And how do you know all that Dr. Ahmed? I bet he's doing it only for money. Hehe, she is just fabulous saying 'do we really need that? why not just take the bible literally?' Pure stupidiyt in its finest.
I've heard and read these arguments in my lifetime. Science has demonstrated a methodology to examine, model, test, predict and explain the natural universe; with the tenet that new things will be discovered allowing new ideas to emerge. Religion is the commitment that all being is manifested from the will of ultimate divinity containing the past,present and future. It is demonstrated that their are people who can live and understand both views; living in the best of all possible worlds.
So this guy is trying to say that Adam is the first human, but he and Eve are not the first "human", that there was a non-developed version before him.
We had sex with animals, or some version of man that God hid the whole time, then?
Well, they sure forgot to write all THAT in the Bible's book of Genesis...
Or could it be that you're just pulling this theory out of your ass?
Christians have no shame, even when it is blatantly obvious that their argument is unsustainable. They go and pull some nonsense out of their butts. If God only made Adam and Eve, as it states in the scriptures, there were no people made before Adam and Eve for their offspring to marry.
The only logical answer to human procreation if one believes the creation story, is incest.
Not some humans that God created and stowed away for when it is time to procreate.
Depends on the translation. Adam and Eve could be a word for 2 nations. Cain and Abel could be 2 new nations, when the Cain nation destroyed Abel civilization. The God head labeled them with karma mark. Today's interpretation is all wrong.
who is this clown ? the Book of Jubilees (a jewish sacred book) explains that Cain married his sister Awan before he killed Abel and was cast out. Eve the begat Seth when she was 130 years old and then she had Azura 6 years later. Seth married Azura and had many children, of which eventually descended Noah, Abraham's (Ibrahim for muslims) grandfather.
Even if they did commit incest, humans could not have survived more than a couple of generations through inbreeding before deformities kicked in, not to mention becoming sterile. Adam and Eve is just hilarious.
This guy is representing a pantheist approach to religion. If everyone had this guy's views there wouldn't actually be an issue with religion in the world. People with his views acknowledge that religious scriptures aren't to be taken literally and are a set of stories some of which have been misinterperated over the years, some were symbolic, some will have just been made up. The problem occurs when a fox news anchor comes along and says something stupid like 'Science proves existence of God!"
Why does it matter? If there are only two humans and they have kids who cares if they have incest? It does not matter. They survived, we are here. Oh well :-)
WAIT...you believe in Adam and Eve...but you say there were human begins before Adam and Eve...but God created the Earth when created...How do you people believe this shit?
His science gibberish is all wrong by the way. Y-chromosomal "Adam" lived 142 000yrs ago and mitochondrial "Eve" lived 200 000 years ago. Jeez, why didn't he just look it up in wikipedia or something?
wtf he's trying to prove the bible is accurate if taken literally, while saying the bible is inaccurate because it says adam and eve are the first people , the bible didn't say the first "fully developed" it said first people so this dude needs to stfu...
he's clutching at straws that aren't even there, and i don't know why people try so hard to take the bible literally and use it as some sort of defense and excuse for mistreating ppl who have different views and lifestyles, and different beliefs because it's "what the Bible says."
So... he accepts that evolution can explain how humanity evolved from apes... but he clings to the biblical story of adam and eve why? Oh religion... You can fuck up minds like nothing else.
@Xenthoid Yay! The technicality guru has come and corrected my wording error! My eyes are opened! ... You really think I didn't know that or are you just trying to sound like a smart ass? The family 'Hominidae' is a branch of the superfamily 'Hominoidea' which all apes fall into and are even called 'great apes' as a synonym. You are spiliting hairs.
atheists and christians alike are incredibly obtuse in their interpretations of the bible.
honestly, i think if the original authors knew what brain-dead morons we'd devolve into, they'd have dumbed it down for our collective benefit.
the truth is we arrogantly underestimate the intellect of the ancients. hell, we don't even know how the pyramids were built or why....or even when (2560 BC? uh, no. try 10000 BC)
both the pyramids and the bible are relics from a superior breed of man.
