That list of values or moral principles is certainly more useful than the 10 Commandments. My credo, if I were to state it, would sound much the same and I think you are right that most Western atheists would find common cause with it too.
However these are very much the secular values of a 21st Century Westerner. There is nothing inherent in atheism that entails this particular set of values.
Here's a start for ya - we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If you wanna believe that it was made in a week by some kinda spiritual being, that's up to you.
Furthermore, the Bible is full of contradictions eg one moment it states an "eye for an eye", the next it's telling you to "turn the other cheek." None of it makes any sense.
Science and religion are not easy bed-fellows; the former proves (without science, it's just theory and conjecture) whereas the latter does not.
Religion is just for brainwashed morons, frightened their "God" will punish them if they don't "toe the line."
I mean, c'mon! What kinda omnipotent deity would threaten his flock with eternal Hell and damnation etc for daring to think/act/speak otherwise than in accordance with accepted religious dogma?
If a deity was truly just and benign, he'd judge one by their actions, not by the amount of times they've visited a place of worship.
Some of the meanest fuckas I've met have been religious...
Isn't point 7 in this atheist creed by the definition of atheism naturally a contradiction? One cannot know that there is not a God; it cannot be proven or demonstrated to be true, so in order for the atheist to adhere to their belief they must either make a leap of faith or fill in the gaps that prevent them from knowing their stance is true. Not trying to rock the boat, but it seems somewhat funny to me since the atheism should in fact say I don't know if there is or isn't a God.
Default position is lack of belief, having no belief in God is in no way leap of daith, because its based on lack of evidence. So in this case Potholer is like majority of ahtiest: Agnsotic Atheists. Not claiming knowlede that there is not ANY God. And having disbelief in God, because of the lack of evidence.
Replace the word "God" with Allah or Unicorn or Fairies and same results occur.
@Anuojat Except that this is not a default position. If one is presented with any stance and given a range of possible positions to take the only default position possible is the middle ground of either not knowing, not caring, or seeing both sides as bad so choosing neither. Once a person starts turning to one side and saying that they reject a position they are then under either the same burden of evidence as the other side or they are making a leap of faith like the other side.
@Sickopath333 What middle position? Theres is none, youre either theist or atheist. Agnostic or Gnostic. "Not caring" is a none answer, babies dont believe in God for example.
I dont believe in Allah until there is evidence. Or Unicorns. Or Gnomes. Is that dishonest in your eyes? Lack of believe is the default position. Belief is always acruired, the fact that you can say "i havent read about it" doesnt mean youre in the "middle". Thats about knowledge.
@Anuojat So there is no middle position? So what you're saying is that atheism is the neutral position, the default position even though it is the denial and exact opposition of the other position? Don't you realize why that's flawed? One cannot say, I firmly believe that blank does not exist, and then deny any need to defend that position. Let me give you an example. I don't believe trees exist. I have not been presented enough evidence. I don't need to explain my disbelief.
@Sickopath333 Lack of belief is not belief. Youre seemingly confused, "I believe that God does not exist" is not what atheism is, it is "Lack" of belief in God. And lack of belief doesnt need to connect itself to "i believe there is no X".
On your example of a three. Maybe a blind man living a desert with no trees could say that, and be honest in his default position and reasoning. But surely you have seen trees, touched them and interacted with wood they produce? That is evidence
@Anuojat Here's a pretty simple question that demonstrates that atheism is a belief, no matter how much you try to word-play it around so that it's just a lack of belief. Do you know there is no God (if so please tell us how you know) or do you merely believe there is no God? If lack of belief doesn't need to connect to X then any subject can merely be denied by saying, I lack belief in that. It doesn't matter if there's 'evidence' or not, I still merely lack belief.
@Sickopath333 I dont know if there is a God or know. So i am Agnsotic.
But thats only about KNOWLEDGE, why is this sos hard to understand?
Knowing and beliving is not the same thing. You can be Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic atheist. So your question is framed tad silly. Yes it does matter if there is evidence, because lack of belief is due to lack of evidence with an atheist. If there is evidence, GOOD, evidence to believe then one should but does he yet know? Not necesserily :P
@Anuojat So what you're saying is that atheism deals with beliefs. Alright then, what evidence does it present in order to demonstrate that their belief that there is no God is accurate? If there is not GOOD evidence to believe that there is no God, then one is merely making that choice to belief on the basis of faith. Pretty simple I'd say.
"I believe there is no God." Strong Atheist/Gnostic Atheist. Rare but still there are some.
So, heres how it works, a question "Do you belief in a God:"
Yes. = Theist or Deist.
No or anything other than yes = Atheist.
Even if you havent made up your mind about your belief in a god or simply dont know youre still an atheist, because if you dont have belief in God, you certainly lack it.
@Anuojat Refer to the videos you referenced me to, I'm arguing against these.. not very good definitions there. Your understanding of atheism and what it means to reject or accept a claim are misguided. It takes more than a witholding of opinion in order to make one an atheist. I don't know if I believe in God or not does not make you an atheist. If you can't see that I have to wonder where you learned this rubbish from.
@Anuojat Again, as I said, you can read my comments on the videos you linked me to for more detail. But in short, yes those are appropriate sources for you to consider, but that has no guarantee on quality. Most of their definitions do not consider the historical context before they give an over-simplified etymology. Just think; why change the definition of atheism? Hmm...
That depends. Am I doing anything wrong for not believing in evolution?
@Sickopath333 Well you may certainly disbelief evolution, if that REALLY is your choice. I could ask why you dont believe in it, but its not nesessery.
Though i certainly hope you use vaccines. And i certainly hope you find coversations like these interesting rather than say offensive or frustrating? :)
Belief is based upon faith: ghosts, magic, voodoo, fairies, doesn't matter what. Belief is something you choose to uphold without hard evidence, that it's inherent nature. Trees are real, they can be seen, touched, chopped up for firewood etc. God cannot be seen, physically touched etc thus it's up to you if you choose to believe. Agnostics believe God's existence cannot be proven either way; secularists choose to reject all religious dogma; theists believe & atheists don't.
@trouzerpants If belief is something you choose to uphold without hard evidence, then my simple question would be what hard evidence does atheism have that makes it a non-belief? Clearly it has to have something or else it would still fall into the same category of a belief. Agnostics state that the best one can do is speculate, however atheists believe that there is in fact no God, unless of course you can provide some evidence to demonstrate that there indeed is no God.
Well, for starters, atheists understand the concept of evolution (proven by science, read Darwin), not fairy tales, written thousands of years ago by people with no understanding of anything remotely scientific. To them, a fork of lightning was a symbol of "God's wrath.."
@trouzerpants Hm... hmmmmmm... now, here's my question. I read both of your comments talking about science and evolution and the age of the Earth (which could be refuted, but it's unnecessary because it's missing the point), but I was unable to find the answer to my question for evidence of atheism. I mean, we have evidence that the Earth is really old, but I'm not seeing evidence that shows there isn't a God. Would you mind staying focused and providing that?
More importantly, don't you feel that we'd all be better off without religion, after all, that is what's responsible for the vast majority of the world's ills.
I'm secular. Europe is secular. It's why we lead in science, physics, cloning etc as we're not constrained by the impositions imposed upon us by age old religious dogma.
@trouzerpants It is not the existence of religion that is responsible for the majority of the world's ills. Whether a person is an atheist, a Buddhist, or any other ist it is clear that people are irrational, emotional, selfish, and contrary creatures.
If we're all so advanced and moving away from religion, why aren't things better yet? Because there's still too much religion? Wake up. Advanced technology and secularization hasn't lead us into utopia and it never will.
C'mon, man! Firstly, I've already explained to you my stance on atheism/theism, they're both speculative. You either choose to believe or you don't HOWEVER, agnosticism/secularisation differ from the former in that they're both based upon rationale, logic and epistemology.
Secondly, religion is the catalyst for more war, bitterness, hostility and enmity than anything else put together. Who's to say that secularity will not redefine our attitudes?
@trouzerpants I didn't answer because I didn't see it as a relevant question, but I take it as the gospel, and not mere rhetorical speech (whatever that would mean anyways).
It means "style at the expense of thought", ie, not to be taken literally. No, it's very relevant. Consider this re Christianity:-
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.."
Thus, if you'd answered "yes" to my earlier question, that you do see the crazy scribblings of the Bible as rhetorical, I'd understand that, even accept it. I have friends who understand religion, cognisant the Bible's prose should be taken as rhetorical yet you seem to believe it should be taken at face value.
Creationists are absolutely mad! Science is here for a reason, Darwin's works are beyond dispute. Talking to religious zealots is akin to banging your head against a wall..
Finally, American culture is anything but secular. Never heard of Manifest Destiny, of "God's will" or your "divine right" to expand westwards? You claim it was "God's will" (!) yet, this act involved the genocide of the indigenous native peoples (Jackson's Indian Removal Act, 1830.) Doesn't Manifest Destiny contradict your God's alleged love for all?
Difficult questions, I realise. Perhaps you can now see that secularity/agnosticism is the only path to true enlightenment.
@trouzerpants Modern American culture. It is a goal of ours to remove religion from our schools remember? One that is succeeding currently, yes? We keep moving and marching for secular, secular, secular, but note that removing The Bible from schools haven't made us better. Honestly our country looks like a mess right now, despite our efforts to ditch religion.
Why would I when it hasn't led to enlightenment? Our stupid students aren't better off now that we're secular.
@trouzerpants Thanks, I do appreciate me some good ad hominem.
And BTW I said, so atheism (and theism) is NOT based on logic, rationale, and epistemology? It was a question, because it's an odd accusation, and an unfounded one I'd say.
I merely disbelieve in Darwin's works, I lack belief in them. That's the neutral position, so I am perfectly rational.
And have I, the 'religious zealot' not been the one asking you, the rational one, for evidence of your claims?
To understand the Big Bang, you must first accept cause & effect. If the effect was the BB, what caused it? This has puzzled scientists forever. Steven Hawking (world's greatest living genius) has theorised the universe has always been here, constantly recycling into itself. When one huge star/system (whatever) expires, it vanishes (Black Holes? Hawking's the expert here, not me!) and is spewed out elsewhere. Cause = death of a star/supernova/system, effect = BB!
Once more, just to clarify my meaning: theism/atheism is based around supposition/theory/belief.
