Good vid, although when I meet someone with such a good grasp of reality its strange to see them as a theist.
You seem to have a very good grip on the arguments against a god, yet still believe in one, I can only think this is personal experience, something noone can refute.
However, as im sure you understand this is not enough evidence for anyone else to believe it.
Many people are brought up to believe certain things.Most people don't question what they believe, they accept it.They think they know there's is a God...but they don't actually know.The thought process can bring comfort, which they believe is a sign that God is within.
Arguing with them is not gonna change anything, it's up to each one to find a state of happiness.If they are happy, good for them.If I'm a happy non-believer..then great.
@ThePurpleHarpoon I'd be ok with the "just let people be happy thing" but it's not that simple. Many theists lives are highly impacted by their unlikely beliefs as are the lives of people around them. True Believers do all sorts of things due to their beliefs (e.g. demonizing others, passing laws that effect others, flying planes into buildings, etc). So it's in everyone's best interest if people act based on reason instead of faith. To that end, discussion CAN change minds.
@MystryBox . I think every point of view is subjective, and it should be subjected to our reason. Our reason however takes us as far as we let it take us. Alot of us dont really take reason far enough because of fear of persecution. In that case reason alone is not what helps us understand. Just a thought.
Christianity is a religion and a god that was plagiarism(copy) of past religions such as Paganism(Christmas) and Egyptian religion. And guess what? coincidentally the Egyptian god Osiris' son Horus is pretty much an exact match of Jesus. And guess what? Egypt's religion existed 5000 years before Christianity. Before your bullshit God or bullshit Jesus was created
So why don't you research instead of believing child molesters. How stupid are you? And btw. I'm LaVeyan Satanist. Same thing almost
I think we are the experiment of higher life forms(yes, "aliens") and our only purpose is to live and be observed. That is why there are recordings of aliens and U.F.Os in cave paintings thousands of years old, and U.F.Os keep appearing all over the world.
so i guess in a sense, they are our gods, our creators.
Because of the meteorite, humanity had to rebuild itself. The only creatures that survived the meteor were the smaller creatures like lizards, birds, snakes, insects etc. How did they prove this you may ask? Simple, we've got skeletons, meteorites, pieces of land and so on. I'm not saying God don't exist, but I think that people should just stop bitching, and accept BOTH beliefs, maybe God caused the big bang, so your faith may be right. Don't insult my family or anything for not having religion
Hey I'm 12 years old and I already know how the world was created. Earth did not exist until 2 asteroids, filled with complete energy eventually met and crashed into each other. Therefore creating the world's core, which made a planet of water. Then the continents grew out of the earth making it able for the sea cells to evolve into dinosaurs and humans. Centuries later a ginormous meteor struck the earth and split the continents and killed the dinosaurs.
Jesus sacrificed himself for the salvation of Humans is a sign of giving way to the ancient “fashion” of Human sacrifice. This is one of the pillars in Christianity: “Lord gave his son for our sins”. I say at the onset, Lord made a mistake by putting the forbidden tree and the serpent in the Garden of Eden such that Eve and Adam gave up on his (Lord’s) authority, thus he had to sacrifice himself.
Human nature shows in God, because he was invented by the Human mind…
"Theists see evidence all around them and wonder how atheists can't see it". Its not that we don't see all the amazing things in the world, its not that we don't understand them either, its that we recognize all of the scientific explanations for these things that theists always deny because they can't accept that its possible that god might not exsist. As for all of the things science can't explain, we just recognize that just because we don't have an explanation yet, doesn't mean we never will
although i do like your video there is only one flaw. Most of theists would just say "god is apparent to me" as a solid argument. I don't think that most theists can talk reasonably when they have to defend their faith, cause by doing so will go down the slippery slope and lie in the end.
@linkuei83 that's not a flaw with the video, it's a flaw with theists. Besides, the point of the video isn't to convince theists of anything other than that atheists are rational and draw their conclusions from observation of reality.
@MystryBox "atheists are rational and draw their conclusions from observation of reality"?, like nothing exploding and life constructing itself from inanimate matter?
@shakinahstorm well that depends on what "pillar" he would try and defend. Some examples would be -we got no fossil record- regarding evolution, -c14 dating is inaccurate- regarding fossils or earth age for that matter.
@shakinahstorm here is more dishonest lies. Lie is a sin you know. There is no disagreement, it's blatant outright lies perpetuated by the creationists, not to mention they try to gain credibility by putting the word science -Creation science-. Science doesn't manufacture evidence and disregards other just to fit their view as creationists do. You are aware that many creationists said that where science disagree with bible must be disregarded. This is fucking pathetic.
@linkuei83 Well no Link, im sorry mate, but there are no lies here, and no, its not the creationists that are guilty of disregarding evidence.
Eg, can i have your interpretation on the coelancanth fossil and its evolutionary chain?
The creationist do not accept alot of the assumptions being made by the evolutionists, i mean when it comes to facts, like enviromental adaption, there is no problem, however the ASSUMPTION that its the reason for the many species, no.
@shakinahstorm you are being dishonest and you know that. Creationists start with a predefined position and make any excuse to lead there. You really suggesting that the majority of scientists are dumb enough to be wrong and creationists are that much smarter? And what about Coelacanth, what's your objections about it.
@linkuei83 1slty, when has it ever been, that its majority that determines truth?. The majority believed the earth was flat, or that the earth was in the centre of the solar system, majority does not determine truth.
Yes i have a bias, in the same way you have, however the coelancanth and many other fossils like the horseshoe crab defy your bias. Fossils dating back to an apparent age of 410 MILLION yrs old, show no evidence of evolution whats so ever, as they are still alive today?
@shakinahstorm bias, i got no bias because i don't care one way or the other. Creationists got bias that seek to prove the bible right. As for majority science is not a popularity contest. We aren't talking about clueless people, but well educated on the subject, your analogy is flawed. As for Coelacanth or shark even because you don't see any morphological differences doesn't mean it hasn't evolve nor this disproves evolution, by your logic this also tosses micro-evolution.
@linkuei83 Link mate, yes you do have a bias, when you look at the world you see it through the the evolutionary glasses your wearing. Eg, if i was to say to you that men were more advanced in the past then they are to day, how would that be recieved?
And Link, its not just coelencanth and sharks, champ the fossil record is ridded with it, No evolution.
And no it does not discount micro, because we have a fossil of the one breed, does not mean other breeds do not exist?
@shakinahstorm So i'm biased because i use what science teaches us to understand the world. So what other tools we have for it then? It would be biased if i wanted to reach a certain conclusion for my own sake, as i don't care what direction evidence take and just follow em, i'm not biased.
I don't understand why would you say that and what purpose would it serve to say it nor it is true.
Micro evolution and macro are the same thing, only think that differs is the time scale.
@linkuei83 Yes link you are biased, and no, not because you use science to teach you how to understand the world, but how you use it to understand your origins.
And no, the evolutionist does not go where the evidence takes them, coelencanth is evidence, evidence that suggest no evolution over the period of 410 MILLION yrs?, however evolutionist are hard at work finding ways to make it fit.
And its bias that leads one to tie micro and macro in together.
@shakinahstorm round and round we go. Micro and macro are the exact same thing we only distinguish because of time scale. Can you please tell me where they differ except time scale?
@linkuei83 lol, i know what you mean, things can get a tad dizzy like.
Micro, changes within a species
Macro, changes amongst the species
Assumption, because we have these small changes over a relatively small amount of time, we must have great leaps of changes over a long period of time. One is observable, the other is not.
So in order to help the cause we interpret the fossils in such a way, key word "interpret".
Its via the evolutionary bias that we would expect micro to macro.
@shakinahstorm I am not quite sure what you mean by within and amongst but nevertheless you are wrong. You should read what a species is before trying to use that term, and a good example is ring species and it utterly destroys the argument, but aside from that you forget that genetics are more important than fossils. Human chromosome 2 provides evidence we are related to apes or scientists are lying?
@linkuei83 Changes within a species of dog; wolf, doberman, shitzu.....
Changes amongst species; Dog into a whale?
And no scientists are not lieing in that we are closely related to Chimps, its that the assumption is not agreed apon, "chimp and human are related via a common ancestor".
Chromosone number is rather superficial when we consider the info within.
My stance is that its via a common designer that theres a close proximity in chromo numbers, its expected with similar shapes.
@shakinahstorm They fail to realize that we as humans have more in common with other species than differences, and a lot of animal tissues are found in humans that dont benefit us.
@javonpryce I dont have a problem with being related to other species, i have a problem with the idea we are related via a common ancestor, as DNA infomation is restricted. And no i dont believe that bacterial immunity can account for the increase of infomation that is needed for evolution to take place.
@shakinahstorm Something else to think about, creationists BLATANTLY say that evolution is just a "theory" not a fact. If you know anything about science you'd know what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is, if that's not a outright lie WHAT is, also, fuck radiometric dating of earth, we got light from stars coming from vast distances traveling for more than 6000 yrs to reach us and the fucktards keep ranting that god created light in place as if. Those are not lies?
