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)
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) ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system 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.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works doesn't mean there's no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the apparatus exists to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not arrange or produce. If a variation survives then 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
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 COULDN'T 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.
Evolution is a fact, another fact that it was called "Mohammedan Theory of Evolution" by western scientists before Darwin was even born. I proved that with historical documents available free on line for "free thinkers", I hope this comment will not be removed like my other comments. Do you believe in free speech?
الرجاء الإجابة بدلا من الرد، لو كان كلامك صحيحا لقلت لي ما هو ديني (المزعو) وما هي الفرقة التي أنتمي إليها وما هي البلد التي أعيش منها لو كنت تعرف، ولكنك مثل محمد (القرآن) تقدم كلام عائم أجوف، ناهيك أن ما تقوله خطء، ولكن لا بأس.
So you can have sex with a child because you are an animal that has evolved without spiritual moral compass? People like you can justify murder, theft, lies, and peadophilia with evolution theory and think to get away with it never having to answer for such doings to no-one. o boy! Are you in for a big surprize and denial wont help you one iota.
God challenged all humanity to create even a fly, and acknowledged that one day, scientists like Craig Venter would try:
Those on whom you call besides Allah, cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. (Quran 22:73). I'm not saying that I deny evolution, in fact, I strongly support it like the Quran does, but creating life, well, good luck on that.
@helasmoh This is not the place to spew your Islamic apologist "The Qur'an is the most scientifically accurate book in the world!" camel shit. The Qur'an also says that humans are made from the combination of semen and and clotted period blood, which is laughable to modern science. Your holy book is as bat-shit crazy and inaccurate as all the others. You can twist its vague scriptures and try to make them fit modern knowledge, but your efforts are in vain. Promote your nonsense elsewhere.
@hondadrvr3 Calm down. What he said does not harm you, nor is it offensive so stop being defensive. If you want to debate that is fine but no reason for the hate.
My video on evolution is supported by documents from Darwin's time, watch it then judge me, don't be like our brainwashed Muslim Imams who believe myths over facts.
Well, that's too bad...I wanted to be a Zebra but my genes randomly programmed me as a human...what a shame there is absolutely no God of the Universe that controls this all with the power of His word...Too bad my eternal destiny is up in the air...I guess there's no point for me too live...
(2:32) Vindicated as fact? Case closed? Dawkins has publically admitted to the possibility of directed panspermia due to the evidence of design in creation. He has also admitted in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" that there is evidence for design and it is merely an illusion given off by evolution.
So, then, when the evidence points to a creator, as it clearly does, Dawkins says it is merely an "illusion".
In other words, don't look at the evidence. Listen to Father Richard.
"directed panspermia" is an Abiogenesis hypothesis. It has nothing to do with the proof of Evolution by Natural Selection.
NS is vindicated as fact. It has more proof behind it than almost any other theory. Its inevitable anyway, even if we had not observed it (and we have!) we would have to assume that it happens.
For Abiogenesis however there are a number of competing hypothesis none of which have overwhelming proof.
(2:24) Modern science has answered them? Yes. True science says Darwin is a lunatic. The religion of atheism with evolution as its creation story has lifted Darwin up as a prophet and covers up the underlying deception... that evolution is the doctrine of the deranged.
At 2:32 the guest and Dawkins say the genetic code would be enough to "overwhelmingly, staggeringly enough". Ummm...no. The genetic code is evidence of DESIGN!
Again, Dawkins is using common brainwashing technique to fool his audience. By using hyperbolic rhetoric he tricks his hearers into joining his religious movement.
At 0:36 Dawkins assumes the fact of evolution even though it is not fact at all thereby standing on the doctrine of the philosopy of naturalism and building scientific understanding on the foundation of religious doctrine (naturalism).
At 0:21 Dawkins admits that cells have intelligence. Where did it come from? How do the cells know what to do or even to do anything at all? The answer is God.
Its funny how only the religions motivated people try to hide their head in the sand about how life on our planet works.
Guess that bloated sense of self pride they dwell on so much gets a dent when someone points out that they are not the offspring of some deity but are in fact no different then any other life form on earth.
Here is a challenge for the bible thumper types, show one branch of science who supports something other then evolution that is not being funded by a religious group.