@tristbjorn like i said: obtuse. like a block of wood, you are.
when an idiot sees a picasso painting as just 'a buncha squigly lines', that says more about the idiot than the painting. similiarly when someone sees one of the most esoteric and psychologically insightful texts in human history as 'magical fairy tales'.
look up this fact: the human brain has been shrinking for the past 10 000 years. draw your own conclusion, though i'm betting you'll draw the wrong one.
u = dumbdumb, small brain. think is smart than everyone, but not. much like child. know nothing, think know everything. not even know what "god" mean. think he old man in cloud rofl fail
people long b4u, write big confusing book and build things 2 last many moons = smartsmart, bigger brain, humble before wise God. like famous smartsmart Socrates say: "you say i am wise, but i tell you only God is wise"
Even if this was proven true, he would still have to write another book explaining how Noah and his family didn't commit incest after the flood that killed every other human.
There's someone who believes in evolution on Fox? I laughed so hard when he answers her retard question at 3:34.
Also, people were a lot more intelligent in the past than is commonly thought. The pre-socratics were very early pre-cursors to the theory of evolution, especially in the fragmental writings we have of Anaximander (610-546 BC), but glimpses can be seen in Democritus (460-370 BC).
What a bunch of hogwash. Religion gets dumber every day. First of all, Adam and Eve were the first couple mentioned in the Bible and they lived approximately 6000 years ago according to the literal reading of the Bible. 25,000 years ago is not 6,000 years ago. Secondly, the mitochondrial Eve was the female ancestor, or common ancestor, of all modern day humans on their mother's side. It has nothing to do with Adam or Eve.
AMAZING!!! So there now were ppl before Adam. Hmmmm. But they were still made from clay and evolved. This monkey business is lucrative. It literally has no end.
RELIGION: 1.conclusion 2.we make processing 3.we made up facts to support this conclusion
SCIENCE: 1.facts 2.data processing 3.experiments 4.repeat of experiments 5.more data processing 6.science community testing your results 7.then if everyone come to the same results we have a theory
i prefer science fellows!it has more responsibility!whats your opinion?
No scientists think that life came from clay. Anyone who thinks that doesn't understand clay or life. Scientist believe that ancient organisms originated and evolved in the oceans!
@sclf Like I said: no SCIENTISTS believe we came from clay. Even if you just use the atoms from clay, not even the molecules, you cannot make a living thing.
I could go on more than I have but I hope I have made my point.
Religion can be used for many positive moral values, although it can be reasoned we would have reached that anyway without it. But it is also used to justify really questionable ones too. You simply cannot have one without the other.
In Arizona, Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at a hospital, authorized a legal abortion to save the life of a 27-year-old mother of 4 who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from severe complications of pulmonary hypertension. The decision was made after consultation with the mother’s family, her doctors and the local ethics committee. But the bishop , Thomas Olmsted, excommunicated Sister Margaret, saying, “The mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s.” WTF is that?!
The astonishing thing to me is that even very important religious figures have made, to me, really disgusting decisions in their beliefs.
When a reporter attended the keynote address of a representative of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences' , the reporter asked how he reconciled his own views about science with the activities of the Church, from false claims about condoms and AIDS in Africa to pedophilia among the clergy, he was denounced by one speaker after another for intolerance.
Simply saying, 'Your argument is flawed. It is God's will. It needs no explanation' is not a good argument if you claim to be a biblical follower and cannot even reference one passage in the bible to justify it.
I think it is quite telling that the religious population as a whole appears to have not even read the bible, the source of their beliefs. I actually have a great deal of respect for people who do the work for their faith by at least reading the text. You can keep the church out of it and interpreting the bible is a whole other issue. But to have least read it is the basic issue here. If you read it and can find passages from it to explain your beliefs, that really makes you stand out.
Now I wouldn't call myself an atheist exactly. I do not claim that God doesn't exist. I just claim that I am not convinced he does or not if the bible, written by people from 2000 years ago would had no concept of some of the very basic understandings of the natural world, is the only source of information on the topic.
Stepping further, 44% of Catholics "rarely or never" read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible.
Many Americans report that they would like to learn more about the Bible. 35% say they are "very interested" in deepening their understanding of the Bible and 40% say they are "somewhat interested." 24% of respondents report no interest in learning more about the Bible. Those who report the highest levels of interest in the Bible include women and people from the southern part of the United States.
65% of Americans agree that the Bible "answers all or most of the basic questions of life." But half of people who believe this about the Bible read it at least weekly. 28% of those who agree with this say they rarely or never read the Bible. Those with more education are less likely to think that the Bible is a comprehensive guide to life than are the less educated.