I like your attitude. You try to state two objective alternatives which can both be considered real.
That's why I cannot understand the reason of your faith.
If you consider all the facts and unquestionable evidence (books written centuries ago can be questioned), then the second one seems more likely.
Yes, sciencetists can't say what was before the big bang or how it really happened. But not being able to prove A does not mean B is right. There are more alternatives and better ones than fiction
@marom009 I have a lot more viewers than most youtube posters so I consider myself lucky. And for the most part they are respectful and intelligent viewers, even when they disagree with me.
@MystryBox Like the small changes found within enviromental adaption is what has lead to the many differant species in the world?, or a complete living cell can construct itself from inanimate matter?, and so on and so on.........?
@MystryBox he was assuming you're a theist because of the title of the video! Duh! To someone who has never heard of you, his first impression of you will be the thumbnail picture and title of your video as it appears on the right side of the screen as a link seen on another video. That's the first impression. But it's a good idea. Closedminded theists who would otherwise avoid your video may see it only because they expect you to parrot their own opinions. And then.... Surprise!
@medexamtoolsdotcom yes I'm quite aware what he was assuming (as well as many other misguided commenters on this video). My issue is they shouldn't be commenting on videos they don't even bother to watch! I expect more from my fellow atheists.
@marom009 Im someone who believes the bible to be the word of God, and i question it regulary, its how i grow in my faith. The bible itself encourages questioning and reasoning :)
@linkuei83 To a citrtain extent yes i am still blind, i will never see fully until i pass on and leave the limitations of my physical body. However yes its tru, the day i recieved Jesus into my life as my saviour was the day a whole new dimension open to me!, it was the greatest day of my life, blew my mind!. It was truly as the song Amazing Grace goes "i was blind, but now i see", let me tell you, those lyrics werent placed there just for the sake of the song, it is for real!
@linkuei83 Its cool Link, theres no reason for sorry champ, i totally understand where your coming from. Reason and logic is what a person needs to be able to see, and that which exists in our immediate universe i dont believe that your blind to. However your initial question was, "Why cant i see God or heaven", well link, that which we use to comprehend our physical dimension of matter, time and space, its of no use when it comes to the supernatural eternal dimension of Heaven.
Atheists see things not as evidence for god but evidence for science. There is no afterlife and the entire universe was created by scientifically explanable processes. Science doesn't know everything but jusdt because there are gaps doesn't mean some goddidit.
Are you asking me to show you the Maker of all matter? You can't even see all matter so how is it you expect to be able to see the Maker of all matter?
Stick with the observable evidence of the Maker of the function of hydrogen working inside of us as ordained to work.
The truth of everything has been around for thousands of years. It is that there is a Maker of everything. Now I can prove there is such a Maker because the function of hydrogen working inside of us as ordained has a Maker and the Maker of the function of hydrogen is the Maker of all matter in the universe consisting primarily and initially of hydrogen. So there is One Maker of one set of working elements made to function in one set of life forms and there is no evidence of any other maker.
I agree with your view. But if there was no need for religion, then it wouldn't exist....If religion didn't exist, then we would all be Atheists, uniting under a one world gov...If that were the case, then our "theoretical" world would become more like the first, where religion would re-create itself...This is true because all world Empires fall, and thats reality.
@rekindling1 - there is a need many people feel for religion, but it is psycological one - people are sometimes better off if their able to vent their frustration, rage, joy at some external source. this is good for you in similar ways to meditation.
everyone being atheists would not lead to world government - there is a line between tribalism and religion, although it is occasionally blurred it is certainly true that I, an atheist scot, am pro-indepedance for scotland.
"There wouldn't be any Atheists in the garden of eden!? WRONG! So wrong. All Christians WORSHIP AN ATHEIST!!! ROFLS, ROFLS,ROFLS. Keep talkin' shit about Atheists, GOD is listening...
What would be heresy like the earth revolving around the sun, would one day become doctrine!
If you made that claim at one time you would be put to the stake!
Xtians state that god created the universe out of nothing, you could be stating that god created the universe out of what was already there if a different side of the debate was won back in the the 3rd C. (churches beginning).
The only difference is that in the debate back in the genesis of christianity, one side won over the other.
@Cont; you are only preaching that which was voted on by a council on what was considered doctrine, and what was heresy.
You who argue that god created the universe out of nothing, could be just as dogmatic about stating that god created the universe out of what was already there if one side of the counsel won instead of the other side.
Start learning church history, and stop being so sure you KNOW.
It just may be that which you KNOW will one day become heresy!
@MystryBox It's not that the question doesn't have an answer, it's just that the question is amazingly foolish!
Also, on another note, we do not have the burden of answering the question of whether or not a boogy man in the sky spoke into existence first the earth,vegetation,water,fruit, etc. in the Universe THEN created the sun,moon,and stars.
That is a more realistic question that should be answered then simply a xtian making shit up!
How can you rely on a book that is so profoundly stupid!
Saying that the universe began with a big bang..... that once there was nothing and then out of no where boom everything was created is really not better than saying God created everything. As a matter of fact it is a very idiotic thing to say.
@raulsnchez At least with the Big Bang, we have some evidence behind it and it is possible to have happened based on that evidence. Now with God, there is NO evidence for it. There is no evidence that magic exists, either, and that seems like how God made everything, by poofing it into existence. You are the ones who believe everything was created from nothing, we don't make that claim with the Big Bang.
@66gt40lm Interesting, so exactly what did explode in the big bang?. Its my belief that this dimension of time matter and spaces, gives testimony to an eternal dimension that exists outside of this dimension.
@shakinahstorm That's something we don't know yet. But not knowing doesn't give you permission to just put whatever stupid idea you want in there without having evidence to back it up. I mean, maybe a God did make the big bang happen, but that's unlikely as there is zero evidence for a God's existence at all. So, we don't know what caused the Big Bang, but what caused a God to exist? Why must there be a causal reason for the Big Bang, but not a God? It's special pleading, so it's unacceptable.
@66gt40lm "As there is zero evidence for a Gods existence"?, this depends on the glasses your looking through, as for me and multitudes of others, we only need open our eyes to find it at every turn, eg DNA....
"What caused God to exist", i think you may have missed my original comment where i stated, "gives testimony to an eternal dimension that exists outside of this dimension", eternal means no beginning and no end.
Why must there be a casual reason?, why must there not?
@shakinahstorm DNA is not evidence of God any more than the existence of Earth is evidence of God. Your problem is that you attribute EVERYTHING to God, therefore everything is evidence of him. The problem there is that DNA is evidence of DNA, not of God. In the words of Carl Sagan, "Why not save step, and conclude that the universe always existed, that there is no need for a creation; it was always here." I think you're missing the point, here, not me.
@66gt40lm Again, it comes down to the glasses being worn. For me infomation points to an informer, its that simple.
Not only that, its inconcievable that something as complex as the info found in DNA, could be a product of unguided natural process, stemming from inaniment matter assembling itself???, this is just not observed in nature, fullstop.
@shakinahstorm Well, if it's really as simple as that, I can see why you chose God over reality. The problem, again, is you obviously have no real idea what the opposition says about life. You hear that we come from monkeys from other creationtards and think, "I r no munkee!" Simple thought processes make simple decision based on no REAL evidence. There are ways DNA can come to existence by natural means, you just don't have any idea because your glasses keep you from gaining that knowledge.
@66gt40lm God is reality, and yes its my glasses that keep me ignorant to a lie. I am armed with truth, and its those who stand for nothing that fall for anything, so hence how difficuilt it will be for the likes of me to be indoctrinated into believing the greatest lie ever told by the mainstream scientific community and also promoted by the mainstream propaganda machine, a corporately owned corrupt media. After all, a people with no direction are easily controlled.
@shakinahstorm How is it you claim it's a lie when you clearly know NOTHING about it? You claim we are indoctrinated how? I grew up a Christian, and I actually looked into the truth and saw how much utter crap was in the Bible. Do you really believe it's acceptable to own slaves or make a rape victim marry her rapist? Fucking read that stupid hateful and disgusting book of bullshit and quit saying science is the one lying when you know nothing about the science or your own religion.
@66gt40lm 1stly, its an assumption that bacterial immunity can account for a flipper becoming an arm, not fact, Its an assumption that what i call designed for eviromental adaption (micro evolution), can account for the existence of all the differant species of animals, its not fact. And no, its not acceptable to own slaves in modern day culture, not even ancient culture, however it was not part of mosaic old testament law, its not something God introduced nor approved
@shakinahstorm You accepting that small changes can happen, but denying that, over millions of years, it can't make big changes (speciation, for example) is pure ignorance. You clearly don't accept evolution, and have no clue what you are talking about. The "right" for you to own slaves is in the Bible, along with rules on who you can enslave, for how long etc. You don't need to tell me slavery is wrong, but you will not tell me it wasn't accepted when it's in your silly holy book.
