WE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT. ALL WE CAN DO IS PROVIDE THEM WITH THE TRUTH.. IF THERE IGNORANT THEY ll FIND OUT ON JUDGEMENT DAY
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x
"Amen SCIENCE WILL NEVER HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO THINGS WE CANT SEE"
True. Science cannot prove something that cannot be observed, interacted with, or logically deduced from data. Supernatural entities fall under childrens' fairytales.
"THEY ll FIND OUT ON JUDGEMENT DAY"
LULZ. There has not been a judgement day for over 4.5 billion years.
confettibrains 2 days ago
It's sad how little people appreciate the infinitesimal odds that created our form of life. To think the amount of random occurrences that occur in non life matter in just Earth alone is a big enough sample size to disprove our birth cheapens our existence.
BPAification 2 days ago
I hope the 4807 likes are just people being sarcastic
NigelCartoon 3 days ago
It's astonishing how ignorant Christians sometimes are. While there's nothing wrong with not knowing much about science per se, to go on like you do know when everything you say shows otherwise is an invitation to ridicule. I almost feel sympathetic embarrassment for these people.
5jerry1 3 days ago
Two things are infinite.
the universe and stupidity.
93yoyo360 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Amen to this. People think SCIENCE will have all the ANSWERS TO LIFE.. The answers to millions of galaxies and solar systems.. But it simply NEVER WILL. They think theres nothing more to life then what we a can SEE... HOW ABSURD
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 3 days ago
swab that shit and put it in a pantery dish and tell me theres no fucking bacteria
REBELMINDFUCK 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@REBELMINDFUCK
"swab that shit and put it in a pantery dish and tell me theres no fucking bacteria"
bacteria? Christians dun believe in no germ THEORY. If it wuz true it wud aint no be no dang thurrry now wud eet? Da bibel and Jeesus nevur said nuthin about no germs so it mus be wrung
confettibrains 3 days ago
PUBLIC NOTE: MaximusArurealius DON'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM!
The evidence :''Here's what MrThaPatrick said to the whole comment section:"No we are the idiots who get pwnd all the time by the mighty max and jack!!"
HAR HAR HAR
SELF-PWNING AT ITS FINEST''
Way to go max, how many times now you proved to everyone you don't understand sarcasm?
Or are you under the impression some one really believes I meant that to be serious?You do? Ah you'er stupidity really knows no boundary's!
Thanks for the fun
MrThaPatrick 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrThaPatrick Stop picking on me just because I are stupid. I cant help it. Leave me alone assholes. I hate you all. HAR HAR DRR HAR DRR DRR HAR DRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
MaximusArurealuis 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealuis aka foxlake aka odinata. Great clone dimbulb!!! Thanks for the laughs. You did a good job on it. BUT it just goes to show how bad you hate me for pwning you all the time. "snakes are fish" HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
BTW thanks for the compliment. I will show all my friends this clone so they can laugh about it too. Like I said before I AM A YOUTUBE ICON a REAL celebrity and YOU? You're just a wanna be little shit with no brains. Brainwashed into believing bullshit.
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArureaLUIS aka odintaClairelake02 The "homeschooled" was a nice touch. They didn't do homeschool when I was in school because they weren't dumbed down yet. But the fact that you try to insult saying "homeschooled" just shows what a lying brainwashee you are. Home schoolers across the board outperform public school drones on college entrance exams. It's proof that public schools are centers of indoctrination rather than education.
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
Comment removed
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealuis Amen to this. People think SCIENCE will have all the ANSWERS TO LIFE.. The answers to millions of galaxies and solar systems.. But it simply NEVER WILL. They think theres nothing more to life then what we a can SEE... HOW ABSURD
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrPatThaDick, HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR allllll pissed off? Pissed because I caught you pwning yourself and then trying to rationalize it? HUH???? HAR HAR HAR
I just loved it when you said "No we are the idiots who get pwnd all the time by the mighty max and jack!!!"