Atheism is a default position since there is zero reason to believe other wise without needing "faith" and evolution is a creation story we have evidence for, unlikely your make believe creation story that there is zero evidence for.
This video is full of evidence for the existence of God. Please read the other dozen comments I've left on this video. I'm beginning to wonder if Dawkins is a closet creationist.
The bigbang itself has more of a ring of "creation" then anything i have ever heard of when something smaller then we could see can expand into everything in the universe.
Religious folks need to stop injecting the 2,000 year old version of how things came to be and instead look at what science has brought forward and say " yup, that is how God did it ".
Science is agnostic and does not say there is no God(s), it just ignores the subject since its untestable.
The common theory now is that it was about the size of a dime. I can see a dime.
"what science has brought forward"
Right, but, macro evolution by natural selection is not science. It's religious doctrine.
"Science is agnostic and does not say there is no God"
Amen... so why then did Reverend Dawkins say that if it wasn't for the theory of macro evolution by natural selection he wouldn't be an atheist because evolution is the engine which drives atheism?
The con artists who try to pander religion was why i am atheist, had nothing to do with evolution. I was an atheist long before i understood how evolution worked.
DNA shows that evolution through natural selection is indeed science, sorry but you just sound silly when you claim otherwise.
Dawkins is out to sell books and therefor makes an aggressive case for his stance on the subject. I would not tell someone there God does not exist, i only ask they keep an open mind to how nature works.
No i am not a biologist who has spent years studying DNA but i do know we share 99.7% of our DNA with Chimps, that is no accident. There is nothing in the garden of Eden myth to explain that one away.
Yes i have a dislike for religion, if i meet one of the thousands of Gods we have come up with i would say "it is nice to meet you, its a shame your salesmen on earth did a piss poor job of showing your existence".
You are a easy to talk to guy and make comments that are at least on subject, the Hammer and nail comment is to all those theists who are not like yourself that are insulting and flat rude about atheist having no morals and all the other rubbish they spout out.
I am not better than you. You deserve my respect because you are tremendously valuable to God.
The Bible does not deny commonality of source material used for creation (dirt) which explains why so much DNA is shared. Cars have windows and doors and chairs... but to say they evolved into houses is silly. They were each created as they are... with building material common to both.
The analogy stands because DNA is building material. There is no evidence anywhere of human evolution. None. The evidence points to spontaneous appearance. Not gradual evolution over millions of years.
The evidence given for human evolution has so far been proven fraudulent.
Oh i agree with you 100% that i have no grudge to bare with any God(s) and if i meet him today i would smile and shake his hand. I was never a theist so i do not have the ill will that many former theists seem to.
But again creationism needs to stand on its own two legs to be taken seriously, saying theory (a) is wrong does not in anyway prove theory (b) as being correct.
Anyone who uses evolution to say there is no deities misses the target by a mile.
Even though this is a two month old conversation I have to point out, that there is alot of transitional fossils that prove "Human evolution". Contrary to your spontaneous appearance. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of transitional fossils out there.
@internetpastortv in your dreams it has been proven as a fact think of it this way u plant a seed it grows into a plant ur saying that that plant(human race)never came from a seed(apes)
Why is it despicable? You may argue it's an incorrect statement, but despicable implies that it is somehow illegal, reprehensible, or immoral in some way.
Evolution is merely how life changes over time. No one, not even creationists, argue life does change over time (though they argue it cannot change past a certain point) Evolutionary theory is merely the observation and model of this change.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
most of Dorkins statements are despicable in as much as he implies that his statements are undeniable scientific proof. here he implies that Darwins theory is "fact"
I don't know what rock you live under, but it IS "fact". Do you actually believe that your blind faith trumps all the top scientists on the planet? Or the overwhelming evidence presented time and time again?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you ought to temper your remarks m8 - i know what planet i'm on. i suggest you carry on being led by the blind as you appear to like believing what you're told.
It's not undeniable, in the sense that you can deny that you are looking at a computer screen right now if you so choose. But denial doesn't change the fact that organisms evolve and all of life shares a common ancestor. It would be so terribly easy to falsify evolution if it wasn't true, like with a poodle in the cambrian layer, a mammal with atavistic feathers, or even a 100% genetically unique organism. Lots of other ways too. In over a century of studying or searching, it hasn't happened
"there have been many attempts to falsify evolution"
Of course, that is what science do. It continuously test theories, like Einstein's theory of relativity, that is the only way to learn about this world.