@66gt40lm Its not ignorance to deny macro evolution. It is within itself pure assumption, "we assume that because we can have small changes over a small amount of time that we can have large changes over a large amount of time. However mutation can only ever account for the extinction of a species, nothing more. So on its own enviromental adaptation cannot account for such major changes, when the existing info is only rearranging itself, not adding in such away to allow for the changes
@shakinahstorm It's not an assumption, it's something we can observe though the fossil record. We can observe macroevolution with that and genetics. Those rearranges add attributes and eventually make it so that it can't interbreed eventually with something else having the same common ancestor. I believe it's Potholer54 that brings the example of a lizard that makes a "ring species." They split off into two branches, evolving along the way. Thousands of years later, the two species can't breed.
@66gt40lm It really does make for an impressive explanation, however all the fossil evidence has to offer is an interpretation built on bias, it is not solid evidence, if anything it offers up evidence to the contrary, eg, can i have your interpretation on the coelacanth fossil?.
@shakinahstorm Demonstrate that it's based on bias, please. Either way, our own genetic evidence proves macro evolution. The fact that we are nearly genetically identical to modern monkeys is proof enough that we shared a common ancestor with them, which proves that we can branch off into two different species. I really don't see how you can't see this. I'm going to bed. I may or may not pick this back up some other time. I am usually very busy during the week, so probably not anytime soon.
@66gt40lm So no interpretation on the coelacanth then?. Skulls of differant races of humans, being used as links of evolution is an example of interpretaition built on bias. Yes i can see how it is that the genetic comparative could be used as evidence, we also share 50% of our genes with a banana?. What you see as common ancestory, i see as common designer. Sweet dreams champion
"What you see as common ancestory, i see as common designer."
And that's not "an example of interpretation built on bias"?
typical creationist/ID logic:
-don't understand how evolution works and don't even care
-therefore just assume that the easiest non-answer you can think of is the only option (which is that the god you already believe in anyway must be responsible) and that it couldn't possibly have happened any other way
@Cromwell523 Hold on a tick, im not the one denieing that i have a bias?
"-don't understand how evolution works and don't even care", you forget that most creation scientist are ex evolutionists, some of which were highly respected.
As for God being the answer, infomation points to intelligence.
@shakinahstorm "infomation points to intelligence."- gotta back that up. gotta define "information".
"most creation scientist are ex evolutionists"- for example....
"What you see as common ancestory, i see as common designer."- ahh, a designer by coincident DESIGNED species so similiar and so predictable by the theory of evolution in terms of genetics and geological distribution. what EVIDENCE do you HAVE? you need solid hard evidence, not "gut feeling".
@shakinahstorm it's because it has been OBSERVED!! have you or anyone else OBSERVED the actual creation of material? EVERYTHING is matter and energy, all we have done and observe is rearranging what's already there, everything is conserved either in the form of matter or energy.
@72dew Exactly!, no it hasent been observed, hence the rearranging of the existing infomation found within DNA, giving us micro, not macro evolution. There is no creation of new material or infomation that would lead to macro. The info has been preprogrammed within to do exactly that, rearrange itself in order to adapt to enviroment.
@shakinahstorm first of all, there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, there's only evolution. you put a series of micro evolution over an extremely long time span and then you compare the first one to the current last one and it will look like a "macro evolution".
but it can give us speciation, some genes become unuseable and some becomes exaggerated depending on the need during adaptation. look up abiogenesis and how it ACTUALLY works, life emerging from non-life
@72dew It makes sense what your saying, however as you have suggested, have you ever observed the creation of material, for me and from what i have come to understand, is that this goes for infomation found with DNA aswell. For adaptation to lead over into the evolution of new species there needs to be new infomation, but all we have is the rearranging of existing infomation.
And i have looked into ABIO, however it all still remains a mystery.
@shakinahstorm pt1: experiments have been done to prove that nucleic acid can be formed NATURALLY by pure chemical means, along with the reaction came amino acids and other organic materials. adding "new" genetic material can be obtained through different ways such as symbiosis, mutation and genetica exaggeration. for example compare the mammoth with an elephant, common ancestry, one has fur one doesnt. so where does this fur gene come from if it never had it?
@72dew Heres the thing, theres a reason for why Huxely changed the name to Abio, changing the name kept the idea credible, cleverly evading the fact that life arising from non life is not observable no where in nature. What is observed in nature is that life comes from life, and yet we are expacted to accept the exception, that whats not observed in nature, your formation of nucleic acid would go onto bring about the self construction of the first cell???.
@shakinahstorm for abiogenesis, you should watch an informative video /watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
it's a fairly long process and i cant explain everything through comment section. but basically self-replicating chemicals first arrived as RNAs, they can replicate by pure chemical means as they use chemical bondings to find compatible nucleotides thus they are the first self-replicating chemicals. the video beautifully describes how abiogenesis works.
@72dew In the words of well known chemical evolutionist Gerald Joyce in his paper found in Science Journal, “The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA … . The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.”
Lincoln, T. and Joyce, G., Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme, Science 323(5918):1229–1232, 2009
furthermore, another example of EVO is the italian wall lizard. only after 30 generations it has migrated to an island of a different ecozone, it has changed it's jaw shape to suit more for chewing veggies than meat, not only its jaws changed, it's guts and digestive system also changed. had the dna already prepared for this? no. but do there seem to be "new info"? yes.
ABIO and EVO are totally different subjects and arent relevent EVO simply means changes due to adaptation
@72dew 1stly, if abio never existed there would be nothing to evolve.
2ndly, what is your evidence to say that the infomation required for the lizards adaptation was not already existing whithin the DNA?.
I have come to understand, is that its shuffling of existing infomation, infomation programmed in order to allow for adaptation of enviroment, its still just a lizard that has adapted to its enviroment, and eventually the lizard will become extinct as genetic entropy takes its path...
@shakinahstorm even if life is premade, evo will still be occuring. evo=changes from adaptation.
so you are saying that the italian wall lizard was somehow prepared for unexpected migration? it doesnt make any sense. also, keep in mind that they didnt migrate overnight. it took years. the lizard wont become extinct. it havent, in fact it's flourishing
Im saying that the info exists in order to allow for adaption, and yes unexpected migration would mean there be a need for adaption. Darwins finches for Eg, the genes that existed within the ancestor finch would of allowed for large and small beaks, whilst natural selection would of determined the beak size on these finches. The finches with beaks unproductive for the enviroment would of died off, leaving only the beaks productive for that enviroment. Info has been lost not gained
@shakinahstorm previously, i couldnt answer that whether a new gene or "info" could appear in the genome, so i did some research. it is now observed that new genes in the genus Drosophila (fruit fly) does not onl arise pretty quickly, but also diverge quickly to become essential parts of the genome. this article is from Science: "New genes in Dropsophila quickly become essenetial"
do you want to move to PM so we dont have the character limits, if you want to keep debating
@shakinahstorm It doesn't matter what my interpretation of anything is to you, honestly. All you will come back with is, "dat der siens stuf be prapergander and lies!" Also, being 50% identical to a banana just means we share similar production of proteins and enzymes for various tasks that need to be accomplished. We are said to be 98-99% like modern monkeys, with nearly the same amount of chromosomes (the extra one that monkeys have fused by the time it got to us, explaining the loss).
@66gt40lm Im hearing you, and it does sound ligit and convincing, and in the light of what your saying, it would be expected that horses and cows would also share the closest of similarities, however the fact is that bats share a greater similarity with cows then horses do. This also counters the view that simple DNA comparisons will indicate degree of similarity in anatomy.
However for me, the evidence suits best the bias that i hold, as i have said, info only arises from intelligence
@shakinahstorm Honestly, I probably won't reply back to you at all because you have no clue what you are talking about. When you do real research without being the bias hypocrite you are, maybe then I will reply to you. Untill then, you probably shouldn't speak out against any sciences because you have no understanding what they are saying. Also, stop listening to retards like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, the shit you said sounds like something those two morons would say.
@66gt40lm And i believe its true that if i was to deny that i was holding a bias, i would infact be hypocritical, however its not to be denied the bias that i hold.
@shakinahstorm Also, demonstrate that God is reality. You keep making claims, yet fail to back them up with actual evidence. Just remember, even if the utter crap you've spewed out was true about science being a lie, it doesn't automatically prove a God is real. Just remember, though, that science has brought you ALL of your life today. The reason life expectancy is so high, and still rising, medicine, cell phones, computers and internet you are using now were brought to you by science, not God.
@66gt40lm Here is the most common straw man of them all, that someone who believes in ID has a vendetta out on science?. As i have said above, evolution is somthing that accounts for eviromental adaption, nothing more, just because i dont agree that its the reason for the many of differant species on this planet, does not mean i have a vendetta on science, indoctrination yes, science no. And God is a reality because i dont have my back on Him.