YOU SELF-PWNED YOURSELF
MaximusArurealius 3 days ago
Is this guy actually F***ing serious? Peanut butter! Actually, that peanut butter is intelligent, compared to the nutjob whose hand it is in
Pinnball4 4 days ago
Wow. What a crock of shit. LOL
ms9809 4 days ago
If evolution (the belief that mankind descended from inorganic molecules) is true, then we should be able to verify it by means of independent testing in lab controlled environments. Testing is, after all, the basis of scientific knowledge. Since no such experiment exists, then the grand claim of evolution is pure speculation only...not a scientific theory...and no one ought to believe it to be scientific.
sbgtrading 4 days ago
@sbgtrading "Since no such experiment exists" is not equivalent to "Since I can't be bothered to do any research and examine the experiments that have in fact been done"
speciation has been observed in the lab. look up "drosophilia evolution"
lolraptourz 4 days ago
@sbgtrading
You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. You dumb shit.
How do you explain AB resistance without using evolution theory?
btw...AB resistance is observed daily in any hospital.
transtlantic 4 days ago
@transtlantic abiogenesis is related to broad scale evolution. Broad scale evolution is the alternative to a supernatural creation they are mutually exclusive in their full scale. Therefore, abiogenesis is required for broad scale evolution.
ShawnSwander 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sbgtrading
"If evolution (the belief that mankind descended from inorganic molecules) is true then we should be able to verify it by means of independent testing in lab controlled environment"
Evolution is the belief (based on observed facts) that animals share a direct genetic link via inheritance and they subsequently improve by changes to the nucleic acid sequence
This genetic inheritance can be tested in the lab, and novel and advantageous DNA mutations can also be observed
confettibrains 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sbgtrading
"(the belief that mankind descended from inorganic molecules)"
Nope, life on earth is carbon based. Inorganic life may be possible on other planets but organic life has out-competed it here.
There is no distinction between non-living and "living" molecules. Any particle in life is non-living. DNA is non-living, phospholipid bubbles are non-living, proteins are non-living, water is non-living. Life is when these all provide complimentary functions in unison.
confettibrains 4 days ago
These folks have the nerve to declare theories of science, fairy tales? They don't have the right. Their Bible contains references to witches, sea monsters, unicorns (it's true, check it out), wise old giants, talking intelligent serpents, and more fairy-tales. They have/must believe that all other ideas are wrong or they won't get to live forever. It is a defense mechanism, they can't help it.
matthewtaylorbrown 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthewtaylorbrown "These folks have the nerve to declare theories of science, fairy tales?" Not at all. There IS no theory of evolution. Not one of you can agree as to what it is. Every one of you contradict yourselves. If it were a scientific theory there wouldn't be any argument about it. It's all bullshit. Now tell me WHICH theory of evolution do YOU believe in? OH you didn't KNOW there are different theories? Just as I thought.
YOU LOSE IT'S A FAIRYTALE HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 4 days ago
This video teaches me that we have wasted billions of jars of peanut butter
SuperkittyAvatar 5 days ago
wow this is almost as retarded as banana man
donohue100 5 days ago
I've heard this narrator do science videos before.
What a whore.
dahuterschuter 5 days ago
Remember when the US wasn't a bunch of retards? I miss those days
Guryguazu 5 days ago
(4) If the eyes had evolved in this way, where did our eye-lids come from, and the tear factor to protect our eyes from dirt and dust? Would someone PLEASE EXPLAIN these factors.
sethblatt 5 days ago
@sethblatt Vertebrate eyes began evolving billions of years before humans emerged. Simple light & motion sensitive cells would have been favoured for obvious survival reasons. The same goes for eye lids & tears (although a later development). organisms with these protection mechanisms would be favoured by natural selection & thus passed on down the generational line.
We can even see the different evolutionary stages by observing more primitive eyes in other organisms.