Agnosticism/secularity is based around truth/fact/knowledge/epistemology.
Hopefully that's cleared that one up!!
BTW - You avoided my (admittedly very difficult) point re the Indians plight brought about though your divine expansionism (Manifest Destiny.) I've seen the famous painting, the ethereal, Jesus like spirit guiding you westwards. Does your God favour you over the red man?
@trouzerpants Let's just assume that the universe continually loops in on itself. That gravity and the energy in the universe is just perfectly balanced that one will not overpower the other so it keeps expanding and contracting over and over. It still does not answer the issue of where the original matter for this system would have arisen from. They are just imposing an infinite retraction into the past with no starting point. Genius is no guarantee against mistakes/stupidity.
Yeah, it's analogous to the chicken and the egg...
Listen mate, seriously, to even allude to Hawking's lack of discernment is utter insanity. This man (though crippled, living life in a wheelchair) is a genius of science.
@trouzerpants So your point is that the best Hawking's can do with all of his genius is push back the idea of our universe having a finite starting point in the past with unexplained origin into an infinite loop with unexplained origin? It's perfectly fine to give a person the respect they deserve, but if their ideas are bunk you don't let yourself be cowed by their reputation or intellect. He's radically biased against God it's not surprising he desperately seeks an alternative.
BTW - People scoffed when first hearing "bunkum" of the Earth not being flat (many religious zealots called it "heresy", burning those at the stake for suggesting it) until incontrovertible scientific evidence was finally produced to validate this fact. You may scoff at Hawking's "bunkum" (as all religious zealots do) whereas the rest of us recognise him for what he is, today's Einstein. He doesn't "cow me", on the contrary, he inspires me with his extraordinary, visionary genius.
Devout theists also frothed at the mouth when faced with the notion that actually, we aren't the centre of the universe at all, that the sun does NOT orbit the Earth. Same thing happened, didn't take too long for science to prove this (not sure how many scholarly star-gazers and truth-seekers were also cooked before their work was finally accepted, religion sure has made many martyrs outta past visionaries..)
"The cosmic event in which a vast amount of empty space was full of nothing. Then suddenly amidst all of that nothing, something insignificantly tiny spontaneously appeared as if by magic, as it was produced from and by nothing. Then time started, it expanded insanely quickly, with immense energy and power, unbridled and unrestrained: a nuclear bomb X10000000000000000000! Yet this led to stability, order, and intelligent life..."
@trouzerpants You either choose to believe there is a god(s) or there is not a god(s); you can say speculative, but I would say faith-based or religious instead myself. So atheism is not based on rationale, logic, and epistemology? Of course saying religion is not either is jaded to say the least.
*Sigh* And of course you have sociological evidence that demonstrates that to be 100% true, right? Doubtful to say the least. Well, our culture is secular.. and no utopia yet.
@trouzerpants *Ahem* This is my third call now. Please providence evidence for atheism. If there is no evidence it is merely a belief made without evidence, which we have agreed means that it is one based in faith. Now I'm not saying it's blind faith of course, but it is made in faith, just as Christianity would be. If you refuse or cannot provide any evidence, I will consider that a concession to this line of reasoning. Thank you, have a good day.
@TheBadcop69 I don't think you need permission, although I'm sure Potholer would give you it. It's called Fair Use, and I think aslong as you credit him, it's fine, although I would suggest a personal message. Don't take my word for it ;)
@Alphacaliber Much appreicated for the suggestions. I have just had problems with mirrors even with proper credit and I don't wish to get on Potholers bad side. thought I didn't think to try personal message thank you.
@relaxedmoody you might want to try Private Messaging him, he might not see that comment, and even then his inbox is kind of backed up over that DMCA rush he had.
@relaxedmoody At one time, potholer posted that anyone could use his vids as long as they were not for profit and gave 'youtuber potholer54' the credit (at least the made easy ones, but I think the others also).
@peterquinn2 "Furthermore I believe ALL scientific discoveries support creationism!"
In that case, I'd like to know how the discovery of Lucy, the Turkana Lake boy, the fact that you and I share over 98% of the same genes with chimps, and supernova in galaxies millions of light years from us support biblical creationism.
My request for a list of creationist scientists who have made important discoveries relevant to biology, paleontology, geology, and astrophysics that DIRECTLY SUPPORT CREATIONISM was made for two reasons:
1) To demonstrate that such discoveries aren't being made, which your reply makes obvious, and...
2) ...to discourage you from sending me a list of creationist auto mechanics.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Name one example relevant to biology, paleontology, geology, or even astrophysics that has passed peer review and directly supports biblical creationism."
Why should I? That is not what I claimed. I wrote: "...and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted"
Furthermore I believe ALL scientific discoveries support creationism!
@peterquinn2 "Von Braun is an excellent example, along with Nicolae Paulescu (Insulin) Ernst Chain (Penicillin) Raymond Damadian (MRI)"
Here you go again with another list of scientist/engineers wholly unrelated to the topic of biology in an effort to impress. (And one of these is from a previous list.) No matter. When you multiply the irrelevant, all you get is more irrelevance. (yawn!)
@peterquinn2 "Von Braun is an excellent example, along with Nicolae Paulescu (Insulin) Ernst Chain (Penicillin) Raymond Damadian (MRI)"
Here you go again with another list of scientist/engineers wholly unrelated to the topic of biology in an effort to impress. (And one of these is from a previous list.) No matter. When you multiply the irrelevant, all you get is more irrelevance. (yawn!)
Darwin explained further that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
So Darwin's expectations were more along the lines of modern abiogenesis, and not a belief in spontaneous generation. However, even if this was not the case, it wouldn't matter, as it is what he postulated that was later confirmed for which he is remembered. Science has no sacred cows.
Regarding your Darwin quote, supposedly supporting the spontaneous generation, which Darwin would have rejected as a form of saltationism, here's another quote of his, from a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1871 suggesting that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."
Adam and Eve partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad and it imparts this wisdom to them. Perhaps you can tell me by what mechanism this occurred? God didn't impart the knowledge to them himself, or he wouldn't have had to ask them what they did. He had the path to the Tree of Life blocked, because once they ate from that, they'd have lived forever. Lots of vitamin C in the fruit from that one!
"Rearranging atoms is naught when compared to creating an entire universe."
Genesis says nothing about the rearrangement of atoms. The existence of atoms was not known to the writers. More than a simple rearrangement of atoms would be needed, as dirt does not have the same chemical composition.
Genesis says that life itself was breathed into Adam, and he became a living soul.
@ Your plea that the Aramaic word "raqia", rendered as "firmament" in the KJV should be translated "expanse" (which plea, due to context, I still don't buy), reveals that you yourself are cognizant that a mistranslation can add unintended meaning to a Bible verse.
As to your response to my clarification of using the curse in Revelation to demonstrate that biblical authors were concerned about potential misuse of their writings, use of the example was by way of analogy, not homology. You think you have the tiger by the tail with this one, but, if you insist on homology, Google "interpolation Bible" and you'll get a list. We do not possess the original manuscripts, so there may be more interpolations than we're even aware of.
@peterquinn2 "coral reefs have been found to form much quicker than supposed."
A fossil coral reef at the top of a mountain is postulated by the flood devotee to have formed at the top of that mountain during its inundation. This would require an entire reef to form in less than a year. Don't you think that's a little fast?
@peterquinn2 "Footprints were formed in sand or mud, then became buried and preserved (like organisms) once the Flood sediments settled."
One big layer of strata would be expected of a universal flood, but the earth has layer upon layer of strata. In some of these, footprints of animals appear, while there are also footprints in layers above and below. Ascribing all these layers to a single flood is ridiculous, and shows that you are wedded to a myth, come hell or high water.
I have just read the first 2 pages of comments for this video and all of you are crazy. Why are you crazy? your comments have no bearing on the content of the video.
As for the 69 people that disliked this video I guess they don't want to be a nice person and support the human race. To get along with others no matter what their differences are from your own.
I understand that this video is a statement of self and one that everyone should try to attain.
You clog up YouTube with comments. You must be hoping to intimidate those who disagree with you, but every single one of your objections to evolution has been addressed either on YouTube, in books by Dawkins, Gould and others, and all over the web.
@potholer54 a video i would like you to review and trace the sources of that deeply disturbs me. has to do with religious policies.
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=X3TvWoFlg2c
P.S. apologies to anyone who finds my username offensive, it has to do with the religious claim that atheists are immoral and states the obvious absurdity of their claims, as many catholic priests have been accused of rape numerous times. hence, i am making a joke about "moral rapists" .
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
@Mogley52 The Institute for Creation Research is NOT a scientific organization, They are simply a religious propaganda machine. The IfCR does not publish scientific papers in science peer reviewed publications nor do they have scientists who do. They generate websites for the consumption of those who want their religious views validated. Having a preconceived belief and cherry picking your data to support a religious view is not science. It is propaganda.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 WRONG! Science is NOT just based on direct observation. It is based on repeatable evidence. There is plenty of measurable evidence that strongly supports the cosmological deep time argument. See "cosmic background radiation" for just one example. Unfortunately for creationists, science supports the naturalistic explanation, not the theistic view. That is just reality, no matter how much you try to rewrite history or want to believe your religious myths.
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Okay, where in the bible does it say that god hates gays? God loves everyone! Also, any good Christian is not selfish but selfless, and it bothers me to no end when non-Christians make such claims with nothing to back them up.
Atheists in general are much more moral than Christians. Christians are selfish and mean spirited. They are selfish because they only believe in the stupid shit they do because they think they will be rewarded in the end for selfish reasons. They are mean spirited because they believe that everyone else that doesnt believe in the same stupid shit they do, they will burn forever. Thats pretty damn evil.
@peterquinn2 "Then there are the dozens of historical (or legendary) references throughout human civilization, of a worldwide flood after which only a few survived."
Flood legends are common where floods are common. No surprise. Add to that that some are known adaptations of the Noachian flood story as told by missionaries.
Legends of the past destruction of earth by fire are also common. Legends of werewolves (or variants) and vampires go back to every culture. It doesn't validate them.
@SpaceOdyssey56 Sorry for the delay, I don't get much time online.
"Flood legends are common where floods are common. No surprise. Add to that that some are known adaptations of the Noachian flood story as told by missionaries."