@shakinahstorm You were the one who said that science is lying about possibly THE most factually based theories in all of science. You're talking about propaganda and other bullshit. I'm here to tell you that "mainstream science" brought you most of the medicine you take to cure you of all types of shit that can happen. Biology, which is completely based on evolution, is the cause for this...
@66gt40lm Biology is based on enviromental adaptation accounting for the many differant species?, i dont think so. Evolution plays a champion roll within biology, but no, its not based on the assumption it can account for the existence of all species, mate thats a sizeable leap that in no way am i prepared to make, when the leap is one of assumption.
@shakinahstorm Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, and without it, it wouldn't be where it is today. macro and micro evolution does happen, and I'm sorry that you refuse to accept the vast amounts of evidence supporting it. I don't see how you can't make that sizeable leap when you make a bigger leap accepting that God done did it. No evidence at all to support that. It's unfortunate, you seem like you have so much more potential, but instead you dilute your mind with bronze-aged myths.
@66gt40lm Sorry champ but micro yes, macro no. Macro is assumption!. Another eg, we dig up the skulls of differant races of humans, or breeds of apes, what do we have?, its an evolutionary line!. Yes its an evolutionary line, a horizontal one, there is no evidence that allows for that line to become vertical, not within any of the sciences.
@raulsnchez time and space were created in the big bang so there is no before as is implicit to the phrase "Once there was nothing" . The big bang isnt an event like a train pulling away from a station where an outside observer could take notes. The universe wasn't a big empty space waiting to be filled with matter, space and time and matter are co-dependent to exist. Where we live there is a consistent amount of matter so we can take space-time as invariant, but this is a localised perspective.
@raulsnchez Its actually much more idiotic to say that a all-powerful being just poofed into existence from nothing, than to say dust and matter whipped up and expanded outwards. We know dust and matter exist. We know that when you strike 2 rocks together, you get a spark. And we know that the universe expands. But to say there was nothing, and then... "Hi, im God" is a bit looney.
@raulsnchez How is it idiotic to say everything started in the same place? We do know that for sure. There are questions as to what exactly was there & why it started expanding but every other major scientific discovery has turned out to be NOT magic. Why do people still turn to a god for stuff that isn't fully understood yet?
1. There actually is a God that created the world and interacted with it.2. These actual events became distorted and contested over time, and that is why different religions have formed.
I don't think the state of our world is necessarily a proof that God doesn't exist, as there are other scenarios that describe our world and still allow God's existence.
@NessFK sure observable reality having no apparent gods is not proof gods don't exist, but that's not the point the video makes. The point the video makes is disbelief in god is an entirely logical and rational conclusion to draw by observation of reality.
Why? I don't know, that's another topic to explore I suppose. But it's still a possibility. Under scenario C, all of your points about different people claiming different things about God still hold true.
Interesting and well put. However, I think the main issue is that you're leaving out the third possibility that is our world. You listed these possible scenarios:
A. God exists and makes it obviously apparent.
B. God does not exist.
But leave out option C:
C. God exists but does not make it obviously apparent.
God to me is all around; God is love, compassion, caring, laughter, etc. I'll you what DOESN'T exist, though, Heaven, Hell, God sending his son to be sacrificed on a cross, all forms of organized religion. The Bible is a set of stories that was written to do three things: Give a biased history of the Jewish/Christian faith, give us metaphorical stories to learn life lessons from to better ourselves, and to CONTROL the people. Deism is the way to go, people.
@JackMcBama if only all the religious people would share your opinion. No way that any scientific experiment can argue this "godperception" and nobody gets offended too. the way it should be :)
Live your own fuckin life and stop criticising others choises, you are not the who to tell what is wrong or right, don't be the typical BIBLE FAN PRIEST FUCKER / ATHEIST POMPOUS LITTLE BITCH...
@bvssvni NO atheist! I will NOT allow you to brainwash me! You atheists always try to confuse me with your reasonable logic. YOU ALL ARE UNREASONABLE SANE!
@DDazzle1 We don't hate God, God is one of us because he has no god! Why do you think we build those telescopes? We are hanging out with God, laughing of each other (Psalm 2:4) and enjoying the view of the universe!
@bvssvni Wait! YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, BUT NOT THE UNIVERSE!? GOD LIVES IN THE UNIVERSE. YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD BUT YOU BELIEVE IN HIS HOUSE. THAT's LIKE BELIEVING IN THE NORTH POLE BUT NOT BELIEVING IN SANTA CLAUSE... WE ALL AGREE THAT NORTH POLE EXISTS, SO WE AGREE THAT SANTA DOES TO. UNDERSTAND? HA! ANOTHER ATHEIST OWNED.
@DDazzle1 we just dont believe that theres a floating man in the sky who created the world in seven days, and made two humans mate in a somehow perfectly formed garden with a sacred apple protected by a talking snake. fuck we are so unreasonable. growth of cellular organisms have formed life and electrical connections in our brains allow us to communicate and develop. but according to you noah lived over 900 years and walked around the entire planet gathering animals. sounds plausible.
@Jourdydogyella Eh, Mate! IF GOD DIDN'T CREATE THE UNIVERSE, THEN WHO DID? DARWIN? IF DARWIN DID, THEN DARWIN WOULD BE GOD AND ATHEISM IS STILL STUPID! CHECK and MATE.. like your girlfriend is a suspected tranny.
Good vid, although when I meet someone with such a good grasp of reality its strange to see them as a theist.
You seem to have a very good grip on the arguments against a god, yet still believe in one, I can only think this is personal experience, something noone can refute.
However, as im sure you understand this is not enough evidence for anyone else to believe it.
Scanini 5 hours ago
Many people are brought up to believe certain things.Most people don't question what they believe, they accept it.They think they know there's is a God...but they don't actually know.The thought process can bring comfort, which they believe is a sign that God is within.
Arguing with them is not gonna change anything, it's up to each one to find a state of happiness.If they are happy, good for them.If I'm a happy non-believer..then great.
Nice vid, btw.
ThePurpleHarpoon 1 day ago
@ThePurpleHarpoon I'd be ok with the "just let people be happy thing" but it's not that simple. Many theists lives are highly impacted by their unlikely beliefs as are the lives of people around them. True Believers do all sorts of things due to their beliefs (e.g. demonizing others, passing laws that effect others, flying planes into buildings, etc). So it's in everyone's best interest if people act based on reason instead of faith. To that end, discussion CAN change minds.
MystryBox 1 day ago 2
@MystryBox . I think every point of view is subjective, and it should be subjected to our reason. Our reason however takes us as far as we let it take us. Alot of us dont really take reason far enough because of fear of persecution. In that case reason alone is not what helps us understand. Just a thought.
eventuallly 12 hours ago
Atheists 1 Religious Nuts 0
LucasBenge 3 days ago 3
We are "WHAT"
javonpryce 3 days ago
You misspelled Theists in the title. You're welcome. :)
Trimere 3 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity is a religion and a god that was plagiarism(copy) of past religions such as Paganism(Christmas) and Egyptian religion. And guess what? coincidentally the Egyptian god Osiris' son Horus is pretty much an exact match of Jesus. And guess what? Egypt's religion existed 5000 years before Christianity. Before your bullshit God or bullshit Jesus was created
So why don't you research instead of believing child molesters. How stupid are you? And btw. I'm LaVeyan Satanist. Same thing almost
Subways69able 4 days ago
Comment removed
Subways69able 4 days ago
this was actually a good video to explain what we think.
theUKatheist 5 days ago
I think we are the experiment of higher life forms(yes, "aliens") and our only purpose is to live and be observed. That is why there are recordings of aliens and U.F.Os in cave paintings thousands of years old, and U.F.Os keep appearing all over the world.
so i guess in a sense, they are our gods, our creators.
lol psyche!!!
publiusdg 6 days ago
Stupid fucking video. There's no such thing as a god or gods. Get the fuck over it.
TheAmrator 1 week ago
@TheAmrator Ladies and gentleman, i give you the athiest!
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm Dude you have to be stupid to believe in a magical guy in the sky that created everything.
TheAmrator 6 days ago
@TheAmrator So very true champion, luckily i dont believe in such a thing as "a magical guy in the sky that created everything."
shakinahstorm 6 days ago
Because of the meteorite, humanity had to rebuild itself. The only creatures that survived the meteor were the smaller creatures like lizards, birds, snakes, insects etc. How did they prove this you may ask? Simple, we've got skeletons, meteorites, pieces of land and so on. I'm not saying God don't exist, but I think that people should just stop bitching, and accept BOTH beliefs, maybe God caused the big bang, so your faith may be right. Don't insult my family or anything for not having religion
SaintsBro217 1 week ago
Hey I'm 12 years old and I already know how the world was created. Earth did not exist until 2 asteroids, filled with complete energy eventually met and crashed into each other. Therefore creating the world's core, which made a planet of water. Then the continents grew out of the earth making it able for the sea cells to evolve into dinosaurs and humans. Centuries later a ginormous meteor struck the earth and split the continents and killed the dinosaurs.