QuantumGh0st 5 days ago
So I just have some questions about what was said. (1) If the eye had evolved in this way, how would the optic nerves find it's way to the right part of the brain and how would the brain know what to do with them? (2) If the eyes had evolved in this way, then why wouldn't we have eyes all over our body and even on our hands? (3) If the eyes had evolved in this way, why would we have two of the exact same eyes, wouldn't they be different?...
sethblatt 5 days ago
@sethblatt (1) Your mistake seems to be visualizing a modern brain with an evolving eye. At the time when the eye evolved optical nerves, brains would've been more primitive. Humans wouldn't have existed at this point.
(2) + (3) Natural selection only selects what is beneficial for survival & reproducibility. Two eyes are sufficient to avoid predators & catch prey. We have four limbs to enable better balance. Survival is the reason why symmetry is favoured by evolution
QuantumGh0st 5 days ago
Okay, if it is true that the eye used to be a flat layer of light-sensitive skin that gradually sank in to form a bowl. And eventually sank further to form a type of ball with a hole at the front. Now the outline of the eye was complete. After all of this, fundamentally the Iris, refractive lens, optic nerves, and cornea came to be, making the perfect eye. Correct me on anything I might have gotten wrong....
sethblatt 5 days ago
Why is an "engineer" speaking about aboiogensis? Is he known in that field? Someone better post up a portfolio of his works, because I need to steer clear fr it!
recalibration 5 days ago
Sorry...what....?
KiteChaser 5 days ago
Americans are idiots
ButterOnCorn 5 days ago
oh dear god......these people have no idea how evolution works in the first place......it would have to be ORGANIC material with amino acids and other things in order to create life.
rudolfs0891 5 days ago
This needs to be uploaded again as a comedy so we can switch that like bar around
repeatuntilfalse 6 days ago
What a dumb fuck, they're sealed and preserved.
MrSuperfranky15 6 days ago
STOP LIKING WHAT I DONT LIKE!!! DISLIKE!!!! FLAG!!!!
attackzac21 6 days ago
goaliedude32
"You're obviously in an emotional state and your own little world because everyone of your comments seems angry and this one is inaccurate. slow the fuck down guy"
OK....LMAO....I've been argueing off & on all day with Creationist Knuckle Heads and their Idiocy when it comes to Evidence....they just don't seem to grasp what qualifies as evidence.
They have VERY loose standards when it comes to the Bible.
I certainly misread your post...upon a quick read of it, I was decieved...lol.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fulloshit, aren't you the other person PatThaDick is talking about here?
"No we are the idiots who get pwnd all the time by the mighty max and jack!!!"
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Your little dummass buddy is even dumber than you! Can you believe that? HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 6 days ago
he just hasnt got the right energy
ByronMH 6 days ago
This video makes no sense in 1000 different ways. How could mould grow inside a sealed peanut butter jar? The reason they seal it is so the peanut butter stays fresh.
drumguy2007 6 days ago
no troll tags :(
GoodMannersRS 6 days ago
ba..haha...aha.. AHAHAHHAHAHA. Lmfao are you serious!?
Oh wow.
SenorCosmo 6 days ago
dislike. idiots
ccurley98 6 days ago
What's even scarier is that these people can vote. And these people vote for people who think like them. Its no wonder we're fucked ten ways to Sunday.
gmet 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gmet "What's even scarier is that these people can vote. And these people vote for people who think like them"
Correct. And that is teh answer to the question,,, ""if your an atheist, why do you care about peoples religious beleifs"" We care because nut jobs vote in more nut jobs. They also try to influence the education system and peoples personal lives. This is why we care
podoau 6 days ago
these people are really dumb.
xprtmrksmn 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wtf did i just watch?
CtrlAltDeleteStudios 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wtf did i just watch?