I had previously written "Then there are the dozens of .. references .. of a worldwide flood"
My mistake. There are literally HUNDREDS of accounts!
I'd like you to take a look at this article, Google "Many Flood Legends by Rebecca Conolly and Russell Grigg"
@peterquinn2 "There are literally HUNDREDS of [flood] accounts!"
There over 500 of them. It wouldn't matter if there were ten times that. Flood stories are still common where floods are common, and rare where they are not.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Legends of the past destruction of earth by fire are also common. Legends of werewolves (or variants) and vampires go back to every culture. It doesn't validate them."
I'm sorry you'll have to provide some sort of reference for these ancient fire legends. Vampiric legends are certainly widespread, but not so those of werewolves, which emanate mostly from Europe. ALL of these legends are based on some sort of truth however.
@peterquinn2 "There are MOUNTAINS of evidence (literally!). The entire fossil record for one, which covers the highest mountain. Layers upon layers of catastrophic burial, which could only be caused by large volumes of water."
Question: How do fossil footprints precipitate out of flood waters in between other layers laid below and on top of them supposedly by the same flood? How about worm tunnels?
You need to read up on geology, and leave the Aramaic aside for awhile.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Question: How do fossil footprints precipitate out of flood waters in between other layers laid below and on top of them supposedly by the same flood?"
They don't. Footprints were formed in sand or mud, then became buried and preserved (like organisms) once the Flood sediments settled.
"How about worm tunnels?"
I'm not sure, but I suggest you Google "Are soft-sediment trace fossils (ichnofossils) a time problem for the Flood?" for an in depth answer.
@peterquinn2 "There are MOUNTAINS of evidence (literally!). The entire fossil record for one, which covers the highest mountain. Layers upon layers of catastrophic burial, which could only be caused by large volumes of water."
B) Strata at the top of mountains didn't get there by means of a flood; it was already ancient when folding of the earth's crust raised the mountains. How do we know? Because some of that strata contain fossil coral reefs which took a long time to form, for one.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "B) Strata at the top of mountains didn't get there by means of a flood; it was already ancient when folding of the earth's crust raised the mountains. How do we know? Because some of that strata contain fossil coral reefs which took a long time to form, for one."
No they didn't, coral reefs have been found to form much quicker than supposed. Besides, many of these so-called "reefs" are nothing of the sort, they show no evidence that they formed in situ.
@peterquinn2 "Just like all Muslims learn Arabic, we should be learing ancient Aramaic."
A bizarre comment, but here goes:
Whose ancient Aramaic should we be learning? That of Moses'? Of Jesus? Don't you think that hundreds of years would create the same kind of differences in Aramaic as you have between Chaucer's English and Shakespeare's, and between Shakespeare's and ours? That is, in fact, how biblical scholars date manuscripts.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Whose ancient Aramaic should we be learning? That of Moses'? Of Jesus?"
Apologies, I should have used the term 'Biblical Hebrew', you ought to have picked up on that.
Don't you think that hundreds of years would create the same kind of differences in Aramaic as you have between Chaucer's English and Shakespeare's, and between Shakespeare's and ours?"
No I don't. English is a mongrel language, made up of Germanic and Latin based languages.
@peterquinn2 "Rubbish! It is the fault of the Christian church for rejecting its Jewish roots. Theoretically Judaism and Christianity should be one and the same, there should be no contradictions."
It was the apostle Paul who moved Christianity away from Judaism, and he did this at the consternation of James and the Church in Jerusalem.
Historically, Jews reject Jesus messianic claim because he failed to fulfill many of the prophecies they expect of the messiah. But that's another story...
@SpaceOdyssey56 "It was the apostle Paul who moved Christianity away from Judaism," - from Orthodox Judaism, but not from its Jewish roots. The Pagan Romans did that.
"Historically, Jews reject Jesus messianic claim because he failed to fulfill many of the prophecies they expect of the messiah. But that's another story..."
Thus, if the Bible contains mistranslations, can be misinterpreted (and therefore does not clarify itself unambiguously), or contains interpolations (and manuscript comparisons of various books show that does), then this indicates that either a) it is not inspired as claimed, or b) God is unable to prevent the alteration of his word, or c) doesn't care to prevent the downfall of those misled by such alterations, which would make him capricious.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Thus, if the Bible contains mistranslations, can be misinterpreted (and therefore does not clarify itself unambiguously), or contains interpolations (and manuscript comparisons of various books show that does), then this indicates that either a) it is not inspired as claimed, or b) God is unable to prevent the alteration of his word, or c) doesn't care to prevent the downfall of those misled by such alterations, which would make him capricious."
@peterquinn2 How can human mistranslations of an ancient foreign language invalidate the original text? This is in fact what you are implying.
Or simply because God allows us to interpret His word at will mean he cannot prevent it? If He did we wouldn't have the choice, thus eliminating that which makes us human, our free will.
Why wouldn't He care? After all, there's a place set aside for those who deliberately mislead others into sin, by whatever means. He allows us to make mistakes!
The writer of Revelation was well aware of the possibility of his work being deliberately altered, as this happened numerous times with other scriptural works. Though not deliberate, as I originally specified, a mistranslation adds unintended meaning, and may thus be misleading, so it would behoove the God who allegedly inspired it to make sure that this did not occur, deliberately or not, as any misunderstanding that results is not the fault of the one thus misled.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Though not deliberate, as I originally specified, a mistranslation adds unintended meaning, and may thus be misleading, so it would behoove the God who allegedly inspired it to make sure that this did not occur, deliberately or not, as any misunderstanding that results is not the fault of the one thus misled."
No it doesn't, reading God's word should be done "in the spirit" Thus any misinterpretation can be avoided. You should know all this!
@peterquinn2 Regarding my comments concerning the curse in Revelation, you respond:
"Deliberately adding another word or passage, or taking something away, is NOT the same as mistakingly mistranslating or misinterpreting the passage due to a misunderstanding. Surely you can see the difference!"
I do know the difference, but the purpose of my statement was to show that at least one biblical writer expressed concern in his book concerning how subsequent copies would be treated. (to be cont'd)
@SpaceOdyssey56 "I do know the difference, but the purpose of my statement was to show that at least one biblical writer expressed concern in his book concerning how subsequent copies would be treated. (to be cont'd)"
No, adding to or taking away has nothing to do with interpretaion/translation, which may require using more or less words to best fit. Adding extra passages or taking certain ones away is totally different, you should never have brought this up as an example.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Real geology works. A "flood geologist" may be suitable for the job so long as he/she uses real geology to look for oil."
No sorry, real Geology (field geology) needs neither a belief in uniformitarianism, catasprohism or creationism for that matter. ANYONE with a Ph.D. in any form of Geology knows REAL Gelogy, creationist or otherwisw.
@peterquinn2 "...Spontaneous Generation requires no God, no miracle. Adam being formed from the dust of the earth requires the hand of God and the 'breath of life'."
Spontaneous generation involves life coming from inanimate matter by means of a mysterious "life-force". Adam's creation required a mysterious "breath of life" from a mysterious deity that transformed dust into a very complex living organism that later attained the knowledge of good and evil from eating a piece of magical fruit.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Spontaneous generation involves life coming from inanimate matter by means of a mysterious "life-force".
No God, no miracle (act of God)
"Adam's creation required a mysterious "breath of life" from a mysterious deity that transformed dust into a very complex living organism that later attained the knowledge of good and evil from eating a piece of magical fruit."
Rearranging atoms is naught when compared to creating an enire universe.
@peterquinn2 Again, spontaneous generation involves fully formed organisms arising from non-living material, and without any suggested mechanism(s). The mechanism involved in abiogenesis is the observable process of molecular self-assembly, eventually leading to the development of self-replicating molecules.
Comparing spontaneous generation to abiogenesis is like comparing a Matchbox car to real car.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Again, spontaneous generation involves fully formed organisms arising from non-living material, and without any suggested mechanism(s). The mechanism involved in abiogenesis is the observable process of molecular self-assembly, eventually leading to the development of self-replicating molecules.
Comparing spontaneous generation to abiogenesis is like comparing a Matchbox car to real car."
@peterquinn2 "Yet by the 19th century [spontaneous generation] had evolved to include microbial life. Once Pasteur had succesfully dealt it the death blow, Darwin later proposed the idea of life arising from complex chemicals. The two are related, one is the antecedent of the other. Just look on Wikipedia's Abiogenesis page."
You're implying that Darwin accepted spontaneous generation until Pasteur's experiments proved it wrong. Wikipedia makes it clear that such was not the case.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "You're implying that Darwin accepted spontaneous generation until Pasteur's experiments proved it wrong. Wikipedia makes it clear that such was not the case"
He did though: "Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thing being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity"
@peterquinn2 "Are you claiming abiogenesis has been demonstrated in a lab? Now that WOULD be something!"
I am saying that the building blocks of life have been shown to be relatively easy to synthesize in the laboratory. While it is true that the actual origin of life cannot be replayed, to show that any theory of abiogenesis is feasible under conditions that would be expected of the early earth is to already make it scientifically superior to the idea that a man can be formed from dust.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "While it is true that the actual origin of life cannot be replayed, to show that any theory of abiogenesis is feasible under conditions that would be expected of the early earth is to already make it scientifically superior to the idea that a man can be formed from dust."
Who claims man being formed from the dust is in any way scientific? It was a MIRACLE, an act of God, NOT man!
@peterquinn2 "...and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
The only contributions made by such persons that I am aware of are completely unrelated to the topic. Favorite creationist example: Werner Von Braun, who's contributions to rocket science had to be made without using the biblical value of pi (1 Kings 7:23).
The Bible is not the root of good science- or even math!
@SpaceOdyssey56 "The only contributions made by such persons that I am aware of are completely unrelated to the topic. Favorite creationist example: Werner Von Braun, who's contributions to rocket science had to be made without using the biblical value of pi (1 Kings 7:23)."
Read "Biblical Math Mystery Solution for PI" for an answer to that puzzle.
Von Braun is an excellent example, along with Nicolae Paulescu (Insulin) Ernst Chain (Penicillin) Raymond Damadian (MRI)
@peterquinn2 "...and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
Name one example relevant to biology, paleontology, geology, or even astrophysics that has passed peer review and directly supports biblical creationism.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Name one example relevant to biology, paleontology, geology, or even astrophysics that has passed peer review and directly supports biblical creationism."