But the point is, that nobody has succeeded to falsify them (and it would be a discovery worth of Nobel price). We continuously learn how species change, how evolution works, but Darwin's central idea, common decent is as well established fact as is the fact that masses attract each other.
"the word falsify means to commit a fraud which shows the lengths men go to in order to mislead"
No. To falsify in science means that you disprove something, check the definition. One commonly repeated discovery that would falsify evolution is bunny fossil from cambrian era.
Every single test that has been made, or will be made, has potential to disprove evolution, none has done so.
In every field there are those who try to deceive, in art, in sport, and in science. But what science does really good, is finding out. Finding out mistakes, deliberate or accidental, is part of science. Newton didn't get the gravity completely right, Darwin didn't get the evolution completely right.
Correcting mistakes makes you famous. Piltdown man, Archeoraptor, these show that science works, try to deceive and you will get exposed.
Archaeoraptor (don't confuse it with Archaeopteryx, a real transitional) was a forgery. It was never published in peer-reviewed journal, as they saw it what it was, but the national geographic did. They made a mistake and apologized it.
oh cool thanks for the info! I didn't know about that one...now I understand why when I typed it Spell Check said it was wrong and suggested Archeopteryx instead, lol xP
It may have something to do with it rally being a fact....A observed fact.
Here is some some sources for you.
Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF (1998) Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42 Nature 387, 708 - 713 (1997)
If you believe that Dawkins statement is false, there's a way to prove it. Though admittedly it is not an easy one.
Simply find a positive claim about evolutionary theory (there are several of them listed in any biology textbook) and perform an experiment designed to disprove that claim. Should you disprove that claim, write up your experiment as accurately as possible so others can perform the experiment themselves, and then publish it. If others can do what you did, Dawkins just lost.
In that case, could you please outline what positive claim of evolution your refuted, explain what experiment you did that falsified the claim, and under what circumstances you performed the experiment in question?
As a matter of course, I'd like to perform the experiment myself. Should it falsify the claim, then you have my full support and my vote for a nobel prize, which anyone who refuted evolution would be eligible for.
Well, for a start, the big bang is a theory from cosmology which has nothing to do with biology (the field of study that concerns evolutionary theory) So even if you disproved the big bang theory, it wouldn't affect evolution one iota.
Second, what outrageous odds are you referring too? How are they outrageous? How did you disprove them? How did you disprove the fossil evidence for evolution?
Well, to accurately calculate that we must understand RNA (precursor to DNA) That is too complex a subject to be covered in a mere 500 characters.
However, I can say that calculating odds is not a study of biology, but rather statistical mathematics (ie. the study of probability) Biology concentrates on verified observations and experiments, rather than the odds of something happening once.
If you like, I can direct you to several good videos on RNA and DNA synthesis.
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 5 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) ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
Mogley52 5 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 5 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 5 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, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system 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 5 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.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works doesn't mean there's no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the apparatus exists to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not arrange or produce. If a variation survives then 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 5 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 5 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION COULDN'T 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 5 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 5 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 5 months ago
Evolution is a fact, another fact that it was called "Mohammedan Theory of Evolution" by western scientists before Darwin was even born. I proved that with historical documents available free on line for "free thinkers", I hope this comment will not be removed like my other comments. Do you believe in free speech?
This is a link to my video: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
helasmoh 9 months ago
@helasmoh
توقف عن الهروب لو كان عندك ثقة في الله:
الرجاء الإجابة بدلا من الرد، لو كان كلامك صحيحا لقلت لي ما هو ديني (المزعو) وما هي الفرقة التي أنتمي إليها وما هي البلد التي أعيش منها لو كنت تعرف، ولكنك مثل محمد (القرآن) تقدم كلام عائم أجوف، ناهيك أن ما تقوله خطء، ولكن لا بأس.