CtrlAltDeleteStudios 6 days ago
... The complete and unparalleled ignorance of this argument is striking. Let me clarify a few things. The theory of evolution does not state that subjected to energy, matter may make new life. The correct materials and environmental conditions must be present. Neither of these are present in a JAR OF FUCKING PEANUT BUTTER! Also, it would take MASSIVE amounts of energy to make new life, not just some heat and light.
CronosYamato 6 days ago
haha evolusionist are stuppid cant us see wake up people omg tihs proves it haha
BrokenBjartur 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BrokenBjartur
"haha evolusionist are stuppid cant us see wake up people omg tihs proves it haha"
WTF.?....just what the hell was that gobblety gook you just wrote?
You can't spell evolutionist or stupid nor can you properly formulate a sentence...
But yet you have the unmitigated gaul, the balls to call anyone stupid ?
You sentence was that of a RETARD.
GO BACK TO SCHOOL.....then come back and....
TRY AGAIN.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
haha this has to be a joke.
MaverickIsNotTaken 1 week ago
@Urfullobull You're also wrong. About everything you believe in.
jonnyneo53 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53 ''You're also wrong. About everything you believe in.'' Just saying that has no meaning what so ever! Go ahead prove your claims! If you can't do your self a favor and shut up you are only digging a deeper grave
MrThaPatrick 1 week ago
@jonnyneo53
"You're also wrong. About everything you believe in"
I don't know why you posted to me. But I'm going to tell you the same thing I told you the last time. PICK UP SOME HISTORY BOOKS...Books on ANCIENT HISTORY.
Not a DAMNED LICK...not 1 iota of the so called History in the Bible lines up with REAL WORLD HISTORY...EVERY SINGLE CULTURE surrounding The Hebrews tell a DIFFERENT Story but yet confirm each other...The Greeks,Romans,Egyptians etc... ALL line up with each other.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
@Urfullobull I dont know what history books you're reading, but almost everything in the Bible has been historically proven. So..... You're wrong. Again.
jonnyneo53 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
"I dont know what history books you're reading, but almost everything in the Bible has been historically proven. So..... You're wrong. Again."
BULLSHIT Slick...There was NO world wide flood....There was NO Hebrew enslavement and an EXODUS from Egypt....There was NO man named Jesus wandering around doing miracles or even Crusified. NONE of REAL WORLD HISTORY lines up with the Bible....the ONLY thing that lines up in the Bible are names of cities....and that is ALL.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
"I dont know what history books you're reading, but almost everything in the Bible has been historically proven. So..... You're wrong. Again.'
OBVIOUSLY you're NOT Reading any!! Really Dude....get your ass back in school...and while you're at it read how Men were POLYTHEIST for THOUSANDS of yrs before MONOTHEISM was even INVENTED...you might also want to READ about the HISTORY of the WRITING of the Bible when it was started..what Babylonian & Sumerian MYTHS it STOLE etc
Urfullobull 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53 '' I dont know what history books you're reading, but almost everything in the Bible has been historically proven. So..... You're wrong. Again.'' Name one thing and show me the evidence for it! If you ignore this request you prove you are lying...
MrThaPatrick 6 days ago
@MrThaPatrick "name one thing and show me the evidence for it"
That's not his job. You're saying your book has been prove. Please pick one thing and send us a link that proves that it is real. We dont have to prove that you're wrong, you have to convince us you're right.
goaliedude32 6 days ago
@goaliedude32
"We dont have to prove that you're wrong, you have to convince us you're right."
Sorry Dude....that's NOT how the REAL WORLD works....those who make a positive CLAIM of something(s) /existance IS the ONE who has to provide the PROOF.
If you say you have a purple INVISABLE Dragon in YOUR Garage....It's NOT up to me to PROVE you wrong...YOU made the CLAIM...NOT ME.