About one American in seven reports an involvement that goes beyond reading the Bible. 14% currently belong to a Bible study group. In terms of frequency of readership, 16% of Americans say that they read the Bible every day, 21% say they read it weekly, 12% say they read the Bible monthly, 10% say less than monthly and 41% say that they rarely or never read the Bible.
In a Gallup poll, 59% of polled Americans read the Bible at least one occasion, with the most likely readers being women, non-whites, older people, Republicans, and political conservatives. Readership declined from the 1980s overall, from 73% to 59%. The percentage of those who read the Bible at least once a week has decreased over the last decade, from 40% in 1990 to 37%.
Looking at some comments and I want to interject with statisics about the regular average, everyday religious person.
In a poll among Christians in America, and this poll was conducted by a biblical organization, they found that the lack of biblical literacy in America is at epidemic levels.
35% of born-again Christians do not read the Bible at all. In addition, among those who say they read the Bible, the vast majority only read it during the one hour they attend church each Sunday morning.
christianity is a far simpler view than evolution is. Evolution is a highly complex science, while it only takes a 5 year old to understand magic stories like creation.
This is a prime example of religion fighting science for centuries, then when it has lost all arguments, tries to wrangle its way in and give god all the credit for stuff that only the scientific method could have ever accomplished. So annoying.
@rossini55 No, the idea that evolution and divine creation are mutually exclusive is wrong. The enabler of education, be it religion or science, is communication. It is naïve to believe that early man could understand the complexity of evolution and that the Creator would explain it in modern day context.
@daurigl Evolution and 'divine creation' as claimed in the bible ARE mutually exclusive. They CANNOT be reconciled. They have 2 totally different accounts. God could at least have attempted to say that the earth is 4.5bn years old, and that animals changed over vast periods of time, and they are all related to a common ancestor, that isnt too difficult to explain is it? Even a bronze age man could grasp the basics. But No, god went with the Adam & Eve story. God failed big time. Sorry.
Actually if you're going by the ludicrous genesis account of man being spontaneously magicked into existence alongisd the planets, stars, plants and animals and everything else, then yes Evolution and Creationism most certainly are mutually exclusive. Especially since most Creationists believe the earth is a few thousand years old, something we know for a fact is not true.
So there were people on this earth 25,000 years before god created Adam & Eve? How come the 'infallible' god of the bible forgot he'd already created them when telling the garden of eden lie?
And now we hear (without any supporting scientific evidence, of course) that CLAY has magical creationist properties! The doctor sounds to me like just another believer trying to worm out of answering a difficult question by moving the goalposts, and making stuff up as he goes along...
If god really was simply trying to speak in a language the early people understood, how come he did so in a way that all the animals were already created before the creation of man out of clay began? It's not the most glaring inconsistency in the account, but still a noteworthy one...
I think i've just been mind fucked O.o pardon my language...this is more confusing than Calculus. Just say we don't fucking know! how hard is that..smh
It's always fun watching a creationist try to mix magic with science when they don't have a good understanding of the science that they are using to support the case. It always gets them tangled up in their web of stupidity so that finally at the end they they don't know up from down.
The doctor did GREAT UNTIL he got to "God took Adam and Eve to lead humanity as the first two modern humans. That statement is the beginning of the doctor's FAIL. Theists are the MASTERS of moving the goal posts around.
And it isn't preordained or guaranteed to happen. You have to appreciate that when the environment changes and all bar a mutated strain of that organism can't survive, then they simply die out. 99% of all life that has existed in earths history is extinct. What is left is a miniscule portion. It's certainly not all fun and games.
It isn't just that there's no evidence for outside interference; it's that there's no need for it at all. Evolution works. Occams Razor.
@Vire70 Just as creationism can "work". There's every bit of verifying evidence out there for creationism as there is for evolution. The difference is that if you're an atheist, you're not looking for creationism proof, you're look for contradictions and/or evolutionary proof. The problem with that is the proof for both is biased, and so the only "truth" there is is what you believe to be true...what makes the most sense to you.
The problem is creationism relies on endless fallacious leaps in logic. I don't really want to get into it because I could write a book about it (and many have) and youtube doesn't give me enough room. The point is though that evolution works. It's a primary base of modern biology. It's used by researchers to advance medicine and biological research. Anyone who seriously studies the subject cannot deny it. It's true there's bias, but objective facts dont lie.