(continued in my next comment)
SaintsBro217 1 week ago
Awesome video - well done!
MrJohndl 1 week ago
faith is the suspension of reason
TheCycadsAreAudible 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus sacrificed himself for the salvation of Humans is a sign of giving way to the ancient “fashion” of Human sacrifice. This is one of the pillars in Christianity: “Lord gave his son for our sins”. I say at the onset, Lord made a mistake by putting the forbidden tree and the serpent in the Garden of Eden such that Eve and Adam gave up on his (Lord’s) authority, thus he had to sacrifice himself.
Human nature shows in God, because he was invented by the Human mind…
KevinDemar76 1 week ago
it's a faith thing
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 week ago
"Theists see evidence all around them and wonder how atheists can't see it". Its not that we don't see all the amazing things in the world, its not that we don't understand them either, its that we recognize all of the scientific explanations for these things that theists always deny because they can't accept that its possible that god might not exsist. As for all of the things science can't explain, we just recognize that just because we don't have an explanation yet, doesn't mean we never will
wileib1 1 week ago
@wileib1 Can i have some examples of that which science cant explain please?
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
although i do like your video there is only one flaw. Most of theists would just say "god is apparent to me" as a solid argument. I don't think that most theists can talk reasonably when they have to defend their faith, cause by doing so will go down the slippery slope and lie in the end.
linkuei83 1 week ago
@linkuei83 that's not a flaw with the video, it's a flaw with theists. Besides, the point of the video isn't to convince theists of anything other than that atheists are rational and draw their conclusions from observation of reality.
MystryBox 1 week ago
@MystryBox "atheists are rational and draw their conclusions from observation of reality"?, like nothing exploding and life constructing itself from inanimate matter?
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@linkuei83 What sort of lie would that be?
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm well that depends on what "pillar" he would try and defend. Some examples would be -we got no fossil record- regarding evolution, -c14 dating is inaccurate- regarding fossils or earth age for that matter.
linkuei83 1 week ago
@linkuei83 Heres the thing Link, I asked you for an example of a lie, but what you gave me was an example of a disagreeance, there are no lies here?
shakinahstorm 6 days ago
@shakinahstorm here is more dishonest lies. Lie is a sin you know. There is no disagreement, it's blatant outright lies perpetuated by the creationists, not to mention they try to gain credibility by putting the word science -Creation science-. Science doesn't manufacture evidence and disregards other just to fit their view as creationists do. You are aware that many creationists said that where science disagree with bible must be disregarded. This is fucking pathetic.
linkuei83 6 days ago
@linkuei83 Well no Link, im sorry mate, but there are no lies here, and no, its not the creationists that are guilty of disregarding evidence.
Eg, can i have your interpretation on the coelancanth fossil and its evolutionary chain?
The creationist do not accept alot of the assumptions being made by the evolutionists, i mean when it comes to facts, like enviromental adaption, there is no problem, however the ASSUMPTION that its the reason for the many species, no.
shakinahstorm 6 days ago
@shakinahstorm you are being dishonest and you know that. Creationists start with a predefined position and make any excuse to lead there. You really suggesting that the majority of scientists are dumb enough to be wrong and creationists are that much smarter? And what about Coelacanth, what's your objections about it.
linkuei83 6 days ago
@linkuei83 1slty, when has it ever been, that its majority that determines truth?. The majority believed the earth was flat, or that the earth was in the centre of the solar system, majority does not determine truth.
Yes i have a bias, in the same way you have, however the coelancanth and many other fossils like the horseshoe crab defy your bias. Fossils dating back to an apparent age of 410 MILLION yrs old, show no evidence of evolution whats so ever, as they are still alive today?
shakinahstorm 6 days ago
@shakinahstorm bias, i got no bias because i don't care one way or the other. Creationists got bias that seek to prove the bible right. As for majority science is not a popularity contest. We aren't talking about clueless people, but well educated on the subject, your analogy is flawed. As for Coelacanth or shark even because you don't see any morphological differences doesn't mean it hasn't evolve nor this disproves evolution, by your logic this also tosses micro-evolution.
linkuei83 5 days ago
@linkuei83 Link mate, yes you do have a bias, when you look at the world you see it through the the evolutionary glasses your wearing. Eg, if i was to say to you that men were more advanced in the past then they are to day, how would that be recieved?
And Link, its not just coelencanth and sharks, champ the fossil record is ridded with it, No evolution.
And no it does not discount micro, because we have a fossil of the one breed, does not mean other breeds do not exist?
shakinahstorm 5 days ago
@shakinahstorm So i'm biased because i use what science teaches us to understand the world. So what other tools we have for it then? It would be biased if i wanted to reach a certain conclusion for my own sake, as i don't care what direction evidence take and just follow em, i'm not biased.
I don't understand why would you say that and what purpose would it serve to say it nor it is true.
Micro evolution and macro are the same thing, only think that differs is the time scale.
linkuei83 5 days ago
@linkuei83 Yes link you are biased, and no, not because you use science to teach you how to understand the world, but how you use it to understand your origins.
And no, the evolutionist does not go where the evidence takes them, coelencanth is evidence, evidence that suggest no evolution over the period of 410 MILLION yrs?, however evolutionist are hard at work finding ways to make it fit.
And its bias that leads one to tie micro and macro in together.
shakinahstorm 5 days ago
@shakinahstorm round and round we go. Micro and macro are the exact same thing we only distinguish because of time scale. Can you please tell me where they differ except time scale?
linkuei83 5 days ago
@linkuei83 lol, i know what you mean, things can get a tad dizzy like.
Micro, changes within a species
Macro, changes amongst the species
Assumption, because we have these small changes over a relatively small amount of time, we must have great leaps of changes over a long period of time. One is observable, the other is not.
So in order to help the cause we interpret the fossils in such a way, key word "interpret".
Its via the evolutionary bias that we would expect micro to macro.
shakinahstorm 5 days ago
@shakinahstorm I am not quite sure what you mean by within and amongst but nevertheless you are wrong. You should read what a species is before trying to use that term, and a good example is ring species and it utterly destroys the argument, but aside from that you forget that genetics are more important than fossils. Human chromosome 2 provides evidence we are related to apes or scientists are lying?
linkuei83 5 days ago
@linkuei83 Changes within a species of dog; wolf, doberman, shitzu.....
Changes amongst species; Dog into a whale?
And no scientists are not lieing in that we are closely related to Chimps, its that the assumption is not agreed apon, "chimp and human are related via a common ancestor".
Chromosone number is rather superficial when we consider the info within.
My stance is that its via a common designer that theres a close proximity in chromo numbers, its expected with similar shapes.
shakinahstorm 5 days ago
@shakinahstorm They fail to realize that we as humans have more in common with other species than differences, and a lot of animal tissues are found in humans that dont benefit us.
javonpryce 3 days ago
@javonpryce I dont have a problem with being related to other species, i have a problem with the idea we are related via a common ancestor, as DNA infomation is restricted. And no i dont believe that bacterial immunity can account for the increase of infomation that is needed for evolution to take place.
shakinahstorm 3 days ago
@shakinahstorm Something else to think about, creationists BLATANTLY say that evolution is just a "theory" not a fact. If you know anything about science you'd know what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is, if that's not a outright lie WHAT is, also, fuck radiometric dating of earth, we got light from stars coming from vast distances traveling for more than 6000 yrs to reach us and the fucktards keep ranting that god created light in place as if. Those are not lies?
linkuei83 6 days ago
I like your attitude. You try to state two objective alternatives which can both be considered real.
That's why I cannot understand the reason of your faith.
If you consider all the facts and unquestionable evidence (books written centuries ago can be questioned), then the second one seems more likely.
Yes, sciencetists can't say what was before the big bang or how it really happened. But not being able to prove A does not mean B is right. There are more alternatives and better ones than fiction
marom009 1 week ago
@marom009 why are you assuming I'm a theist? Stop assuming that and things make more sense.
MystryBox 1 week ago
@MystryBox My apologies, I Watched some of your other videos and now I know your point of view.
You have some great videos and a really good point of view. To bad only few people watch your videos.
marom009 1 week ago
@marom009 I have a lot more viewers than most youtube posters so I consider myself lucky. And for the most part they are respectful and intelligent viewers, even when they disagree with me.
MystryBox 1 week ago
@MystryBox Like the small changes found within enviromental adaption is what has lead to the many differant species in the world?, or a complete living cell can construct itself from inanimate matter?, and so on and so on.........?
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@MystryBox he was assuming you're a theist because of the title of the video! Duh! To someone who has never heard of you, his first impression of you will be the thumbnail picture and title of your video as it appears on the right side of the screen as a link seen on another video. That's the first impression. But it's a good idea. Closedminded theists who would otherwise avoid your video may see it only because they expect you to parrot their own opinions. And then.... Surprise!
medexamtoolsdotcom 3 days ago
@medexamtoolsdotcom yes I'm quite aware what he was assuming (as well as many other misguided commenters on this video). My issue is they shouldn't be commenting on videos they don't even bother to watch! I expect more from my fellow atheists.