If YOU SUE someone...YOU BETTER HAVE THE EVIDENCE...a CLAIM in Court is WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
Comment removed
goaliedude32 6 days ago
@Urfullobull I totally agree with you i didnt realize that "mrthapatrick" was responding to jonnyneo32. You and MrThaPatrick are absolutely correct and thats exactly what i was trying to say. my comment is directed at the comment that said "almost everything in the bible has been proven correct" and then he asked that you prove him incorrect somehow.
goaliedude32 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fulloshit "If you say you have a purple INVISABLE Dragon in YOUR Garage....It's NOT up to me to PROVE you wrong" Yeah, but if YOU say there is no God then the monkey is on your back. AND don't go into this I don't know if there's a God and then claim to be an atheist. btw DUMMASS try to learn to spell "invisible" ya dope.
MaximusArurealius 6 days ago
@jonnyneo53
I'm quite sure though that you have NO Interest in the TRUTH about the Bible and it's History...NOT the psudeo History contained in it's pages....but the History of the INVENTION of it...the WRITING of it....Moses NEVER EXISTED Dude. Of course you will take it upon yourself to IGNORE ALL Facts & Evidence that PROVES the Bible is the BIGGEST LIE & Farce ever pulled on Mankind.
I have a DEGREE in ANCIENT HISTORY Slick, so I know FAR, FAR More than you do on this matter.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
@Urfullobull There is no direct evidence on Moses, but there is TONS of indirect evidence that he existed! So again.... you're wrong!
jonnyneo53 6 days ago
@jonnyneo53
"There is no direct evidence on Moses"<-----PAY ATTENTION to that part...NO DIRECT EVIDENCE MEANS that any & ALL indirect Evidence is INVALID,the ONLY indirect "so called" Evidence you have is Hebrew CLAIMS in the Bible,I say AGAIN,STUDY HISTORY !!
Indirect Evidence is NOT nor EVER HAS been considered VALID EVIDENCE unless there was some,at least a little DIRECT Evidence to back it up.As usual U PROVE NONE of U knows what Evidence is.
So YOU'RE WRONG and a MORON to boot.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
@Urfullobull No direct evidence doesnt mean he didnt exist. He very well could have still existed. After all, your asking for direct evidence on ONE man over 4000 years ago. So yes, the indirect evidence gives plenty of credibility to Moses' existance, and all that indirect evidence is based on HISTORY, not the Bible.
So once again, you're wrong. No surprize there though, after all, you are deranged.
jonnyneo53 6 days ago
@jonnyneo53 " No direct evidence doesnt mean he didnt exist"
Do you apply the same reasoning to dragons ??
" the indirect evidence gives plenty of credibility to Moses' existance"
actually, no. The evidence give credibility to the evidence.. not to myths about the evidence.
podoau 6 days ago
@podoau Um, have you heard of the Komodo Dragon?
Tell me, there is No current evidence that there is Gold on Saturn. Does that mean there is no Gold on Saturn? No. There very well might be. How about, say, Santa? I dont believe in Santa, not because there is no evidence that he exists, but because there IS evidence that he DOESN'T exist! There is nobody at the north pole with a Toy factory, Nobody flies around the world delivering gifts. ........
jonnyneo53 6 days ago
@jonnyneo53 "have you heard of the Komodo Dragon? "
Yes. Have you ever seen one fly and breath fire ??
"No current evidence that there is Gold on Saturn. Does that mean there is no Gold on Saturn?"
No it doesnt, but that doesnt mean there is.
""Nobody flies around the world delivering gifts.""
How do you know ??