Why should I? That is not what I claimed. I wrote: "...and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted"
Furthermore I believe ALL scientific discoveries support creationism!
@peterquinn2 "It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
It is very significant that the nearly universal acceptance of the fact of evolution was able to overcome thousands of years of religious indoctrination.
@peterquinn2 "It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
Completing: Lord Kelvin's objection was discredited by the knowledge of earth's internal heating by decay of radioactive elements in its core.
@peterquinn2 "It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
Another objection in Darwin's day was raised by Lord Kelvin, who calculated the age of the earth based on thermodynamics, but he knew nothing about the decay of radioactive elements in earth's core, and his object
peterquinn2 It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted.
There were, of course, critics like Fleeming Jenkin, who based his argument on the then widely held belief in blending inheritance; however, Mendelian genetics discredited that belief, leading to the "modern synthesi
@peterquinn2 "It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
It is significant. Shows the effectiveness of thousands of years of indoctrination in mythology. What's more significant is that such a belief resulted in no increase of knowledge about nature in all that time.
@peterquinn2 "...the foundations of modern science begin with the Bible, and in particular Genesis."
If your statement is meant from an historical perspective, it's misleading: Early scientists such as James Hutton and William Buckland couldn't reconcile Noah's flood with the facts of geology. (Buckland, had, earlier in his career, published evidence he thought supported the flood, but later was convinced otherwise. He found it annoying to have his earlier work quoted when it was obsolete.)
@peterquinn2 "...the foundations of modern science begin with the Bible, and in particular Genesis."
Reason #3 why this is incorrect:
It assumes that the entire Bible, the books of which were all written by fallible men, is accurate in all its statements. Hence, insects have four legs, bats are birds, whales are fish, a man can live for three days in one, a poison potion can be used to determine if your wife is cheating, and the aroma of a burnt sacrifice can reach God's nostrils.
@peterquinn2 "...the foundations of modern science begin with the Bible, and in particular Genesis."
Reason #2 why this is incorrect:
It assumes that the first chapters of Genesis are revealed truth, when they are the words of fallible writers, illustrated by the fact that Genesis contains two conflicting creation accounts. This is further complicated by interpretation: YEC's and OEC's interpret them differently, with multiple factions of OEC's, each starting with their own conclusions.
@peterquinn2 "...the foundations of modern science begin with the Bible, and in particular Genesis."
Reason #1 why this is incorrect:
To start with the Bible is to start with unchangeable conclusions based on Middle Eastern mythology. By contrast, science begins with observations, then reaches tentative conclusions based upon the evidence available at the present time.
There are more Atheists in the Netherlands then you think, in fact everyone I know (exept cristian evolutionist and a muslim (he is by the way also the most harmless person I know)) don't believe in any god PS: sorry for my poor English, I am just twelve you know (;
Actually. Darwin's book says nothing about the origin of life, and Pasteur's experiments were not in response to it, but. Rather, were in response to the debate between John Needham and Lazzaro Spallanzani over whether or not a "life force" was present in the air to cause bacterial growth in soup (argued in favor by the former, nay by the latter). Pasteur performed his experiments in an effort to win a prize offered by the Paris Academy of Sciences to settle t
peterquinn2 Returning back to the subject of spontaneous generation for a moment:
"It was spontaneous generation which most likely INSPIRED the Theory of Evolution. Although demonstrated to be false in 1668 by Italian biologist Francesco Redi, the idea still pervaded until Pasteur finally dealt it the death blow in the early 1860s, in response to Darwin's book."
Actually, Darwin's book says nothing about the origin of life, and Pasteur's experiments were not in response to it at all, but, rat
Early Christians also widely read the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, the former quoted directly by Jude at verse 14, and the latter alluded to at verse 9, which is why, centuries later, when these books had fallen out of favor, Jude's use of them almost kept him out of the canon! Paul himself made no distinction as to which books he specifically considered inspired, and which he did not.
peterquinn2 The reason you take the Bible to be inspired is because the apostle Paul said "All scripture is inspired, etc." This, however, proves nothing, as one must have faith that Paul is correct, which is to put faith in the words of a fallible man.
It should be added that when Paul wrote those words, the Gospels and Revelation had not been written yet, and that no compilation of a Christian canon had yet been attempted. Early Christians also widely read the Book of Enoch (quoted as script
"As for the Bible: IT WAS MEN WHO USED THE PEN. To believe it was inspired is to invest one's faith fully in the words of the fallible men who wrote it."
...your reply...
"No the faith is in God, the men who wrote it shared that faith."
...indicates circular reasoning. (And, incidentally, Mohammad also shared that faith, but you don't believe his book.)
If any part of the Bible can be mistranslated, then it logically follows that any part of it may be potentially misleading. It would be irresponsible on the part of an omnipotent author to allow that to happen.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "If any part of the Bible can be mistranslated, then it logically follows that any part of it may be potentially misleading. It would be irresponsible on the part of an omnipotent author to allow that to happen."
Rubbish! It is the fault of the Christian church for rejecting its Jewish roots. Theoretically Judaism and Christianity should be one and the same, there should be no contradictions. Just like all Muslims learn Arabic, we should be learing ancient Aramaic.
peterquinn2 "Why would you expect the author of ANY book to include a phrase such as "Make sure you don't misinterpret these words" Couldn't these also, just as any other, be mistranslated? Thoroughly illogical."
As a matter of fact, the Book of Revelation includes a curse in order to keep people from adding to or taking away from it. Not too far off from what you are suggesting, as a mistranslation adds unintended meaning.
If any part of the Bible can be mistranslated, then it logically foll
@SpaceOdyssey56 "As a matter of fact, the Book of Revelation includes a curse in order to keep people from adding to or taking away from it. Not too far off from what you are suggesting, as a mistranslation adds unintended meaning."
No, again that's different. Deliberately adding another word or passage, or taking something away, is NOT the same as mistakingly mistranslating or misinterpreting the passage due to a misunderstanding. Surely you can see the difference!
peterquinn2 I see that I have made an error in one of my comments. Allow me to correct it:
Regarding abiogenesis vs. spontaneous generation: The former involves the gradual formation of life via chemical processes which can be demonstrated to occur, while the LATTER involves already relatively complex lifeforms such as maggots developing from non-living sources, such as rotting meat, and, as such, is really a form of saltationism.
peterquinn2 Regarding "flood geologists". Again, you are deliberately missing the point. It does not matter if one calls oneself a "flood geologist", or that "flood geology" is not a scientific discipline, as we BOTH know it is not. If, during an interview for a position in oil exploration, one expresses a rejection of modern geology in favor of a belief that the fossil record was formed by Noah's Flood, one will not get the job. Science talks, mythology walks.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Regarding "flood geologists". Again, you are deliberately missing the point...If, during an interview for a position in oil exploration, one expresses a rejection of modern geology in favor of a belief that the fossil record was formed by Noah's Flood, one will not get the job. Science talks, mythology walks."
Naturally, however that does not automatically mean that a "Flood Geologist" would not be suitable for the job, or that the Flood never happened.
peterquinn2 Regarding abiogenesis vs. spontaneous generation: the former involves the gradual formation of life via chemical processes which can be demonstrated to occur, while the former involves already relatively complex lifeforms such as maggots developing from non-living sources, such as rotting meat, and, as such, is really a form of saltationism. It actually has more in common with other superstitious ideas, such as the belief that a living human being can be formed from dust.
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Regarding abiogenesis vs. spontaneous generation: the former involves the gradual formation of life via chemical processes which can be demonstrated to occur,"
Are you claiming abiogenesis has been demonstrated in a lab? Now that WOULD be something!
That list of values or moral principles is certainly more useful than the 10 Commandments. My credo, if I were to state it, would sound much the same and I think you are right that most Western atheists would find common cause with it too.
However these are very much the secular values of a 21st Century Westerner. There is nothing inherent in atheism that entails this particular set of values.
hardpawn 1 week ago
Here's a start for ya - we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If you wanna believe that it was made in a week by some kinda spiritual being, that's up to you.
Furthermore, the Bible is full of contradictions eg one moment it states an "eye for an eye", the next it's telling you to "turn the other cheek." None of it makes any sense.
Science and religion are not easy bed-fellows; the former proves (without science, it's just theory and conjecture) whereas the latter does not.
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Religion is just for brainwashed morons, frightened their "God" will punish them if they don't "toe the line."
I mean, c'mon! What kinda omnipotent deity would threaten his flock with eternal Hell and damnation etc for daring to think/act/speak otherwise than in accordance with accepted religious dogma?
If a deity was truly just and benign, he'd judge one by their actions, not by the amount of times they've visited a place of worship.
Some of the meanest fuckas I've met have been religious...
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Isn't point 7 in this atheist creed by the definition of atheism naturally a contradiction? One cannot know that there is not a God; it cannot be proven or demonstrated to be true, so in order for the atheist to adhere to their belief they must either make a leap of faith or fill in the gaps that prevent them from knowing their stance is true. Not trying to rock the boat, but it seems somewhat funny to me since the atheism should in fact say I don't know if there is or isn't a God.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Execpt:
Atheism = Lack of belief.
Agnostism = Not claiming knowledge.
Default position is lack of belief, having no belief in God is in no way leap of daith, because its based on lack of evidence. So in this case Potholer is like majority of ahtiest: Agnsotic Atheists. Not claiming knowlede that there is not ANY God. And having disbelief in God, because of the lack of evidence.
Replace the word "God" with Allah or Unicorn or Fairies and same results occur.
Anuojat 1 week ago
@Anuojat Except that this is not a default position. If one is presented with any stance and given a range of possible positions to take the only default position possible is the middle ground of either not knowing, not caring, or seeing both sides as bad so choosing neither. Once a person starts turning to one side and saying that they reject a position they are then under either the same burden of evidence as the other side or they are making a leap of faith like the other side.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 What middle position? Theres is none, youre either theist or atheist. Agnostic or Gnostic. "Not caring" is a none answer, babies dont believe in God for example.
I dont believe in Allah until there is evidence. Or Unicorns. Or Gnomes. Is that dishonest in your eyes? Lack of believe is the default position. Belief is always acruired, the fact that you can say "i havent read about it" doesnt mean youre in the "middle". Thats about knowledge.