@Vire70 No facts are completely objective...for that to be so, there would need to be a person verifying these facts that literally has no emotions or moral compass one way or the other. All "facts" - whether religious, scientific, or otherwise - are biased. But here's something found by a scientist that has yet to be disproven. youtube. com/watch?v=z4UK1UaOsRc Watch the entire video before commenting please and try to explain.
You're wrong. The point of 'facts' are to divorce them from human bias/perception. Something like 2+2=4 is undeniably true. Likewise 'this theory clearly explains phenomena that aids science' is something that applies to evolution. It is a fact, divorced from human judgement, because we can simply look at the end results.
Moreover, like most Christian fallacies, I need not explain polonium halos because someone better has already refuted it;
@Vire70 Perhaps, but the end results are iterpreted quite differently from person to person, and thus lies bias. Mathematics are hard and concrete...it is not a science, it is arithmetic dealing with non-changing, universal variables that have been irefutably "proven", not theorized. Science will always be biased, as are most "facts" in the world not related to an obviously observable, such as "we are born, we live, and our body dies." Can't be argued. The rest can always, because of bias.
You're trying too hard to dismiss it. What is the point? Everyone in the world with any credibility in science accepts evolution because it consistently fits what we see in biology in every way. Quite literally the only people you see disagreeing with that are incredibly biased individuals who are trying to push their agenda, which is generally something to do with religion. Evolution has nothing to do with religion, it just happens to discredit it. It's like (continued)
it's like dismissing astronomical findings because they don't support your preconceived notion that the earth is the center of the universe. In actual fact that is exactly what religious people did for a long time. They ignored evidence and the blatant reality simply because they had some other hunch that didn't agree with it. The exact same is happening with evolution. I guarantee you every bit of 'evidence' or support for creationism you can find, I can refute.
@Vire70 Just as I can explain the findings of evolution. Faith is the basis for Christianity, and as I said before faith is believing in something you know - feel in your bones and soul - is right, even when you're told you're wrong. There are plenty of "credible" scientists out there that are Christian, and while they agree there is credibility in the belief of evolution, "the Big Bang", and others, they also realize that things don't add up. {continued}
Really? I've never seen/read about a single credible scientist who dismisses evolution. It is, in every case without fail, a case of overly biased individuals with a highly religious background who dismiss evolution because it contradicts their preconceived beliefs. Think about it; how many non-religious individuals have you come across who think evolution is nonsense? None, that's how many.
Einstein quote mining is unimpressive. Religion suppresses Science at every chance.
@Vire70 The only reason that an athiest leans on evolution is because there is no other way to explain what happened if there is no God. And since most evolutionists are athiests before they come across evolution, they have it as the end-all be-all of existence. An athiest says "because there is no God, evolution is the only possible conclusion." Not "because evolution is the only possible path, there is no God." No one has come across evolution and stopped believing in God. {continued}
Going to have to disagree. Whilst I don't know anyone personally, I'm sure people have seriously questioned their religion due to evolution. And not just evolution but other Science too.
Likewise most people who accept evolution aren't atheists. Nor were they atheists when they accepted it. Certainly, amongst atheists almost all believe evolution is true, but that is due to our standards of evidence, not because we need an explanation.(continued)
@Vire70 The truth of the matter is that if your evidence and the theory of evolution is so set in stone, then why do these debates still go on in the world? After all, a theory is only a belief in what happened based on your interpretations of observations and findings. Who's to say those aren't biased? Is a human involved? Then it's biased. If evolution were irefutable, there would be no religion, there would be no spirituality because everything could be explained with solid proof.
Why do these debates go on? Because people like you are incapable of divorcing yourself from bias long enough to see reality as it actually is. It is actively utilised in Science every day all around the world. Of Biologists, the people who actually study the subject in question, over 99% accept it.
Evolution is irrefutable; the reason there is still religion is because theists are deaf dumb and blind when it comes to contrary views. As you well demonstrate.
@Vire70 Athiests look to suppress religion at ever possible chance. We can go on and on, but the point is that everything you can say "theists" do, so do athiests. You say we deny science? I don't agree, but you deny God. You say a religious scientist isn't credible? I say one that belives accidents led to all existence is not credible. You believe religion is biased? Look how strongly you hold onto your own athiest beliefs. {continued}
You say 'atheist beliefs', showing you still misunderstand. Atheism is not a belief system. It is a REJECTION of YOUR theist belief system.