By your resoning, leprechauns are real becuase no one can prove they arnt
podoau 6 days ago
@podoau ....... As for Moses, nobody has shown evidence that he doesn't exist, but there is plenty of indirect Evidence that gives him Credibility. It might not classify Moses as a Historical fact, but the indirect evidence gives great credibility that he existed.
jonnyneo53 6 days ago
@jonnyneo53 " As for Moses, nobody has shown evidence that he doesn't exist, but there is plenty of indirect Evidence that gives him Credibility"
That is such bad logic its not worth responding too
podoau 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
"As for Moses, nobody has shown evidence that he doesn't exist, but there is plenty of indirect Evidence that gives him Credibility"
Once Again: INDIRECT EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE !!!!<---get that into your THICK ASS SKULL..Slick.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
@jonnyneo53
OK Dumb Ass...keep on with the Dumb ass shit....there are PLENTY of SINGLE ONE PERSON ENTITIES that have TONS of EVIDENCE to Collaberate their Existance. INDIRECT EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE !!!!<---get that into your THICK ASS SKULL..Slick.
Take some indirect evidence to Court and see how fast you get a conviction. Indirect Evidence won't even make it past the Judges Chamber into the Court room.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
@jonnyneo53
"So once again, you're wrong. No surprize there though, after all, you are deranged."
No once again YOU'RE WRONG Slick...here let me repeat this since you're having such a hard time understanding...read it slooooowly this time;
INDIRECT EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE !!!!<---get that into your THICK ASS SKULL..Slick.
"He very well could have still existed."
Is just GUESSING and WISHING and is MEANINGLESS!!!
You are deluded and wish to believe what you want WITHOUT EVIDENCE!!!
Urfullobull 6 days ago
@Urfullobull lol. Your deranged-ness is getting out of hand! You clearly dont understand whats your saying. So ill just say this: YOU'RE WRONG. :D
jonnyneo53 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
"lol. Your deranged-ness is getting out of hand! You clearly dont understand whats your saying. So ill just say this: YOU'RE WRONG. :D"
ONCE AGAIN YOU FUCKING DUMB ASS:
INDIRECT EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE !!!!<---get that into your THICK ASS SKULL..Slick.
NEVER HAS BEEN...NOR WILL IT EVER BE.
You fucking hard headed MORON !!!
I have ZERO Tolerance for WILFULL IGNORANCE and PURPOSELY IGNORING what constitutes as VALID EVIDENCE.
Kudos keep FORCING Yourself to be a RETARD.
Urfullobull 6 days ago
@Urfullobull lol. Lets see if that stubborn brain of yours can understand this. Indirect evidence is a type of Evidence. There is Indirect and Direct Evidence. therefore your statment "INDIRECT EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE" is completly false. Indirect Evidence (Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which a person might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute) can certainly......
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53
"Lets see if that stubborn brain of yours can understand this. Indirect evidence is a type of Evidence."
Yeah Dumb Fuck it's a type of Evidence that is NOT accepted in ANY Court of LAW or by ANYONE who got ANY Sense and Knows that Indirect Evidence is NOT Evidence.
ie. of Indirect Evidence;If I see someone waving at me...does that really mean he's waving at me? Or is he waving at the person behind me?
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53
A book (ie.The Bible) claiming things to be True is INDIRECT EVIDENCE of the Claims...but since the Claims CAN NOT be Validated then of course it's INVALID.
The ONLY Evidence that the Bible provides is that MEN wrote it.
You and the rest of your RETARDED ilk have a very, very hard time understanding the LAWS OF EVIDENCE.
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@Urfullobull Um... the indirect evidence im talking about is not the Bible. Its historical indirect evidence. And plus, there is also evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God, which gives more weight to the claim that Moses was real.
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
"Its historical indirect evidence. And plus, there is also evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God'
There is NO indirect Historical Evidence and the sure as the fuck is NO Evidence the Bible is God inspired...if it was God inspired then God is a bigger MORON than you.
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53 Haha you believe in God and talking snakes and super boats to carry an impossible amount of animals hahahaha the world mocks you
donohue100 5 days ago
@donohue100 the Bible is Historically accurate with Historic evidence to back it up. It has scientific accuracy, and MANY Prophecies that have come true flawlessly. Not to mention other evidence that it is God's word. Also there is some evidence that points to the Historicity of the great flood. So clearly its Gods word. So if the Bible says that a Snake spoke, since its Gods word, that snake did in fact speak. So you can laugh ignorantly or actually sit and Study the Bible.