Anuojat 1 week ago
@Anuojat So there is no middle position? So what you're saying is that atheism is the neutral position, the default position even though it is the denial and exact opposition of the other position? Don't you realize why that's flawed? One cannot say, I firmly believe that blank does not exist, and then deny any need to defend that position. Let me give you an example. I don't believe trees exist. I have not been presented enough evidence. I don't need to explain my disbelief.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 Lack of belief is not belief. Youre seemingly confused, "I believe that God does not exist" is not what atheism is, it is "Lack" of belief in God. And lack of belief doesnt need to connect itself to "i believe there is no X".
On your example of a three. Maybe a blind man living a desert with no trees could say that, and be honest in his default position and reasoning. But surely you have seen trees, touched them and interacted with wood they produce? That is evidence
Anuojat 1 week ago
@Anuojat Here's a pretty simple question that demonstrates that atheism is a belief, no matter how much you try to word-play it around so that it's just a lack of belief. Do you know there is no God (if so please tell us how you know) or do you merely believe there is no God? If lack of belief doesn't need to connect to X then any subject can merely be denied by saying, I lack belief in that. It doesn't matter if there's 'evidence' or not, I still merely lack belief.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 I dont know if there is a God or know. So i am Agnsotic.
But thats only about KNOWLEDGE, why is this sos hard to understand?
Knowing and beliving is not the same thing. You can be Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic atheist. So your question is framed tad silly. Yes it does matter if there is evidence, because lack of belief is due to lack of evidence with an atheist. If there is evidence, GOOD, evidence to believe then one should but does he yet know? Not necesserily :P
Anuojat 1 week ago
@Anuojat So what you're saying is that atheism deals with beliefs. Alright then, what evidence does it present in order to demonstrate that their belief that there is no God is accurate? If there is not GOOD evidence to believe that there is no God, then one is merely making that choice to belief on the basis of faith. Pretty simple I'd say.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 Yes it deals in LACK of belief.
"I dont believe in God." Atheist. Most common.
"I believe there is no God." Strong Atheist/Gnostic Atheist. Rare but still there are some.
So, heres how it works, a question "Do you belief in a God:"
Yes. = Theist or Deist.
No or anything other than yes = Atheist.
Even if you havent made up your mind about your belief in a god or simply dont know youre still an atheist, because if you dont have belief in God, you certainly lack it.
Anuojat 1 week ago
@Anuojat Refer to the videos you referenced me to, I'm arguing against these.. not very good definitions there. Your understanding of atheism and what it means to reject or accept a claim are misguided. It takes more than a witholding of opinion in order to make one an atheist. I don't know if I believe in God or not does not make you an atheist. If you can't see that I have to wonder where you learned this rubbish from.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 From such atheists as Matt Dillahunty, Russel Glasser, Tooltime (youtube name) and many more.
Those are the definations wheter you like it or not. Argue againts dictionaries if you wish.
I use wikipedia, online and general scolar dictionaries and well known atheists speeches on the matter for my information. Are all those rubbish?
Agnostism is matter of knowledge, not belief/disbelief. I don take a leap of faith by saying i dont believe in "unicorns" now do i? :P
Anuojat 1 week ago
@Anuojat Again, as I said, you can read my comments on the videos you linked me to for more detail. But in short, yes those are appropriate sources for you to consider, but that has no guarantee on quality. Most of their definitions do not consider the historical context before they give an over-simplified etymology. Just think; why change the definition of atheism? Hmm...
That depends. Am I doing anything wrong for not believing in evolution?
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 Well you may certainly disbelief evolution, if that REALLY is your choice. I could ask why you dont believe in it, but its not nesessery.
Though i certainly hope you use vaccines. And i certainly hope you find coversations like these interesting rather than say offensive or frustrating? :)
Anuojat 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 Also i hope also this helps:
/watch?v=UUfE4Y1RSbo
It explains the definations and reasons quite well.
Check part too.
Anuojat 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 "or Agnostic Theist." correction to my typo.
Anuojat 1 week ago
@Sick
Belief is based upon faith: ghosts, magic, voodoo, fairies, doesn't matter what. Belief is something you choose to uphold without hard evidence, that it's inherent nature. Trees are real, they can be seen, touched, chopped up for firewood etc. God cannot be seen, physically touched etc thus it's up to you if you choose to believe. Agnostics believe God's existence cannot be proven either way; secularists choose to reject all religious dogma; theists believe & atheists don't.
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants If belief is something you choose to uphold without hard evidence, then my simple question would be what hard evidence does atheism have that makes it a non-belief? Clearly it has to have something or else it would still fall into the same category of a belief. Agnostics state that the best one can do is speculate, however atheists believe that there is in fact no God, unless of course you can provide some evidence to demonstrate that there indeed is no God.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333
Well, for starters, atheists understand the concept of evolution (proven by science, read Darwin), not fairy tales, written thousands of years ago by people with no understanding of anything remotely scientific. To them, a fork of lightning was a symbol of "God's wrath.."
Poor fools. Still, they didn't know any better.
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants Hm... hmmmmmm... now, here's my question. I read both of your comments talking about science and evolution and the age of the Earth (which could be refuted, but it's unnecessary because it's missing the point), but I was unable to find the answer to my question for evidence of atheism. I mean, we have evidence that the Earth is really old, but I'm not seeing evidence that shows there isn't a God. Would you mind staying focused and providing that?
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333
The age of the earth cannot be refuted, it's scientific fact. Geology will confirm this. It's why we study rocks!
Ok, do you take the Bible's words as gospel or as mere rhetorical speech?
trouzerpants 1 week ago
More importantly, don't you feel that we'd all be better off without religion, after all, that is what's responsible for the vast majority of the world's ills.
I'm secular. Europe is secular. It's why we lead in science, physics, cloning etc as we're not constrained by the impositions imposed upon us by age old religious dogma.
Religion is so passe...
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants It is not the existence of religion that is responsible for the majority of the world's ills. Whether a person is an atheist, a Buddhist, or any other ist it is clear that people are irrational, emotional, selfish, and contrary creatures.
If we're all so advanced and moving away from religion, why aren't things better yet? Because there's still too much religion? Wake up. Advanced technology and secularization hasn't lead us into utopia and it never will.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333
C'mon, man! Firstly, I've already explained to you my stance on atheism/theism, they're both speculative. You either choose to believe or you don't HOWEVER, agnosticism/secularisation differ from the former in that they're both based upon rationale, logic and epistemology.
Secondly, religion is the catalyst for more war, bitterness, hostility and enmity than anything else put together. Who's to say that secularity will not redefine our attitudes?
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Thirdly, you failed to answer my earlier question - do you take the Bible's words as gospel or as mere rhetorical speech?
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants I didn't answer because I didn't see it as a relevant question, but I take it as the gospel, and not mere rhetorical speech (whatever that would mean anyways).
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333
It means "style at the expense of thought", ie, not to be taken literally. No, it's very relevant. Consider this re Christianity:-
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.."
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Thus, if you'd answered "yes" to my earlier question, that you do see the crazy scribblings of the Bible as rhetorical, I'd understand that, even accept it. I have friends who understand religion, cognisant the Bible's prose should be taken as rhetorical yet you seem to believe it should be taken at face value.
Creationists are absolutely mad! Science is here for a reason, Darwin's works are beyond dispute. Talking to religious zealots is akin to banging your head against a wall..
trouzerpants 1 week ago
BTW - I said it was AGNOSTISICM/SECULARISATION that's based upon logic, rationale and epistemology, NOT theism/atheism.
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Finally, American culture is anything but secular. Never heard of Manifest Destiny, of "God's will" or your "divine right" to expand westwards? You claim it was "God's will" (!) yet, this act involved the genocide of the indigenous native peoples (Jackson's Indian Removal Act, 1830.) Doesn't Manifest Destiny contradict your God's alleged love for all?
Difficult questions, I realise. Perhaps you can now see that secularity/agnosticism is the only path to true enlightenment.
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants Modern American culture. It is a goal of ours to remove religion from our schools remember? One that is succeeding currently, yes? We keep moving and marching for secular, secular, secular, but note that removing The Bible from schools haven't made us better. Honestly our country looks like a mess right now, despite our efforts to ditch religion.
Why would I when it hasn't led to enlightenment? Our stupid students aren't better off now that we're secular.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@trouzerpants Thanks, I do appreciate me some good ad hominem.
And BTW I said, so atheism (and theism) is NOT based on logic, rationale, and epistemology? It was a question, because it's an odd accusation, and an unfounded one I'd say.
I merely disbelieve in Darwin's works, I lack belief in them. That's the neutral position, so I am perfectly rational.
And have I, the 'religious zealot' not been the one asking you, the rational one, for evidence of your claims?
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333
To understand the Big Bang, you must first accept cause & effect. If the effect was the BB, what caused it? This has puzzled scientists forever. Steven Hawking (world's greatest living genius) has theorised the universe has always been here, constantly recycling into itself. When one huge star/system (whatever) expires, it vanishes (Black Holes? Hawking's the expert here, not me!) and is spewed out elsewhere. Cause = death of a star/supernova/system, effect = BB!
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Once more, just to clarify my meaning: theism/atheism is based around supposition/theory/belief.
Agnosticism/secularity is based around truth/fact/knowledge/epistemology.
Hopefully that's cleared that one up!!
BTW - You avoided my (admittedly very difficult) point re the Indians plight brought about though your divine expansionism (Manifest Destiny.) I've seen the famous painting, the ethereal, Jesus like spirit guiding you westwards. Does your God favour you over the red man?
trouzerpants 1 week ago
You also failed to address the Bible's obvious contradictions eg "an eye for an eye" juxtaposed with "turn the other cheek.."
Can you explain those to me?
trouzerpants 1 week ago
*Stephen Hawking
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants Let's just assume that the universe continually loops in on itself. That gravity and the energy in the universe is just perfectly balanced that one will not overpower the other so it keeps expanding and contracting over and over. It still does not answer the issue of where the original matter for this system would have arisen from. They are just imposing an infinite retraction into the past with no starting point. Genius is no guarantee against mistakes/stupidity.
Sickopath333 5 days ago
@Sickopath333
Yeah, it's analogous to the chicken and the egg...
Listen mate, seriously, to even allude to Hawking's lack of discernment is utter insanity. This man (though crippled, living life in a wheelchair) is a genius of science.