And yes, atheists try to suppress religion. Because it is an illogical system of thought that perverts human kind in their youth, who grow up to spread irrational policies that detriment society.
You keep speaking about 'accidents'. Guess what? Accidents don't exist. Things happen because of a physical causal chain. It's not magic.
@Vire70 An athiest "believes" that there is no God, believes that evolution is the only way, believes that we live, we die, and nothing happens. Atheism is a belief in itself whether you like it or not. In quite a few ways, it is a religion, except that it deals with no heavenly dieties...only science.
No, atheists don't believe there IS a god. It is not an active belief, in the same way as being bald isn't a hair style. It's a lack thereof. You wouldn't say you have an active belief that concepts you've never learned about are right/wrong, yes? It's the same thing.
Likewise none of the other things you attribute to atheism are correct; they are common in atheists but it is by no means a result of atheism. It's mostly a result of logic.
@Vire70 Also, you say theism is illogical? That seems rather biased. You are weighing how logical my belief is against your own belief. Theism is only illogical to someone who denies it, which then negates your belief that it is illogical because of bias. As far as the policies, how is it detriment to society? Don't murder? Respect your parents/elders? Don't steal? I kinda figured those were good things...
I say it is illogical because it meets no standards of evidence to confirm its validity; therefore believing in it is equal to believing that any fantasy you could imagine is equally true, which is pure nonsense. You can deny that all you like but I have personally examined hundreds of theists claims of evidence for their god and in every case it has been something completely ridiculous; prophecies, personal testimony, fallacies galore, etc.
If evolution was contradicted I, and every other atheist I know, would abandon it and simply acknowledge that we don't know how life began. Now, that is impossible, because Evolution has rock solid evidence in favor of it - it's not unstable enough to 'simply be wrong'. But even if it WERE, "goddidit" would NEVER, under ANY circumstances, EVER be a satisfactory answer. It explains exactly NOTHING. It's a non-answer, a place-holder for real knowledge.
@Vire70 "goddidit" is completely satisfactory for someone who believes in him. Everything is explained in our religious texts, and reinforced by what we observe and find in the world. For an athiest it's not, because you refuse to see or feel what we do.
Goddidit shouldn't be an satisfactory explanation even for those who believe in a God, because as I said it explains exactly nothing. You learn nothing from that answer. It has no practical benefit to human society. It even actively disinclines people from seeking the real answer; thus is anti-intellectual in nature. It doesn't tell you how, why, or even when such a thing happened. You can't demonstrate it, study it, etc. It is fundamentally useless on every level.
@Vire70 Sorry, but you can't and won't "win" here, and neither will I. The fact of the matter is that a Christian - such as myself - has seen and experienced things that you refuse to. That is why I believe. I see evolution and judge by what I've felt and seen just in my short life. Evolution is inconclusive, just as you think belief in a diety is. Also, on the most basic level, who has more to lose? If you're right, we die, and nothing happens. If I'm right, you go to hell, and I do not.
I'm well aware that I won't convince you. Theists like you are beyond that point, unfortunately. But perchance others will read our little debate and be swayed. Or not; either way, I find these debates amusing and they help me practice my debating skills.
You can continue calling Evolution inconclusive; that's fine, since by now I'm certain you have almost no understanding of the topic.
Oh, and you followed up with pascals wager; a common fallacy employed by theists.
@Vire70 I'm beyond the point of convincing because I know many things you don't about life, and your simplistic devotion to science without spirituality has blinded you to them. Your debating skills are on par with a child's "no it isn't; yes it is" as you probably think mine is. The truth of the matter is that there is much more to experience that you could never find in a book, but you've denied yourself that. Pascal's Wager is employed often because it is quite a wager.
Pascals wager is employed by the gratuitously ignorant who spew the fallacies of their forefathers. It is an entirely worthless argument that has been debunked a hundred times over, like every other major argument theists have. That doesn't stop them, and you, from employing it time and time again of course, because you people are just incapable of learning anything that's uncomfortable to you. It's a game of repeated denial, because reality HAS to be comfortable, apparently.
@Vire70 I'm perfectly capable of learning anything and everything, if it makes sense. You on the other hand fit into the uncomfortable learner seat. You seem to like to fit everything into a tight little box where everything has rules that you can learn and are concrete. That has never, will never be what existence is. Also, the "heaven and hell argument" can never be debunked. No one can come back once dead, so someone like you can never know that it doesn't exist.