MystryBox 3 days ago
@marom009 Im someone who believes the bible to be the word of God, and i question it regulary, its how i grow in my faith. The bible itself encourages questioning and reasoning :)
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
why cant i see god or heaven?
am i blind?
mouwersor 1 week ago
@mouwersor Yes, a symptom of sin is spiritual blindness.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm so you're not blind?
linkuei83 1 week ago
@linkuei83 To a citrtain extent yes i am still blind, i will never see fully until i pass on and leave the limitations of my physical body. However yes its tru, the day i recieved Jesus into my life as my saviour was the day a whole new dimension open to me!, it was the greatest day of my life, blew my mind!. It was truly as the song Amazing Grace goes "i was blind, but now i see", let me tell you, those lyrics werent placed there just for the sake of the song, it is for real!
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm sorry to burst your bubble but you'll still be blind, faith does blind people. Reason however and logic never do.
linkuei83 1 week ago
@linkuei83 Its cool Link, theres no reason for sorry champ, i totally understand where your coming from. Reason and logic is what a person needs to be able to see, and that which exists in our immediate universe i dont believe that your blind to. However your initial question was, "Why cant i see God or heaven", well link, that which we use to comprehend our physical dimension of matter, time and space, its of no use when it comes to the supernatural eternal dimension of Heaven.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
Atheists see things not as evidence for god but evidence for science. There is no afterlife and the entire universe was created by scientifically explanable processes. Science doesn't know everything but jusdt because there are gaps doesn't mean some goddidit.
Cainkane1 1 week ago
@Cainkane1 What are the gaps?
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
THor is the true god. his creations are everywhere . trees , mountains, grass. its all proof of thor
IoIocaust 1 week ago
I ACTUALLY ASK MY SELF THAT QUESTION EVERY DAY JUST INSERT THE WORD THEIST
DonkeyDong156 1 week ago
Atheists are sad and have their eyes wide shut. It is a very insecure reality with lack of accountability in their lives.
drjackflash 1 week ago
i cant understand how on earth there would be god? it has been already proven that material can come out of nowhere.
Guitar1sti 1 week ago
@Guitar1sti Please, share with me just how we can have material appear out of thin air?
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
Are you asking me to show you the Maker of all matter? You can't even see all matter so how is it you expect to be able to see the Maker of all matter?
Stick with the observable evidence of the Maker of the function of hydrogen working inside of us as ordained to work.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The truth of everything has been around for thousands of years. It is that there is a Maker of everything. Now I can prove there is such a Maker because the function of hydrogen working inside of us as ordained has a Maker and the Maker of the function of hydrogen is the Maker of all matter in the universe consisting primarily and initially of hydrogen. So there is One Maker of one set of working elements made to function in one set of life forms and there is no evidence of any other maker.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
this is actually a very very good video
antibus11 2 weeks ago
I agree with your view. But if there was no need for religion, then it wouldn't exist....If religion didn't exist, then we would all be Atheists, uniting under a one world gov...If that were the case, then our "theoretical" world would become more like the first, where religion would re-create itself...This is true because all world Empires fall, and thats reality.
rekindling1 2 weeks ago
@rekindling1 - there is a need many people feel for religion, but it is psycological one - people are sometimes better off if their able to vent their frustration, rage, joy at some external source. this is good for you in similar ways to meditation.
everyone being atheists would not lead to world government - there is a line between tribalism and religion, although it is occasionally blurred it is certainly true that I, an atheist scot, am pro-indepedance for scotland.
alex29443 1 week ago
"There wouldn't be any Atheists in the garden of eden!? WRONG! So wrong. All Christians WORSHIP AN ATHEIST!!! ROFLS, ROFLS,ROFLS. Keep talkin' shit about Atheists, GOD is listening...
FallibleMan 2 weeks ago
@FallibleMan yeah, I make that point in one of my videos.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
What would be heresy like the earth revolving around the sun, would one day become doctrine!
If you made that claim at one time you would be put to the stake!
Xtians state that god created the universe out of nothing, you could be stating that god created the universe out of what was already there if a different side of the debate was won back in the the 3rd C. (churches beginning).
The only difference is that in the debate back in the genesis of christianity, one side won over the other.
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cont; you are only preaching that which was voted on by a council on what was considered doctrine, and what was heresy.
You who argue that god created the universe out of nothing, could be just as dogmatic about stating that god created the universe out of what was already there if one side of the counsel won instead of the other side.
Start learning church history, and stop being so sure you KNOW.
It just may be that which you KNOW will one day become heresy!
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MystryBox It's not that the question doesn't have an answer, it's just that the question is amazingly foolish!
Also, on another note, we do not have the burden of answering the question of whether or not a boogy man in the sky spoke into existence first the earth,vegetation,water,fruit, etc. in the Universe THEN created the sun,moon,and stars.
That is a more realistic question that should be answered then simply a xtian making shit up!
How can you rely on a book that is so profoundly stupid!
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
We are blind AND stupid AND what.
All three.
neveSykcuL 2 weeks ago
God is either a powerful asshole or a weak kind person.
xtweela 2 weeks ago
Saying that the universe began with a big bang..... that once there was nothing and then out of no where boom everything was created is really not better than saying God created everything. As a matter of fact it is a very idiotic thing to say.
raulsnchez 2 weeks ago
@raulsnchez I'm sure any idiocy in leading scientific theories is really just the reflection of the ignorance of the subject on your part. Lol.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago 3
@raulsnchez lol we are not saying that before the big bang there was nohing in fact before the big bang there was something its called black matter
OdysseyToPurgatory 2 weeks ago
@raulsnchez At least with the Big Bang, we have some evidence behind it and it is possible to have happened based on that evidence. Now with God, there is NO evidence for it. There is no evidence that magic exists, either, and that seems like how God made everything, by poofing it into existence. You are the ones who believe everything was created from nothing, we don't make that claim with the Big Bang.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm Interesting, so exactly what did explode in the big bang?. Its my belief that this dimension of time matter and spaces, gives testimony to an eternal dimension that exists outside of this dimension.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm That's something we don't know yet. But not knowing doesn't give you permission to just put whatever stupid idea you want in there without having evidence to back it up. I mean, maybe a God did make the big bang happen, but that's unlikely as there is zero evidence for a God's existence at all. So, we don't know what caused the Big Bang, but what caused a God to exist? Why must there be a causal reason for the Big Bang, but not a God? It's special pleading, so it's unacceptable.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm "As there is zero evidence for a Gods existence"?, this depends on the glasses your looking through, as for me and multitudes of others, we only need open our eyes to find it at every turn, eg DNA....
"What caused God to exist", i think you may have missed my original comment where i stated, "gives testimony to an eternal dimension that exists outside of this dimension", eternal means no beginning and no end.
Why must there be a casual reason?, why must there not?
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm DNA is not evidence of God any more than the existence of Earth is evidence of God. Your problem is that you attribute EVERYTHING to God, therefore everything is evidence of him. The problem there is that DNA is evidence of DNA, not of God. In the words of Carl Sagan, "Why not save step, and conclude that the universe always existed, that there is no need for a creation; it was always here." I think you're missing the point, here, not me.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm Again, it comes down to the glasses being worn. For me infomation points to an informer, its that simple.