Ask any scientist..
trouzerpants 5 days ago
@trouzerpants So your point is that the best Hawking's can do with all of his genius is push back the idea of our universe having a finite starting point in the past with unexplained origin into an infinite loop with unexplained origin? It's perfectly fine to give a person the respect they deserve, but if their ideas are bunk you don't let yourself be cowed by their reputation or intellect. He's radically biased against God it's not surprising he desperately seeks an alternative.
Sickopath333 5 days ago
@Sickopath333
Well, that's one way of puttin' it!!!
Not sure now if Prof Hawking's gonna keep you on his Xmas card list..
trouzerpants 5 days ago
Comment removed
trouzerpants 5 days ago
Anyway, it'll all be solved when CERN finally discovers the exact location of the Higgs Boson (aka the "God Particle.")
trouzerpants 5 days ago
BTW - People scoffed when first hearing "bunkum" of the Earth not being flat (many religious zealots called it "heresy", burning those at the stake for suggesting it) until incontrovertible scientific evidence was finally produced to validate this fact. You may scoff at Hawking's "bunkum" (as all religious zealots do) whereas the rest of us recognise him for what he is, today's Einstein. He doesn't "cow me", on the contrary, he inspires me with his extraordinary, visionary genius.
trouzerpants 4 days ago
Devout theists also frothed at the mouth when faced with the notion that actually, we aren't the centre of the universe at all, that the sun does NOT orbit the Earth. Same thing happened, didn't take too long for science to prove this (not sure how many scholarly star-gazers and truth-seekers were also cooked before their work was finally accepted, religion sure has made many martyrs outta past visionaries..)
I'm quite sure you can see the point I'm making.
trouzerpants 4 days ago
@trouzerpants Consider this re Big Bang Theory:-
"The cosmic event in which a vast amount of empty space was full of nothing. Then suddenly amidst all of that nothing, something insignificantly tiny spontaneously appeared as if by magic, as it was produced from and by nothing. Then time started, it expanded insanely quickly, with immense energy and power, unbridled and unrestrained: a nuclear bomb X10000000000000000000! Yet this led to stability, order, and intelligent life..."
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@trouzerpants You either choose to believe there is a god(s) or there is not a god(s); you can say speculative, but I would say faith-based or religious instead myself. So atheism is not based on rationale, logic, and epistemology? Of course saying religion is not either is jaded to say the least.
*Sigh* And of course you have sociological evidence that demonstrates that to be 100% true, right? Doubtful to say the least. Well, our culture is secular.. and no utopia yet.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@trouzerpants *Ahem* This is my third call now. Please providence evidence for atheism. If there is no evidence it is merely a belief made without evidence, which we have agreed means that it is one based in faith. Now I'm not saying it's blind faith of course, but it is made in faith, just as Christianity would be. If you refuse or cannot provide any evidence, I will consider that a concession to this line of reasoning. Thank you, have a good day.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
I believe in all this too. may I please Mirror this video giving you full credit?
TheBadcop69 2 months ago
@TheBadcop69 I don't think you need permission, although I'm sure Potholer would give you it. It's called Fair Use, and I think aslong as you credit him, it's fine, although I would suggest a personal message. Don't take my word for it ;)
Alphacaliber 1 month ago
@Alphacaliber Much appreicated for the suggestions. I have just had problems with mirrors even with proper credit and I don't wish to get on Potholers bad side. thought I didn't think to try personal message thank you.
TheBadcop69 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If I mirror and credit this on my channel, would you mind?
rriverstone1 3 months ago
Hey Potholer54,
I want to use your clip adding arabic translation. Wanted to check with you first. Do you give me permission to do so?
relaxedmoody 3 months ago
@relaxedmoody you might want to try Private Messaging him, he might not see that comment, and even then his inbox is kind of backed up over that DMCA rush he had.
lewismurray1 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@relaxedmoody At one time, potholer posted that anyone could use his vids as long as they were not for profit and gave 'youtuber potholer54' the credit (at least the made easy ones, but I think the others also).
CATMAHAT 3 months ago
Where are these ideals/morals derived from? Reason? Societal influence? Socially conditioned conscience? A soul?
violet101 3 months ago
@violet101 Shrooms man... shrooms.
TheAsymmetrical 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "Furthermore I believe ALL scientific discoveries support creationism!"
In that case, I'd like to know how the discovery of Lucy, the Turkana Lake boy, the fact that you and I share over 98% of the same genes with chimps, and supernova in galaxies millions of light years from us support biblical creationism.
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2
My request for a list of creationist scientists who have made important discoveries relevant to biology, paleontology, geology, and astrophysics that DIRECTLY SUPPORT CREATIONISM was made for two reasons:
1) To demonstrate that such discoveries aren't being made, which your reply makes obvious, and...
2) ...to discourage you from sending me a list of creationist auto mechanics.
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2
Oops! My previous comment was replay of your reply prior to editing.
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Name one example relevant to biology, paleontology, geology, or even astrophysics that has passed peer review and directly supports biblical creationism."
Why should I? That is not what I claimed. I wrote: "...and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted"
Furthermore I believe ALL scientific discoveries support creationism!
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@peterquinn2 "Von Braun is an excellent example, along with Nicolae Paulescu (Insulin) Ernst Chain (Penicillin) Raymond Damadian (MRI)"
Here you go again with another list of scientist/engineers wholly unrelated to the topic of biology in an effort to impress. (And one of these is from a previous list.) No matter. When you multiply the irrelevant, all you get is more irrelevance. (yawn!)
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "Von Braun is an excellent example, along with Nicolae Paulescu (Insulin) Ernst Chain (Penicillin) Raymond Damadian (MRI)"
Here you go again with another list of scientist/engineers wholly unrelated to the topic of biology in an effort to impress. (And one of these is from a previous list.) No matter. When you multiply the irrelevant, all you get is more irrelevance. (yawn!)
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2
(Continuing...)
Darwin explained further that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
So Darwin's expectations were more along the lines of modern abiogenesis, and not a belief in spontaneous generation. However, even if this was not the case, it wouldn't matter, as it is what he postulated that was later confirmed for which he is remembered. Science has no sacred cows.
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2
Regarding your Darwin quote, supposedly supporting the spontaneous generation, which Darwin would have rejected as a form of saltationism, here's another quote of his, from a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1871 suggesting that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."
(Continued...)
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "'Magical fruit'? How so?"
Adam and Eve partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad and it imparts this wisdom to them. Perhaps you can tell me by what mechanism this occurred? God didn't impart the knowledge to them himself, or he wouldn't have had to ask them what they did. He had the path to the Tree of Life blocked, because once they ate from that, they'd have lived forever. Lots of vitamin C in the fruit from that one!
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2
Concerning Adam's creation:
"Rearranging atoms is naught when compared to creating an entire universe."
Genesis says nothing about the rearrangement of atoms. The existence of atoms was not known to the writers. More than a simple rearrangement of atoms would be needed, as dirt does not have the same chemical composition.
Genesis says that life itself was breathed into Adam, and he became a living soul.
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@ Your plea that the Aramaic word "raqia", rendered as "firmament" in the KJV should be translated "expanse" (which plea, due to context, I still don't buy), reveals that you yourself are cognizant that a mistranslation can add unintended meaning to a Bible verse.
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2
As to your response to my clarification of using the curse in Revelation to demonstrate that biblical authors were concerned about potential misuse of their writings, use of the example was by way of analogy, not homology. You think you have the tiger by the tail with this one, but, if you insist on homology, Google "interpolation Bible" and you'll get a list. We do not possess the original manuscripts, so there may be more interpolations than we're even aware of.
(Cont'd)
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "reading God's word should be done 'in the spirit'. Thus any misinterpretation can be avoided."
This is saying that to understand the Bible, you must believe in it. That is circular reasoning.
Science fiction author Gordon R. Dickson once said something to the effect that when he wrote a story, it was his, but when you read it, it was yours.
A writer's intention and the reader's perception, no matter how close, are never the same, and God didn't write the Bible, fallible men did.
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "coral reefs have been found to form much quicker than supposed."
A fossil coral reef at the top of a mountain is postulated by the flood devotee to have formed at the top of that mountain during its inundation. This would require an entire reef to form in less than a year. Don't you think that's a little fast?
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "Footprints were formed in sand or mud, then became buried and preserved (like organisms) once the Flood sediments settled."
One big layer of strata would be expected of a universal flood, but the earth has layer upon layer of strata. In some of these, footprints of animals appear, while there are also footprints in layers above and below. Ascribing all these layers to a single flood is ridiculous, and shows that you are wedded to a myth, come hell or high water.
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
I have just read the first 2 pages of comments for this video and all of you are crazy. Why are you crazy? your comments have no bearing on the content of the video.
As for the 69 people that disliked this video I guess they don't want to be a nice person and support the human race. To get along with others no matter what their differences are from your own.
I understand that this video is a statement of self and one that everyone should try to attain.
Tony62254 3 months ago
Potholer sent me here, from the future :D
MagMag96 4 months ago
@Mogley52
You clog up YouTube with comments. You must be hoping to intimidate those who disagree with you, but every single one of your objections to evolution has been addressed either on YouTube, in books by Dawkins, Gould and others, and all over the web.
You yourself are well aware of this.
SpaceOdyssey56 4 months ago
@potholer54 a video i would like you to review and trace the sources of that deeply disturbs me. has to do with religious policies.
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=X3TvWoFlg2c
P.S. apologies to anyone who finds my username offensive, it has to do with the religious claim that atheists are immoral and states the obvious absurdity of their claims, as many catholic priests have been accused of rape numerous times. hence, i am making a joke about "moral rapists" .
MoralRapist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 The Institute for Creation Research is NOT a scientific organization, They are simply a religious propaganda machine. The IfCR does not publish scientific papers in science peer reviewed publications nor do they have scientists who do. They generate websites for the consumption of those who want their religious views validated. Having a preconceived belief and cherry picking your data to support a religious view is not science. It is propaganda.
coolgreyoneabby 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 WRONG! Science is NOT just based on direct observation. It is based on repeatable evidence. There is plenty of measurable evidence that strongly supports the cosmological deep time argument. See "cosmic background radiation" for just one example. Unfortunately for creationists, science supports the naturalistic explanation, not the theistic view. That is just reality, no matter how much you try to rewrite history or want to believe your religious myths.
coolgreyoneabby 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 *sigh*
go read a science textbook and learn something.