-------
لو أن التركة هي (س)
فأنت تقول أن الزوجة ترث (8/1 س)
أكمل التالي:
البانت يرثون (___ س)
الأبوان يرثان (___ س)
jojokiqwer 3 months ago
@jojokiqwer
I read your comments on other videos, I don't talk to someone with that kind of language.
helasmoh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@helasmoh
إما أن تقدم لي هذة الثلاث أرقام، وإلا أنت تؤكد أن القرآن فعلا فيه هذا الحطاء الحسابي:
لو أن التركة هي (س)
فأنت تقول أن الزوجة ترث (8/1 س)
أكمل التالي:
البنات يرثن (___ س)
الأبوان يرثان (___ س)
كل ما طلبته منك هو هذة الثلاث أرقام مرارا وتكرارا منذ البداية لا أعرف ما هي الصعوبة في الإجابة عن هذه الأسئلة السلة والمباشرة.
jojokiqwer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So you can have sex with a child because you are an animal that has evolved without spiritual moral compass? People like you can justify murder, theft, lies, and peadophilia with evolution theory and think to get away with it never having to answer for such doings to no-one. o boy! Are you in for a big surprize and denial wont help you one iota.
antiazazel 1 year ago
God challenged all humanity to create even a fly, and acknowledged that one day, scientists like Craig Venter would try:
Those on whom you call besides Allah, cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. (Quran 22:73). I'm not saying that I deny evolution, in fact, I strongly support it like the Quran does, but creating life, well, good luck on that.
helasmoh 1 year ago
@helasmoh Well, he did. One year later we know that he did succeed. : )
winterstellar 9 months ago
@helasmoh This is not the place to spew your Islamic apologist "The Qur'an is the most scientifically accurate book in the world!" camel shit. The Qur'an also says that humans are made from the combination of semen and and clotted period blood, which is laughable to modern science. Your holy book is as bat-shit crazy and inaccurate as all the others. You can twist its vague scriptures and try to make them fit modern knowledge, but your efforts are in vain. Promote your nonsense elsewhere.
hondadrvr3 9 months ago
@hondadrvr3 Calm down. What he said does not harm you, nor is it offensive so stop being defensive. If you want to debate that is fine but no reason for the hate.
bazookajoethethird 4 months ago
@helasmoh The Quran does NOT support evolution, quit your lying.
ElJuzgado 5 months ago 2
@ElJuzgado
My video on evolution is supported by documents from Darwin's time, watch it then judge me, don't be like our brainwashed Muslim Imams who believe myths over facts.
helasmoh 5 months ago
Well, that's too bad...I wanted to be a Zebra but my genes randomly programmed me as a human...what a shame there is absolutely no God of the Universe that controls this all with the power of His word...Too bad my eternal destiny is up in the air...I guess there's no point for me too live...
redsoxbred 2 years ago
I'd rather live free from the pointless restrictions of religion than with a maniac in the sky watching everything I do.
hunterW1134 2 years ago
(2:32) Vindicated as fact? Case closed? Dawkins has publically admitted to the possibility of directed panspermia due to the evidence of design in creation. He has also admitted in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" that there is evidence for design and it is merely an illusion given off by evolution.
So, then, when the evidence points to a creator, as it clearly does, Dawkins says it is merely an "illusion".
In other words, don't look at the evidence. Listen to Father Richard.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
"directed panspermia" is an Abiogenesis hypothesis. It has nothing to do with the proof of Evolution by Natural Selection.
NS is vindicated as fact. It has more proof behind it than almost any other theory. Its inevitable anyway, even if we had not observed it (and we have!) we would have to assume that it happens.
For Abiogenesis however there are a number of competing hypothesis none of which have overwhelming proof.
kandtell 2 years ago
(2:24) Modern science has answered them? Yes. True science says Darwin is a lunatic. The religion of atheism with evolution as its creation story has lifted Darwin up as a prophet and covers up the underlying deception... that evolution is the doctrine of the deranged.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
At 2:32 the guest and Dawkins say the genetic code would be enough to "overwhelmingly, staggeringly enough". Ummm...no. The genetic code is evidence of DESIGN!
Again, Dawkins is using common brainwashing technique to fool his audience. By using hyperbolic rhetoric he tricks his hearers into joining his religious movement.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
At 1:56 Dawkins says fossils are "nice"? How about producing a single transitional human fossil which cannot be written off as HUMAN!