Not only that, its inconcievable that something as complex as the info found in DNA, could be a product of unguided natural process, stemming from inaniment matter assembling itself???, this is just not observed in nature, fullstop.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm Well, if it's really as simple as that, I can see why you chose God over reality. The problem, again, is you obviously have no real idea what the opposition says about life. You hear that we come from monkeys from other creationtards and think, "I r no munkee!" Simple thought processes make simple decision based on no REAL evidence. There are ways DNA can come to existence by natural means, you just don't have any idea because your glasses keep you from gaining that knowledge.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm God is reality, and yes its my glasses that keep me ignorant to a lie. I am armed with truth, and its those who stand for nothing that fall for anything, so hence how difficuilt it will be for the likes of me to be indoctrinated into believing the greatest lie ever told by the mainstream scientific community and also promoted by the mainstream propaganda machine, a corporately owned corrupt media. After all, a people with no direction are easily controlled.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm How is it you claim it's a lie when you clearly know NOTHING about it? You claim we are indoctrinated how? I grew up a Christian, and I actually looked into the truth and saw how much utter crap was in the Bible. Do you really believe it's acceptable to own slaves or make a rape victim marry her rapist? Fucking read that stupid hateful and disgusting book of bullshit and quit saying science is the one lying when you know nothing about the science or your own religion.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm 1stly, its an assumption that bacterial immunity can account for a flipper becoming an arm, not fact, Its an assumption that what i call designed for eviromental adaption (micro evolution), can account for the existence of all the differant species of animals, its not fact. And no, its not acceptable to own slaves in modern day culture, not even ancient culture, however it was not part of mosaic old testament law, its not something God introduced nor approved
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm You accepting that small changes can happen, but denying that, over millions of years, it can't make big changes (speciation, for example) is pure ignorance. You clearly don't accept evolution, and have no clue what you are talking about. The "right" for you to own slaves is in the Bible, along with rules on who you can enslave, for how long etc. You don't need to tell me slavery is wrong, but you will not tell me it wasn't accepted when it's in your silly holy book.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm Its not ignorance to deny macro evolution. It is within itself pure assumption, "we assume that because we can have small changes over a small amount of time that we can have large changes over a large amount of time. However mutation can only ever account for the extinction of a species, nothing more. So on its own enviromental adaptation cannot account for such major changes, when the existing info is only rearranging itself, not adding in such away to allow for the changes
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm It's not an assumption, it's something we can observe though the fossil record. We can observe macroevolution with that and genetics. Those rearranges add attributes and eventually make it so that it can't interbreed eventually with something else having the same common ancestor. I believe it's Potholer54 that brings the example of a lizard that makes a "ring species." They split off into two branches, evolving along the way. Thousands of years later, the two species can't breed.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm It really does make for an impressive explanation, however all the fossil evidence has to offer is an interpretation built on bias, it is not solid evidence, if anything it offers up evidence to the contrary, eg, can i have your interpretation on the coelacanth fossil?.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm Demonstrate that it's based on bias, please. Either way, our own genetic evidence proves macro evolution. The fact that we are nearly genetically identical to modern monkeys is proof enough that we shared a common ancestor with them, which proves that we can branch off into two different species. I really don't see how you can't see this. I'm going to bed. I may or may not pick this back up some other time. I am usually very busy during the week, so probably not anytime soon.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm So no interpretation on the coelacanth then?. Skulls of differant races of humans, being used as links of evolution is an example of interpretaition built on bias. Yes i can see how it is that the genetic comparative could be used as evidence, we also share 50% of our genes with a banana?. What you see as common ancestory, i see as common designer. Sweet dreams champion
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm
"What you see as common ancestory, i see as common designer."
And that's not "an example of interpretation built on bias"?
typical creationist/ID logic:
-don't understand how evolution works and don't even care
-therefore just assume that the easiest non-answer you can think of is the only option (which is that the god you already believe in anyway must be responsible) and that it couldn't possibly have happened any other way
Cromwell523 1 week ago
@Cromwell523 Hold on a tick, im not the one denieing that i have a bias?
"-don't understand how evolution works and don't even care", you forget that most creation scientist are ex evolutionists, some of which were highly respected.
As for God being the answer, infomation points to intelligence.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm "infomation points to intelligence."- gotta back that up. gotta define "information".
"most creation scientist are ex evolutionists"- for example....
"What you see as common ancestory, i see as common designer."- ahh, a designer by coincident DESIGNED species so similiar and so predictable by the theory of evolution in terms of genetics and geological distribution. what EVIDENCE do you HAVE? you need solid hard evidence, not "gut feeling".
72dew 1 week ago
@72dew Its my gut feeling that ford and toyota had a common designer, a human being.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm it's because it has been OBSERVED!! have you or anyone else OBSERVED the actual creation of material? EVERYTHING is matter and energy, all we have done and observe is rearranging what's already there, everything is conserved either in the form of matter or energy.
72dew 1 week ago
Comment removed
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@72dew Exactly!, no it hasent been observed, hence the rearranging of the existing infomation found within DNA, giving us micro, not macro evolution. There is no creation of new material or infomation that would lead to macro. The info has been preprogrammed within to do exactly that, rearrange itself in order to adapt to enviroment.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm first of all, there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, there's only evolution. you put a series of micro evolution over an extremely long time span and then you compare the first one to the current last one and it will look like a "macro evolution".
but it can give us speciation, some genes become unuseable and some becomes exaggerated depending on the need during adaptation. look up abiogenesis and how it ACTUALLY works, life emerging from non-life
72dew 1 week ago
@72dew It makes sense what your saying, however as you have suggested, have you ever observed the creation of material, for me and from what i have come to understand, is that this goes for infomation found with DNA aswell. For adaptation to lead over into the evolution of new species there needs to be new infomation, but all we have is the rearranging of existing infomation.
And i have looked into ABIO, however it all still remains a mystery.
Question, could we have EVO without ABIO?
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm pt1: experiments have been done to prove that nucleic acid can be formed NATURALLY by pure chemical means, along with the reaction came amino acids and other organic materials. adding "new" genetic material can be obtained through different ways such as symbiosis, mutation and genetica exaggeration. for example compare the mammoth with an elephant, common ancestry, one has fur one doesnt. so where does this fur gene come from if it never had it?
72dew 1 week ago
@72dew Heres the thing, theres a reason for why Huxely changed the name to Abio, changing the name kept the idea credible, cleverly evading the fact that life arising from non life is not observable no where in nature. What is observed in nature is that life comes from life, and yet we are expacted to accept the exception, that whats not observed in nature, your formation of nucleic acid would go onto bring about the self construction of the first cell???.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm for abiogenesis, you should watch an informative video /watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
it's a fairly long process and i cant explain everything through comment section. but basically self-replicating chemicals first arrived as RNAs, they can replicate by pure chemical means as they use chemical bondings to find compatible nucleotides thus they are the first self-replicating chemicals. the video beautifully describes how abiogenesis works.
72dew 1 week ago
@72dew Cool thankyou, i doubt there will be anything new, however i will check it out just the same.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@72dew In the words of well known chemical evolutionist Gerald Joyce in his paper found in Science Journal, “The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA … . The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.”
Lincoln, T. and Joyce, G., Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme, Science 323(5918):1229–1232, 2009
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm pt2.
furthermore, another example of EVO is the italian wall lizard. only after 30 generations it has migrated to an island of a different ecozone, it has changed it's jaw shape to suit more for chewing veggies than meat, not only its jaws changed, it's guts and digestive system also changed. had the dna already prepared for this? no. but do there seem to be "new info"? yes.
ABIO and EVO are totally different subjects and arent relevent EVO simply means changes due to adaptation
72dew 1 week ago
@72dew 1stly, if abio never existed there would be nothing to evolve.
2ndly, what is your evidence to say that the infomation required for the lizards adaptation was not already existing whithin the DNA?.
I have come to understand, is that its shuffling of existing infomation, infomation programmed in order to allow for adaptation of enviroment, its still just a lizard that has adapted to its enviroment, and eventually the lizard will become extinct as genetic entropy takes its path...
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm even if life is premade, evo will still be occuring. evo=changes from adaptation.
so you are saying that the italian wall lizard was somehow prepared for unexpected migration? it doesnt make any sense. also, keep in mind that they didnt migrate overnight. it took years. the lizard wont become extinct. it havent, in fact it's flourishing
72dew 1 week ago
@72dew
Im saying that the info exists in order to allow for adaption, and yes unexpected migration would mean there be a need for adaption. Darwins finches for Eg, the genes that existed within the ancestor finch would of allowed for large and small beaks, whilst natural selection would of determined the beak size on these finches. The finches with beaks unproductive for the enviroment would of died off, leaving only the beaks productive for that enviroment. Info has been lost not gained
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm previously, i couldnt answer that whether a new gene or "info" could appear in the genome, so i did some research. it is now observed that new genes in the genus Drosophila (fruit fly) does not onl arise pretty quickly, but also diverge quickly to become essential parts of the genome. this article is from Science: "New genes in Dropsophila quickly become essenetial"
do you want to move to PM so we dont have the character limits, if you want to keep debating
72dew 1 week ago
@72dew Yeh thats cool, PM is way more convenient :)
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm
"you forget that most creation scientist are ex evolutionists, some of which were highly respected."
name one
Cromwell523 1 week ago
@Cromwell523 Walter Veith
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm
and you think that he is a good example of a typical creationist?
Cromwell523 1 week ago
@Cromwell523 How do you mean?, i gave you the example of one ex evolutionist that you asked for.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm It doesn't matter what my interpretation of anything is to you, honestly. All you will come back with is, "dat der siens stuf be prapergander and lies!" Also, being 50% identical to a banana just means we share similar production of proteins and enzymes for various tasks that need to be accomplished. We are said to be 98-99% like modern monkeys, with nearly the same amount of chromosomes (the extra one that monkeys have fused by the time it got to us, explaining the loss).
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm Im hearing you, and it does sound ligit and convincing, and in the light of what your saying, it would be expected that horses and cows would also share the closest of similarities, however the fact is that bats share a greater similarity with cows then horses do. This also counters the view that simple DNA comparisons will indicate degree of similarity in anatomy.