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@Urfullobull True that, the bible proves people will beleive anything if there stupid and brain washed enough.
donohue100 5 days ago
@donohue100
They INSIST on being RETARDED...they purposely FORCE themselves to be IDIOTS...and not a NARY 1 of them own a DICTIONARY or have any familiarity with one nor care to own a dictionary.
I continually find myself posting deffinitions from the Dictionary and Believe it or not...they want argue about the deffinitions too.
They choose Willfull IGNORANCE over Knowledge...their Bible even applauds that with a Wise man is a Fool.
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@donohue100
ROTFLMFAO....just like I said...you give them the deffintion and they still argue.....not a hot minute after I posted to you & Johnny, Johnny comes right back arguing about the deffintion of Indirect Evidence and how it applies to Moses and tries to play games & dance around what we've been arguing over for hours.
They're Fucking RETARDED.
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@Urfullobull ...... lend Credibility (referance to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message) to the History of Moses. So ONCE AGAIN, you're wrong slick. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? ;)
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53
OK once AGAIN DUMB ASS: Indirect Evidence is NOT VALID....Indirect Evidence equates to RUMOR & HEARSAY unless there IS some DIRECT EVIDENCE to back it up & it necissarily doesn't have to be a lot....just some.
HEARSAY, RUMOR, INDIRECT EVIDENCE & CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE doesn't cut it you Fucking RETARD.
Goddamned but you are one Super Stupid Dumb Fuck.
Hey Dumb Fuck check out the video above called: Religion - And it's disconnect from Reality....it's ALL about EVIDENCE.
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@Urfullobull Wow. You just dont get it, do you? If indirect evidence didnt count for anything, they wouldnt call it 'Indirect EVIDENCE'. The word 'Evidence' would even be in the phrase. Plus, in regards to Moses, the Egyptians were not above altering historical records when the truth proved to be embarrassing or went against their political interests. When Thutmose III came to power, he tried to obliterate the memory of his predecessor, Hatshepsut. Maybe the.....
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53
"You just dont get it, do you? If indirect evidence didnt count for anything, they wouldnt call it 'Indirect EVIDENCE'
No you just don't fucking get it RETARD...you don't understand THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE I'LL say it once more: INDIRECT EVIDENCE IS invalid unless....now PAY ATTENTION to the NEXT part UNLESS there is SOME Direct Evidence to back it up.
Watch the video you thick headed Dumb Fuck....it might and I say MIGHT help you understand what your missing.
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@Urfullobull hahah. Ok, im gonna keep trying to explain to you so you can get it. I know you're retarded, but just try, ok? Indirect Evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become Corroborating Evidence. No Direct Evidence is needed to sustain the Indirect evidence. Even in a court, Indirect Evidence is used to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. .....
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@Urfullobull ..... I dont just believe the Bible just because, I believe it because there is tons of Evidence to back up not only what the Bible says, but to prove its the Inspired word of God.
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53
OK DUMB FUCK since you don't own a DICTIONARY or if you do it's DUST COVERED here is the Deffinition of Indirect evidence from the Merriam Websters DICTIONARY word for fucking word:
Indirect Evidence noun (1824): evidence that establishes immediately Collateral Facts from which the Main fact my be inferred: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
There DUMB ASS do you understand that? Or will I have to break down that deffinition for piece by piece?
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@Urfullobull All you proved was my point. Indirect Evidence (Circumstantial Evidence) 'establishes immediately Collateral Facts from which the Main fact may be inferred' (the main fact being Moses' existance in this case). In other words, Indirect (Circumstancial) Evidence establishes collateral facts from which Moses' existance may be inferred. Thanks for proving my point, slick!