This video proves nothing other than religious dogma.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
At 1:45 Dawkins says evolution is a "Fact" and yet thousands of scientists say it isn't? Hmmmmm.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
At 1:01 Dawkins uses the word "proof". He is using a common brainwashing technique here. There is no "proof" of evolution by natural selection.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
At 0:36 Dawkins assumes the fact of evolution even though it is not fact at all thereby standing on the doctrine of the philosopy of naturalism and building scientific understanding on the foundation of religious doctrine (naturalism).
internetpastortv 2 years ago
At 0:21 Dawkins admits that cells have intelligence. Where did it come from? How do the cells know what to do or even to do anything at all? The answer is God.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In this video Dawkins admits to a creator at 0:11 by his use of the word "code".
Codes are not random but systematic and imply intelligent design.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
The only thing proven in this video is commonality of source material used in creation... period.
Oh, and it also proves that evolutionists are brainwashed Dawkins ditto-heads.
God loves you. Stop the insanity.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
i love you hondadrvr3
tlk2boris2 3 years ago
Its funny how only the religions motivated people try to hide their head in the sand about how life on our planet works.
Guess that bloated sense of self pride they dwell on so much gets a dent when someone points out that they are not the offspring of some deity but are in fact no different then any other life form on earth.
Here is a challenge for the bible thumper types, show one branch of science who supports something other then evolution that is not being funded by a religious group.
Atheistprimate 3 years ago 2
Atheism IS a religion and evolution is its creation story.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
Atheism is a default position since there is zero reason to believe other wise without needing "faith" and evolution is a creation story we have evidence for, unlikely your make believe creation story that there is zero evidence for.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago
This video is full of evidence for the existence of God. Please read the other dozen comments I've left on this video. I'm beginning to wonder if Dawkins is a closet creationist.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
The bigbang itself has more of a ring of "creation" then anything i have ever heard of when something smaller then we could see can expand into everything in the universe.
Religious folks need to stop injecting the 2,000 year old version of how things came to be and instead look at what science has brought forward and say " yup, that is how God did it ".
Science is agnostic and does not say there is no God(s), it just ignores the subject since its untestable.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago
"smaller then we could see"
The common theory now is that it was about the size of a dime. I can see a dime.
"what science has brought forward"
Right, but, macro evolution by natural selection is not science. It's religious doctrine.
"Science is agnostic and does not say there is no God"
Amen... so why then did Reverend Dawkins say that if it wasn't for the theory of macro evolution by natural selection he wouldn't be an atheist because evolution is the engine which drives atheism?
internetpastortv 2 years ago
The con artists who try to pander religion was why i am atheist, had nothing to do with evolution. I was an atheist long before i understood how evolution worked.
DNA shows that evolution through natural selection is indeed science, sorry but you just sound silly when you claim otherwise.
Dawkins is out to sell books and therefor makes an aggressive case for his stance on the subject. I would not tell someone there God does not exist, i only ask they keep an open mind to how nature works.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago
So, you have a distain for religion. Good. So does God.
"DNA shows that evolution through natural selection is indeed science"
Do you know what DNA is? How does it prove evo?
Please tell me what you meant by this statement:
"My God has a hammer, your God was nailed to a cross"
internetpastortv 2 years ago
No i am not a biologist who has spent years studying DNA but i do know we share 99.7% of our DNA with Chimps, that is no accident. There is nothing in the garden of Eden myth to explain that one away.
Yes i have a dislike for religion, if i meet one of the thousands of Gods we have come up with i would say "it is nice to meet you, its a shame your salesmen on earth did a piss poor job of showing your existence".
God is fine, religion can suck my left nut.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago 2
You are a easy to talk to guy and make comments that are at least on subject, the Hammer and nail comment is to all those theists who are not like yourself that are insulting and flat rude about atheist having no morals and all the other rubbish they spout out.
If someone insults me i insult them back.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago 2
I am not better than you. You deserve my respect because you are tremendously valuable to God.