However for me, the evidence suits best the bias that i hold, as i have said, info only arises from intelligence
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm Honestly, I probably won't reply back to you at all because you have no clue what you are talking about. When you do real research without being the bias hypocrite you are, maybe then I will reply to you. Untill then, you probably shouldn't speak out against any sciences because you have no understanding what they are saying. Also, stop listening to retards like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, the shit you said sounds like something those two morons would say.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm And i believe its true that if i was to deny that i was holding a bias, i would infact be hypocritical, however its not to be denied the bias that i hold.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm Also, demonstrate that God is reality. You keep making claims, yet fail to back them up with actual evidence. Just remember, even if the utter crap you've spewed out was true about science being a lie, it doesn't automatically prove a God is real. Just remember, though, that science has brought you ALL of your life today. The reason life expectancy is so high, and still rising, medicine, cell phones, computers and internet you are using now were brought to you by science, not God.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm Here is the most common straw man of them all, that someone who believes in ID has a vendetta out on science?. As i have said above, evolution is somthing that accounts for eviromental adaption, nothing more, just because i dont agree that its the reason for the many of differant species on this planet, does not mean i have a vendetta on science, indoctrination yes, science no. And God is a reality because i dont have my back on Him.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm You were the one who said that science is lying about possibly THE most factually based theories in all of science. You're talking about propaganda and other bullshit. I'm here to tell you that "mainstream science" brought you most of the medicine you take to cure you of all types of shit that can happen. Biology, which is completely based on evolution, is the cause for this...
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm Biology is based on enviromental adaptation accounting for the many differant species?, i dont think so. Evolution plays a champion roll within biology, but no, its not based on the assumption it can account for the existence of all species, mate thats a sizeable leap that in no way am i prepared to make, when the leap is one of assumption.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@shakinahstorm Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, and without it, it wouldn't be where it is today. macro and micro evolution does happen, and I'm sorry that you refuse to accept the vast amounts of evidence supporting it. I don't see how you can't make that sizeable leap when you make a bigger leap accepting that God done did it. No evidence at all to support that. It's unfortunate, you seem like you have so much more potential, but instead you dilute your mind with bronze-aged myths.
66gt40lm 1 week ago
@66gt40lm Sorry champ but micro yes, macro no. Macro is assumption!. Another eg, we dig up the skulls of differant races of humans, or breeds of apes, what do we have?, its an evolutionary line!. Yes its an evolutionary line, a horizontal one, there is no evidence that allows for that line to become vertical, not within any of the sciences.
shakinahstorm 1 week ago
@raulsnchez time and space were created in the big bang so there is no before as is implicit to the phrase "Once there was nothing" . The big bang isnt an event like a train pulling away from a station where an outside observer could take notes. The universe wasn't a big empty space waiting to be filled with matter, space and time and matter are co-dependent to exist. Where we live there is a consistent amount of matter so we can take space-time as invariant, but this is a localised perspective.
carloskies 1 week ago
@raulsnchez But there is evidence for the "Big Bang"
LordDrew112 1 week ago
@raulsnchez Its actually much more idiotic to say that a all-powerful being just poofed into existence from nothing, than to say dust and matter whipped up and expanded outwards. We know dust and matter exist. We know that when you strike 2 rocks together, you get a spark. And we know that the universe expands. But to say there was nothing, and then... "Hi, im God" is a bit looney.
JabberCT 1 week ago
@raulsnchez How is it idiotic to say everything started in the same place? We do know that for sure. There are questions as to what exactly was there & why it started expanding but every other major scientific discovery has turned out to be NOT magic. Why do people still turn to a god for stuff that isn't fully understood yet?
shananagans5 1 week ago
An extension of scenario C is:
1. There actually is a God that created the world and interacted with it.2. These actual events became distorted and contested over time, and that is why different religions have formed.
I don't think the state of our world is necessarily a proof that God doesn't exist, as there are other scenarios that describe our world and still allow God's existence.
NessFK 2 weeks ago
@NessFK sure observable reality having no apparent gods is not proof gods don't exist, but that's not the point the video makes. The point the video makes is disbelief in god is an entirely logical and rational conclusion to draw by observation of reality.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago 4
Why? I don't know, that's another topic to explore I suppose. But it's still a possibility. Under scenario C, all of your points about different people claiming different things about God still hold true.
continue in next post
NessFK 2 weeks ago
Interesting and well put. However, I think the main issue is that you're leaving out the third possibility that is our world. You listed these possible scenarios:
A. God exists and makes it obviously apparent.
B. God does not exist.
But leave out option C:
C. God exists but does not make it obviously apparent.
continue in next post
NessFK 2 weeks ago
God to me is all around; God is love, compassion, caring, laughter, etc. I'll you what DOESN'T exist, though, Heaven, Hell, God sending his son to be sacrificed on a cross, all forms of organized religion. The Bible is a set of stories that was written to do three things: Give a biased history of the Jewish/Christian faith, give us metaphorical stories to learn life lessons from to better ourselves, and to CONTROL the people. Deism is the way to go, people.
JackMcBama 2 weeks ago
@JackMcBama if only all the religious people would share your opinion. No way that any scientific experiment can argue this "godperception" and nobody gets offended too. the way it should be :)
callawaydekluizen 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the answer is a faith a none believer and someone who is apposed could never understand.
MrRAIDR912 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrRAIDR912 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrRAIDR912 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If anyone is walking around with blinders on so they cannot see, or ear plugs in their ears so they cannot hear, it is the christians.
I find it so ironic that no matter what christian you tube site I have gone to, the christians always get things ass backwards.
For instance one site stated that atheists have 'blind faith' when the complete opposite is true.
What is it with christians that they get everything backwards, it is called Brain Damage caused by the christians having faith.
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
luciferous66 2 weeks ago
@MystryBox Yeah I thought so...
Floortjahh 2 weeks ago
I just have something to say:
Live and let live
Live your own fuckin life and stop criticising others choises, you are not the who to tell what is wrong or right, don't be the typical BIBLE FAN PRIEST FUCKER / ATHEIST POMPOUS LITTLE BITCH...
chuchito0 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MegaSexytimes 2 weeks ago
the world would be a perfect fucking place if there was this *GOD* of which you speak. The world is atm a hell hole. Wheres your *God* helping???
Metalfan666nz 2 weeks ago
@Metalfan666nz if you bothered to watch the video (or any of my videos) you'd know I don't believe in any gods.
MystryBox 2 weeks ago 6
God sure made you closed minded.
KrumpingKatie 2 weeks ago
@KrumpingKatie how so?
MystryBox 2 weeks ago
HAHA You atheists are so stupid! Using logic to define the way live is sooo stupid. Only an idiot would be rational.
DDazzle1 2 weeks ago
@DDazzle1 Wait a moment, wouldn't it be rational to determine which are idiots because they are rational?
bvssvni 2 weeks ago
@bvssvni NO atheist! I will NOT allow you to brainwash me! You atheists always try to confuse me with your reasonable logic. YOU ALL ARE UNREASONABLE SANE!
DDazzle1 2 weeks ago
@DDazzle1 "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake", Matt 5:10 Wtf... atheists following the bible!
bvssvni 2 weeks ago
@bvssvni YOU DO NOT GET TO QUOTE MY BIBLE, ATHEIST! YOU ARE ATHEIST, THEREFORE YOU HATE GOD!
DDazzle1 2 weeks ago
@DDazzle1 We don't hate God, God is one of us because he has no god! Why do you think we build those telescopes? We are hanging out with God, laughing of each other (Psalm 2:4) and enjoying the view of the universe!
bvssvni 2 weeks ago
@bvssvni Wait! YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, BUT NOT THE UNIVERSE!? GOD LIVES IN THE UNIVERSE. YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD BUT YOU BELIEVE IN HIS HOUSE. THAT's LIKE BELIEVING IN THE NORTH POLE BUT NOT BELIEVING IN SANTA CLAUSE... WE ALL AGREE THAT NORTH POLE EXISTS, SO WE AGREE THAT SANTA DOES TO. UNDERSTAND? HA! ANOTHER ATHEIST OWNED.
DDazzle1 2 weeks ago
@DDazzle1 I can't do this anymore (laughing on the floor)
bvssvni 2 weeks ago
@bvssvni You won't be laughing when the floor is made of molten rock.. Laugh at GODDDD then, kafir.
DDazzle1 2 weeks ago
@DDazzle1 we just dont believe that theres a floating man in the sky who created the world in seven days, and made two humans mate in a somehow perfectly formed garden with a sacred apple protected by a talking snake. fuck we are so unreasonable. growth of cellular organisms have formed life and electrical connections in our brains allow us to communicate and develop. but according to you noah lived over 900 years and walked around the entire planet gathering animals. sounds plausible.
Jourdydogyella 2 weeks ago
@Jourdydogyella Eh, Mate! IF GOD DIDN'T CREATE THE UNIVERSE, THEN WHO DID? DARWIN? IF DARWIN DID, THEN DARWIN WOULD BE GOD AND ATHEISM IS STILL STUPID! CHECK and MATE.. like your girlfriend is a suspected tranny.
DDazzle1 2 weeks ago