MoralRapist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 4 months ago
Okay, where in the bible does it say that god hates gays? God loves everyone! Also, any good Christian is not selfish but selfless, and it bothers me to no end when non-Christians make such claims with nothing to back them up.
p3t3rVL12 4 months ago
@p3t3rVL12 You might want to look into ROMANS 1:26-27 on that.
killthemwithfirelol 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
Atheists in general are much more moral than Christians. Christians are selfish and mean spirited. They are selfish because they only believe in the stupid shit they do because they think they will be rewarded in the end for selfish reasons. They are mean spirited because they believe that everyone else that doesnt believe in the same stupid shit they do, they will burn forever. Thats pretty damn evil.
TheHolyMongolEmpire 5 months ago in playlist Potholer 2
@peterquinn2 "Then there are the dozens of historical (or legendary) references throughout human civilization, of a worldwide flood after which only a few survived."
Flood legends are common where floods are common. No surprise. Add to that that some are known adaptations of the Noachian flood story as told by missionaries.
Legends of the past destruction of earth by fire are also common. Legends of werewolves (or variants) and vampires go back to every culture. It doesn't validate them.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago 2
@SpaceOdyssey56 Sorry for the delay, I don't get much time online.
"Flood legends are common where floods are common. No surprise. Add to that that some are known adaptations of the Noachian flood story as told by missionaries."
I had previously written "Then there are the dozens of .. references .. of a worldwide flood"
My mistake. There are literally HUNDREDS of accounts!
I'd like you to take a look at this article, Google "Many Flood Legends by Rebecca Conolly and Russell Grigg"
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "There are literally HUNDREDS of [flood] accounts!"
There over 500 of them. It wouldn't matter if there were ten times that. Flood stories are still common where floods are common, and rare where they are not.
SpaceOdyssey56 3 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Legends of the past destruction of earth by fire are also common. Legends of werewolves (or variants) and vampires go back to every culture. It doesn't validate them."
I'm sorry you'll have to provide some sort of reference for these ancient fire legends. Vampiric legends are certainly widespread, but not so those of werewolves, which emanate mostly from Europe. ALL of these legends are based on some sort of truth however.
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "There are MOUNTAINS of evidence (literally!). The entire fossil record for one, which covers the highest mountain. Layers upon layers of catastrophic burial, which could only be caused by large volumes of water."
Question: How do fossil footprints precipitate out of flood waters in between other layers laid below and on top of them supposedly by the same flood? How about worm tunnels?
You need to read up on geology, and leave the Aramaic aside for awhile.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Question: How do fossil footprints precipitate out of flood waters in between other layers laid below and on top of them supposedly by the same flood?"
They don't. Footprints were formed in sand or mud, then became buried and preserved (like organisms) once the Flood sediments settled.
"How about worm tunnels?"
I'm not sure, but I suggest you Google "Are soft-sediment trace fossils (ichnofossils) a time problem for the Flood?" for an in depth answer.
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "There are MOUNTAINS of evidence (literally!). The entire fossil record for one, which covers the highest mountain. Layers upon layers of catastrophic burial, which could only be caused by large volumes of water."
B) Strata at the top of mountains didn't get there by means of a flood; it was already ancient when folding of the earth's crust raised the mountains. How do we know? Because some of that strata contain fossil coral reefs which took a long time to form, for one.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "B) Strata at the top of mountains didn't get there by means of a flood; it was already ancient when folding of the earth's crust raised the mountains. How do we know? Because some of that strata contain fossil coral reefs which took a long time to form, for one."
No they didn't, coral reefs have been found to form much quicker than supposed. Besides, many of these so-called "reefs" are nothing of the sort, they show no evidence that they formed in situ.
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "Just like all Muslims learn Arabic, we should be learing ancient Aramaic."
A bizarre comment, but here goes:
Whose ancient Aramaic should we be learning? That of Moses'? Of Jesus? Don't you think that hundreds of years would create the same kind of differences in Aramaic as you have between Chaucer's English and Shakespeare's, and between Shakespeare's and ours? That is, in fact, how biblical scholars date manuscripts.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Whose ancient Aramaic should we be learning? That of Moses'? Of Jesus?"
Apologies, I should have used the term 'Biblical Hebrew', you ought to have picked up on that.
Don't you think that hundreds of years would create the same kind of differences in Aramaic as you have between Chaucer's English and Shakespeare's, and between Shakespeare's and ours?"
No I don't. English is a mongrel language, made up of Germanic and Latin based languages.
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "Rubbish! It is the fault of the Christian church for rejecting its Jewish roots. Theoretically Judaism and Christianity should be one and the same, there should be no contradictions."
It was the apostle Paul who moved Christianity away from Judaism, and he did this at the consternation of James and the Church in Jerusalem.
Historically, Jews reject Jesus messianic claim because he failed to fulfill many of the prophecies they expect of the messiah. But that's another story...
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpaceOdyssey56 "It was the apostle Paul who moved Christianity away from Judaism," - from Orthodox Judaism, but not from its Jewish roots. The Pagan Romans did that.
"Historically, Jews reject Jesus messianic claim because he failed to fulfill many of the prophecies they expect of the messiah. But that's another story..."
Many did yes, but not all.
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 Continuing further...
Thus, if the Bible contains mistranslations, can be misinterpreted (and therefore does not clarify itself unambiguously), or contains interpolations (and manuscript comparisons of various books show that does), then this indicates that either a) it is not inspired as claimed, or b) God is unable to prevent the alteration of his word, or c) doesn't care to prevent the downfall of those misled by such alterations, which would make him capricious.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Thus, if the Bible contains mistranslations, can be misinterpreted (and therefore does not clarify itself unambiguously), or contains interpolations (and manuscript comparisons of various books show that does), then this indicates that either a) it is not inspired as claimed, or b) God is unable to prevent the alteration of his word, or c) doesn't care to prevent the downfall of those misled by such alterations, which would make him capricious."
Bollocks
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 How can human mistranslations of an ancient foreign language invalidate the original text? This is in fact what you are implying.
Or simply because God allows us to interpret His word at will mean he cannot prevent it? If He did we wouldn't have the choice, thus eliminating that which makes us human, our free will.
Why wouldn't He care? After all, there's a place set aside for those who deliberately mislead others into sin, by whatever means. He allows us to make mistakes!
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 Continuing...
The writer of Revelation was well aware of the possibility of his work being deliberately altered, as this happened numerous times with other scriptural works. Though not deliberate, as I originally specified, a mistranslation adds unintended meaning, and may thus be misleading, so it would behoove the God who allegedly inspired it to make sure that this did not occur, deliberately or not, as any misunderstanding that results is not the fault of the one thus misled.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Though not deliberate, as I originally specified, a mistranslation adds unintended meaning, and may thus be misleading, so it would behoove the God who allegedly inspired it to make sure that this did not occur, deliberately or not, as any misunderstanding that results is not the fault of the one thus misled."
No it doesn't, reading God's word should be done "in the spirit" Thus any misinterpretation can be avoided. You should know all this!
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 Regarding my comments concerning the curse in Revelation, you respond:
"Deliberately adding another word or passage, or taking something away, is NOT the same as mistakingly mistranslating or misinterpreting the passage due to a misunderstanding. Surely you can see the difference!"
I do know the difference, but the purpose of my statement was to show that at least one biblical writer expressed concern in his book concerning how subsequent copies would be treated. (to be cont'd)
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "I do know the difference, but the purpose of my statement was to show that at least one biblical writer expressed concern in his book concerning how subsequent copies would be treated. (to be cont'd)"
No, adding to or taking away has nothing to do with interpretaion/translation, which may require using more or less words to best fit. Adding extra passages or taking certain ones away is totally different, you should never have brought this up as an example.
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 After I explain that an oil company wouldn't hire a universal flood believing denier of modern geology, you respond:
"Naturally, however that does not automatically mean that a 'Flood Geologist' would not be suitable for the job, or that the Flood never happened."
In the words of Leslie Nielsen in FORBIDDEN PLANET:
"Your mind refuses to face a conclusion."
Real geology works. A "flood geologist" may be suitable for the job so long as he/she uses real geology to look for oil.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Real geology works. A "flood geologist" may be suitable for the job so long as he/she uses real geology to look for oil."
No sorry, real Geology (field geology) needs neither a belief in uniformitarianism, catasprohism or creationism for that matter. ANYONE with a Ph.D. in any form of Geology knows REAL Gelogy, creationist or otherwisw.
Your argument was and still remains, invalid.
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "...Spontaneous Generation requires no God, no miracle. Adam being formed from the dust of the earth requires the hand of God and the 'breath of life'."
Spontaneous generation involves life coming from inanimate matter by means of a mysterious "life-force". Adam's creation required a mysterious "breath of life" from a mysterious deity that transformed dust into a very complex living organism that later attained the knowledge of good and evil from eating a piece of magical fruit.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Spontaneous generation involves life coming from inanimate matter by means of a mysterious "life-force".
No God, no miracle (act of God)
"Adam's creation required a mysterious "breath of life" from a mysterious deity that transformed dust into a very complex living organism that later attained the knowledge of good and evil from eating a piece of magical fruit."
Rearranging atoms is naught when compared to creating an enire universe.
"Magical" fruit? How so?
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 Again, spontaneous generation involves fully formed organisms arising from non-living material, and without any suggested mechanism(s). The mechanism involved in abiogenesis is the observable process of molecular self-assembly, eventually leading to the development of self-replicating molecules.
Comparing spontaneous generation to abiogenesis is like comparing a Matchbox car to real car.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Again, spontaneous generation involves fully formed organisms arising from non-living material, and without any suggested mechanism(s). The mechanism involved in abiogenesis is the observable process of molecular self-assembly, eventually leading to the development of self-replicating molecules.
Comparing spontaneous generation to abiogenesis is like comparing a Matchbox car to real car."
Yes, one has its origins with the other!
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "Yet by the 19th century [spontaneous generation] had evolved to include microbial life. Once Pasteur had succesfully dealt it the death blow, Darwin later proposed the idea of life arising from complex chemicals. The two are related, one is the antecedent of the other. Just look on Wikipedia's Abiogenesis page."