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53
OK let me break down for you DUMB FUCK...you have to have the COLLATERAL FACTS (evidence) FIRST for the Indirect Evidence to count....You FUCKING DUMB FUCK that's the whole FUCKING POINT...YOU DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE,THE FACTS....if you did you wouldn't be trying to push your so called Indirect Evidence.
PROVIDE THE DIRECT EVIDENCE THE COLLATERAL FACTS.
It's like I explained to you earlier you MUST have at least SOME DIRECT EVIDENCE for the INDIRECT EVIDENCE to COUNT.
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@Urfullobull Really? What a fool. Definition of Collateral Facts: "Facts unconnected with the issue or matter in dispute."
Collateral Facts is NOT Direct Evidence. So you DON'T need direct evidence to sustain the Circumstantial Evidence. Nice try, next time though, know what the definition means before you quote the dictionary. And I saw the video, and he refferes to people with retarded answer that in no case cualify as evidence. ......
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53
"So you DON'T need direct evidence to sustain the Circumstantial Evidence. "
YES YOU DO...CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS**NOT**I REPEAT**NOT** ADMISSABLE IN A COURT OF LAW.
No I'm NOT afraid you will or can provide Evidence of Moses Existance since I know you can't...but go for it...shoot.
Ok, just what didn't you understand in the Deffinition where it said MAIN FACT?
Excuse me I meant to write Main Fact before but for some reason wrote Collateral fact.
Main fact = Evidence.
Urfullobull 5 days ago
@Urfullobull "...CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS**NOT**I REPEAT**NOT** ADMISSABLE IN A COURT OF LAW."
You can repeat all you want, it still doesn't make it true. and the Merrium-Webster dictionary DID say Collateral Fact, so dont say you misspelled it! The Merrium-Webster definition of Circumstancial Evidence: "evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue " .......
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53
Indirect Evidence noun (1824): evidence that establishes immediately Collateral Facts from which the Main fact my be inferred: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
LOOK IN THAT DEFFINITION does it NOT say MAIN FACT.
I did NOT claim to misspell it...I claimed to have made a mistake ....how the fuck can I misspell Collateral into MAIN?
Unlike you fucking IDIOTS who are NEVER WRONG and make no mistakes according to you guys.
Urfullobull 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Urfullobull Notice the merrium-webster definition for Circumstancial Evidence: "evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue "
The end it says "Fact at issue". Whats the fact at Issue? The existance of Moses. Similarly, The definition you provided: "evidence that establishes immediately Collateral Facts from which the Main fact my be inferred" ......
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@Urfullobull ..... What is the "Main fact to be inferred"? The existance of Moses. So when it says "Main Fact", its not reffering to Direct Evidence. Similarly to the Merrium-Webster definition, it reffering to, in this case, The existance of Moses.
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53 "which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue"
note the word FACT in that statement
podoau 5 days ago
@Urfullobull ......So the inference that Moses existed is Reasonable when presented with Circumstancial Evidence! According to Wikipedia: "A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence... In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. .......
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53 " "A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.."
But first you need direct evidence. circumstantial evidence can be used to support direct evidence, but circumstantial evidence is wortheless on its own
podoau 5 days ago
@Urfullobull ....... Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict." If you needed Direct Evidence to present the Circumstancial evidence, then you would NEVER need to present Circumstancial evidence because you have the direct evidence! It makes no sense! The FACTS: You DON'T NEED DIRECT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN OR VALIDATE CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE.
jonnyneo53 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
I thought you were going to ply me with Evidence of Moses?
What happened?.
I'll see what you say tomorrow....it's late and I have to get up VERY early tomorrow.
"If you needed Direct Evidence to present the Circumstancial evidence, then you would NEVER need to present Circumstancial evidence because you have the direct evidence! It makes no sense!"
It makes plenty of sense...the MORE Evidence you have the STRONGER the case the Higher the success of a Conviction.
Urfullobull 5 days ago