The Bible does not deny commonality of source material used for creation (dirt) which explains why so much DNA is shared. Cars have windows and doors and chairs... but to say they evolved into houses is silly. They were each created as they are... with building material common to both.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
The car and house analogy fails because there is no map to follow showing any relation between large wooden boxes and metal boxes on wheels.
But there is a point by point map called DNA that shows us to be nearly the same as our ape cousins.
If the materials being used are shared with all life forms why would we not be as closely related to dolphins as we are apes?
Remember you can not add your own opinion on this, you have to stick to the couple sentences the bible provides on the matter.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago 2
The analogy stands because DNA is building material. There is no evidence anywhere of human evolution. None. The evidence points to spontaneous appearance. Not gradual evolution over millions of years.
The evidence given for human evolution has so far been proven fraudulent.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
See now this is where theist whole argument falls apart, claiming evolution is false does not make your belief anymore true.
If i say a tea pot exists in the middle of the sun and you say it does not that does not mean instead a coffee pot exists there instead.
You need to show positive evidence for your own claims to prove them true, saying evolution is wrong does not mean creationism is right.
And no there is nothing in the least to show humans appeared 6,000 years ago from thin air.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago 4
I understand but evolution is a 150 yr old theory and creationism is several thousand years old.
Evolutionism is seeking to displace creationism so the burden of proof is on you. Simply saying evolution is true doen't make it so.
The evidence points to God and an atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a cop.
I'm very sorry for your religious experience but you should know that God had nothing to do with it.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
Oh i agree with you 100% that i have no grudge to bare with any God(s) and if i meet him today i would smile and shake his hand. I was never a theist so i do not have the ill will that many former theists seem to.
But again creationism needs to stand on its own two legs to be taken seriously, saying theory (a) is wrong does not in anyway prove theory (b) as being correct.
Anyone who uses evolution to say there is no deities misses the target by a mile.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago 2
It was pleasant conversing with you. Be well.
internetpastortv 2 years ago
Have a great day, i enjoyed our talk.
Atheistprimate 2 years ago
Even though this is a two month old conversation I have to point out, that there is alot of transitional fossils that prove "Human evolution". Contrary to your spontaneous appearance. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of transitional fossils out there.
p0rkch0ps 2 years ago 2
@internetpastortv in your dreams it has been proven as a fact think of it this way u plant a seed it grows into a plant ur saying that that plant(human race)never came from a seed(apes)
potsticker11 7 months ago
99.7%? I think it's more like 95%....
amsterdammed71 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"evolution is a fact" a despicable statement
jemscott 3 years ago
Why is it despicable? You may argue it's an incorrect statement, but despicable implies that it is somehow illegal, reprehensible, or immoral in some way.
Evolution is merely how life changes over time. No one, not even creationists, argue life does change over time (though they argue it cannot change past a certain point) Evolutionary theory is merely the observation and model of this change.
How can it be despicable?
Kieran27 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
most of Dorkins statements are despicable in as much as he implies that his statements are undeniable scientific proof. here he implies that Darwins theory is "fact"
jemscott 3 years ago
I don't know what rock you live under, but it IS "fact". Do you actually believe that your blind faith trumps all the top scientists on the planet? Or the overwhelming evidence presented time and time again?
hondadrvr3 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you ought to temper your remarks m8 - i know what planet i'm on. i suggest you carry on being led by the blind as you appear to like believing what you're told.
jemscott 3 years ago
It's not undeniable, in the sense that you can deny that you are looking at a computer screen right now if you so choose. But denial doesn't change the fact that organisms evolve and all of life shares a common ancestor. It would be so terribly easy to falsify evolution if it wasn't true, like with a poodle in the cambrian layer, a mammal with atavistic feathers, or even a 100% genetically unique organism. Lots of other ways too. In over a century of studying or searching, it hasn't happened
LoganStrain 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
a vacuous argument, i am looking at a computer screen and there have been many attempts to falsify evolution.
jemscott 3 years ago
"there have been many attempts to falsify evolution"
Of course, that is what science do. It continuously test theories, like Einstein's theory of relativity, that is the only way to learn about this world.
But the point is, that nobody has succeeded to falsify them (and it would be a discovery worth of Nobel price). We continuously learn how species change, how evolution works, but Darwin's central idea, common decent is as well established fact as is the fact that masses attract each other.