You're implying that Darwin accepted spontaneous generation until Pasteur's experiments proved it wrong. Wikipedia makes it clear that such was not the case.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "You're implying that Darwin accepted spontaneous generation until Pasteur's experiments proved it wrong. Wikipedia makes it clear that such was not the case"
He did though: "Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thing being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity"
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "Are you claiming abiogenesis has been demonstrated in a lab? Now that WOULD be something!"
I am saying that the building blocks of life have been shown to be relatively easy to synthesize in the laboratory. While it is true that the actual origin of life cannot be replayed, to show that any theory of abiogenesis is feasible under conditions that would be expected of the early earth is to already make it scientifically superior to the idea that a man can be formed from dust.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpaceOdyssey56 "While it is true that the actual origin of life cannot be replayed, to show that any theory of abiogenesis is feasible under conditions that would be expected of the early earth is to already make it scientifically superior to the idea that a man can be formed from dust."
Who claims man being formed from the dust is in any way scientific? It was a MIRACLE, an act of God, NOT man!
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "...and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
The only contributions made by such persons that I am aware of are completely unrelated to the topic. Favorite creationist example: Werner Von Braun, who's contributions to rocket science had to be made without using the biblical value of pi (1 Kings 7:23).
The Bible is not the root of good science- or even math!
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "The only contributions made by such persons that I am aware of are completely unrelated to the topic. Favorite creationist example: Werner Von Braun, who's contributions to rocket science had to be made without using the biblical value of pi (1 Kings 7:23)."
Read "Biblical Math Mystery Solution for PI" for an answer to that puzzle.
Von Braun is an excellent example, along with Nicolae Paulescu (Insulin) Ernst Chain (Penicillin) Raymond Damadian (MRI)
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "...and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
Name one example relevant to biology, paleontology, geology, or even astrophysics that has passed peer review and directly supports biblical creationism.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Name one example relevant to biology, paleontology, geology, or even astrophysics that has passed peer review and directly supports biblical creationism."
Why should I? That is not what I claimed. I wrote: "...and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted"
Furthermore I believe ALL scientific discoveries support creationism!
peterquinn2 3 months ago
@peterquinn2 "It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
It is very significant that the nearly universal acceptance of the fact of evolution was able to overcome thousands of years of religious indoctrination.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@peterquinn2 "It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
Completing: Lord Kelvin's objection was discredited by the knowledge of earth's internal heating by decay of radioactive elements in its core.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
You Tube is not iPhone friendly!!!!
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@peterquinn2 "It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
Another objection in Darwin's day was raised by Lord Kelvin, who calculated the age of the earth based on thermodynamics, but he knew nothing about the decay of radioactive elements in earth's core, and his object
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
peterquinn2 It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted.
There were, of course, critics like Fleeming Jenkin, who based his argument on the then widely held belief in blending inheritance; however, Mendelian genetics discredited that belief, leading to the "modern synthesi
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@peterquinn2 "It is very significant that a high proportion of the greatest scientists of Darwin's day did NOT accept his theory, and there are still examples of great scientific discoveries being made by those who rejected Darwinism long after it became almost universally accepted."
It is significant. Shows the effectiveness of thousands of years of indoctrination in mythology. What's more significant is that such a belief resulted in no increase of knowledge about nature in all that time.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@peterquinn2 "...the foundations of modern science begin with the Bible, and in particular Genesis."
If your statement is meant from an historical perspective, it's misleading: Early scientists such as James Hutton and William Buckland couldn't reconcile Noah's flood with the facts of geology. (Buckland, had, earlier in his career, published evidence he thought supported the flood, but later was convinced otherwise. He found it annoying to have his earlier work quoted when it was obsolete.)
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@peterquinn2 "...the foundations of modern science begin with the Bible, and in particular Genesis."
Reason #3 why this is incorrect:
It assumes that the entire Bible, the books of which were all written by fallible men, is accurate in all its statements. Hence, insects have four legs, bats are birds, whales are fish, a man can live for three days in one, a poison potion can be used to determine if your wife is cheating, and the aroma of a burnt sacrifice can reach God's nostrils.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@peterquinn2 "...the foundations of modern science begin with the Bible, and in particular Genesis."
Reason #2 why this is incorrect:
It assumes that the first chapters of Genesis are revealed truth, when they are the words of fallible writers, illustrated by the fact that Genesis contains two conflicting creation accounts. This is further complicated by interpretation: YEC's and OEC's interpret them differently, with multiple factions of OEC's, each starting with their own conclusions.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@peterquinn2 "...the foundations of modern science begin with the Bible, and in particular Genesis."
Reason #1 why this is incorrect:
To start with the Bible is to start with unchangeable conclusions based on Middle Eastern mythology. By contrast, science begins with observations, then reaches tentative conclusions based upon the evidence available at the present time.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
There are more Atheists in the Netherlands then you think, in fact everyone I know (exept cristian evolutionist and a muslim (he is by the way also the most harmless person I know)) don't believe in any god PS: sorry for my poor English, I am just twelve you know (;
Daanmantel 5 months ago
peterquinn2 Let's try this again:
Actually. Darwin's book says nothing about the origin of life, and Pasteur's experiments were not in response to it, but. Rather, were in response to the debate between John Needham and Lazzaro Spallanzani over whether or not a "life force" was present in the air to cause bacterial growth in soup (argued in favor by the former, nay by the latter). Pasteur performed his experiments in an effort to win a prize offered by the Paris Academy of Sciences to settle t
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
peterquinn2 Returning back to the subject of spontaneous generation for a moment:
"It was spontaneous generation which most likely INSPIRED the Theory of Evolution. Although demonstrated to be false in 1668 by Italian biologist Francesco Redi, the idea still pervaded until Pasteur finally dealt it the death blow in the early 1860s, in response to Darwin's book."
Actually, Darwin's book says nothing about the origin of life, and Pasteur's experiments were not in response to it at all, but, rat
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
peterquinn2 Continuing:
Early Christians also widely read the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, the former quoted directly by Jude at verse 14, and the latter alluded to at verse 9, which is why, centuries later, when these books had fallen out of favor, Jude's use of them almost kept him out of the canon! Paul himself made no distinction as to which books he specifically considered inspired, and which he did not.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
peterquinn2 The reason you take the Bible to be inspired is because the apostle Paul said "All scripture is inspired, etc." This, however, proves nothing, as one must have faith that Paul is correct, which is to put faith in the words of a fallible man.
It should be added that when Paul wrote those words, the Gospels and Revelation had not been written yet, and that no compilation of a Christian canon had yet been attempted. Early Christians also widely read the Book of Enoch (quoted as script
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
peterquinn2 After quoting me...
"As for the Bible: IT WAS MEN WHO USED THE PEN. To believe it was inspired is to invest one's faith fully in the words of the fallible men who wrote it."
...your reply...
"No the faith is in God, the men who wrote it shared that faith."
...indicates circular reasoning. (And, incidentally, Mohammad also shared that faith, but you don't believe his book.)
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
peterquinn2 To complete the previous comment:
If any part of the Bible can be mistranslated, then it logically follows that any part of it may be potentially misleading. It would be irresponsible on the part of an omnipotent author to allow that to happen.
SpaceOdyssey56 5 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "If any part of the Bible can be mistranslated, then it logically follows that any part of it may be potentially misleading. It would be irresponsible on the part of an omnipotent author to allow that to happen."
Rubbish! It is the fault of the Christian church for rejecting its Jewish roots. Theoretically Judaism and Christianity should be one and the same, there should be no contradictions. Just like all Muslims learn Arabic, we should be learing ancient Aramaic.
peterquinn2 5 months ago
peterquinn2 "Why would you expect the author of ANY book to include a phrase such as "Make sure you don't misinterpret these words" Couldn't these also, just as any other, be mistranslated? Thoroughly illogical."
As a matter of fact, the Book of Revelation includes a curse in order to keep people from adding to or taking away from it. Not too far off from what you are suggesting, as a mistranslation adds unintended meaning.
If any part of the Bible can be mistranslated, then it logically foll
SpaceOdyssey56 6 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "As a matter of fact, the Book of Revelation includes a curse in order to keep people from adding to or taking away from it. Not too far off from what you are suggesting, as a mistranslation adds unintended meaning."
No, again that's different. Deliberately adding another word or passage, or taking something away, is NOT the same as mistakingly mistranslating or misinterpreting the passage due to a misunderstanding. Surely you can see the difference!
peterquinn2 5 months ago
peterquinn2 I see that I have made an error in one of my comments. Allow me to correct it:
Regarding abiogenesis vs. spontaneous generation: The former involves the gradual formation of life via chemical processes which can be demonstrated to occur, while the LATTER involves already relatively complex lifeforms such as maggots developing from non-living sources, such as rotting meat, and, as such, is really a form of saltationism.
SpaceOdyssey56 6 months ago
peterquinn2 Regarding "flood geologists". Again, you are deliberately missing the point. It does not matter if one calls oneself a "flood geologist", or that "flood geology" is not a scientific discipline, as we BOTH know it is not. If, during an interview for a position in oil exploration, one expresses a rejection of modern geology in favor of a belief that the fossil record was formed by Noah's Flood, one will not get the job. Science talks, mythology walks.
SpaceOdyssey56 6 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Regarding "flood geologists". Again, you are deliberately missing the point...If, during an interview for a position in oil exploration, one expresses a rejection of modern geology in favor of a belief that the fossil record was formed by Noah's Flood, one will not get the job. Science talks, mythology walks."
Naturally, however that does not automatically mean that a "Flood Geologist" would not be suitable for the job, or that the Flood never happened.
peterquinn2 5 months ago
Can I assume then you dont know how people, the moon, sun, stars were created?
akrytus 6 months ago
peterquinn2 Regarding abiogenesis vs. spontaneous generation: the former involves the gradual formation of life via chemical processes which can be demonstrated to occur, while the former involves already relatively complex lifeforms such as maggots developing from non-living sources, such as rotting meat, and, as such, is really a form of saltationism. It actually has more in common with other superstitious ideas, such as the belief that a living human being can be formed from dust.
SpaceOdyssey56 6 months ago
@SpaceOdyssey56 "Regarding abiogenesis vs. spontaneous generation: the former involves the gradual formation of life via chemical processes which can be demonstrated to occur,"
Are you claiming abiogenesis has been demonstrated in a lab? Now that WOULD be something!
peterquinn2 5 months ago