Saukko31 3 years ago 4
er ... the word falsify means to commit a fraud which shows the lengths men go to in order to mislead
jemscott 3 years ago
"the word falsify means to commit a fraud which shows the lengths men go to in order to mislead"
No. To falsify in science means that you disprove something, check the definition. One commonly repeated discovery that would falsify evolution is bunny fossil from cambrian era.
Every single test that has been made, or will be made, has potential to disprove evolution, none has done so.
Saukko31 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
to falsify - to deceive, that is what i mean
jemscott 3 years ago
OK. And how this is related to evolution?
In every field there are those who try to deceive, in art, in sport, and in science. But what science does really good, is finding out. Finding out mistakes, deliberate or accidental, is part of science. Newton didn't get the gravity completely right, Darwin didn't get the evolution completely right.
Correcting mistakes makes you famous. Piltdown man, Archeoraptor, these show that science works, try to deceive and you will get exposed.
Saukko31 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"And how this is related to evolution?"
you're the scientist
jemscott 3 years ago
wait...what's wrong with archeoraptor?
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
Archaeoraptor (don't confuse it with Archaeopteryx, a real transitional) was a forgery. It was never published in peer-reviewed journal, as they saw it what it was, but the national geographic did. They made a mistake and apologized it.
Saukko31 3 years ago
oh cool thanks for the info! I didn't know about that one...now I understand why when I typed it Spell Check said it was wrong and suggested Archeopteryx instead, lol xP
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
"here he implies that Darwins theory is "fact""
It may have something to do with it rally being a fact....A observed fact.
Here is some some sources for you.
Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF (1998) Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42 Nature 387, 708 - 713 (1997)
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago 3
yeah right
jemscott 3 years ago
If you believe that Dawkins statement is false, there's a way to prove it. Though admittedly it is not an easy one.
Simply find a positive claim about evolutionary theory (there are several of them listed in any biology textbook) and perform an experiment designed to disprove that claim. Should you disprove that claim, write up your experiment as accurately as possible so others can perform the experiment themselves, and then publish it. If others can do what you did, Dawkins just lost.
Kieran27 3 years ago 4
"If others can do what you did, Dawkins just lost"
Wake up - any1 can do it
jemscott 3 years ago
In that case, could you please outline what positive claim of evolution your refuted, explain what experiment you did that falsified the claim, and under what circumstances you performed the experiment in question?
As a matter of course, I'd like to perform the experiment myself. Should it falsify the claim, then you have my full support and my vote for a nobel prize, which anyone who refuted evolution would be eligible for.
Kieran27 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
" outline what positive claim of evolution your refuted"
where would you like to start ? big bang, fossil evidence, outrageous odds ........
jemscott 3 years ago
Well, for a start, the big bang is a theory from cosmology which has nothing to do with biology (the field of study that concerns evolutionary theory) So even if you disproved the big bang theory, it wouldn't affect evolution one iota.
Second, what outrageous odds are you referring too? How are they outrageous? How did you disprove them? How did you disprove the fossil evidence for evolution?
Please be specific, I truly do wish to know.
Kieran27 3 years ago 6
I think he's referring to the BS Creationist "odds", fabricated by the Creationists themselves...Something like 10^123 or some garbage.
hondadrvr3 3 years ago
Also, those odds that they somehow magically derive, are in reference to Abiogenesis....not Evolution.
hondadrvr3 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no big bang, so ... the odds of dna synthesis are ?
jemscott 3 years ago
Well, to accurately calculate that we must understand RNA (precursor to DNA) That is too complex a subject to be covered in a mere 500 characters.
However, I can say that calculating odds is not a study of biology, but rather statistical mathematics (ie. the study of probability) Biology concentrates on verified observations and experiments, rather than the odds of something happening once.
If you like, I can direct you to several good videos on RNA and DNA synthesis.
Kieran27 3 years ago 4
u sir or madam, are awesomeness!
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
Why thank you! I'd have settled for competent, but it's nice to hear I may be slightly above that bar.
Kieran27 3 years ago
A fact that 2/3 of americans do not accept - shameful!
hal2017 3 years ago 10
I couldn't agree more, hal2017. It's despicable!
hondadrvr3 3 years ago