That is your opinion. Scientists, the people responsible for medicine, engineering, better general quality of life, etc, would probably disagree. I think results speak more highly than your paltry 'feelings' ever will, so your opinion on the matter really means less than nothing to me.
The heaven and hell argument, pascals wager, is absolutely laughable. That you think it is convincing only demonstrates your own inability to learn anything uncomfortable. Go look it up.
@Vire70 If existence were set on rules that could be learned and were constant, everything could be explained. The fact of the matter is that there are many many things that cannot be explained. Leaps in logic that make no sense. In my sad defunct little Christian life, I've seen "fallicies" that we often describe as miracles. Through faith, I've seen a parapalegic get up and walk. Where's your explanation for that? There isn't one in science, because medically it's impossible. {continued
Let me ask you, regarding these so called medical miracles. Have you ever seen something completely escaping interpretation and bias? There's an atheist website/forum dedicated to this issue, called Why Wont God Heal Amputees. Basically, of any 'miracle' you come across they are always invariably something that can happen naturally. Medical remission does happen. I don't know about a paraplegic walking, but did you ever question as to whether they really were? You just accept
@Vire70 Furthermore, Pascal's Wager is laughable to someone who doesn't believe in such out-of-body existence, which to me is laughable. My observation is that atheists don't want to be responsible for things they do in this life...that there's no final consequences. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what all atheist beliefs seem to point to. If there is no heaven or hell, nothing you do on earth matters. You can murder, rape, and steal and there are no ultimate consequences. {continued}
No, Pascals wager is laughable to anyone with a brain and the ability to use Google. Apparently one of those you lack, seeing as you clearly ignored my request to go and look it up. Since apparently I do have to do everything in this conversation, here;
rationalwiki(dot)org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
Atheists are the opposite of your assumption. We are the only ones responsible for our actions. Even if your derisive misinterpretation of our morals was accurate; So? Reality !=comfort
@brosephstalin87 Also regarding your attack on atheists for having no morals. First, some facts;
Atheists proportionally are far fewer in prisons and committing crimes. Atheists divorce less, commit fewer crimes, are proportionally more educated than the religious, etc.
Furthermore Christianity suffers the exact same problems as Atheism does regarding morality. Yes, you're accountable. Up until you use the magical loophole Christianity provides by simply being 'forgiven' by god, for no reason.
@Vire70 I never said atheists have no morals. What I said is that to you, there's no ultimate consequence for any bad things you may have done. Say you kill someone. Maybe you feel bad, maybe you don't, and then you die. What happens? For an atheist, you believe that when you're dead, you're dead. There's nothing else that can happen to you. Also as far as forgiveness goes, there's nothing "magical" about it. It can't be got by just anyone. {continued}
You impled there was no reason for athiests to be moral. What you don't understand is that consequences happen here, in reality. Just because we don't have the threat of fantasy land afterlife doesn't make us amoral. This can be seen by the lack of criminality amongst atheists; they are in fact less likely to commit crimes, because we value the sole life that we have.
So no, there's no magical justice system. But there's no need. And yes anyone can be forgiven in christianity
@Vire70 As far as your statistics, they are biased and inaccurate. Atheists are fewer in prison's because often a person "finds God" in a situation like that. Atheists divorce less because less of them get married. They are said to commit fewer crimes because less of them get caught because they don't have that feeling that God is watching what they're doing, and so don't get as nervous when committing said crimes. Also, "educated" is a matter of perspective.
All wrong as usual. Atheists are fewer in prisons, probably mostly as a result of being higher educated. There's a direct correlation between education, atheism, and lack of criminality. Likewise the most atrocious places on the planet are the most religious, and uneducated. And no, education is not a matter of opinion at all.
Likewise the proportionality of theist versus atheist in prisons accounts for those who have converted inside. They're still -far- lower.
@Vire70 There's a perspective for everything - good and evil, right and wrong, and educated and uneducated. I understand the different sciences in the world and how they work. However unlike you, I know that this life is fleeting, as is this world. Because fo that, I tend to devote more of my time to religious aspects than I do things of this world, simply because this world will pass on. If you truly believe that this life is all there is to existence, then you're a fool. {continued}
Exactly. You think this life is just a stop on the ladder. It's inconsequential. It is for exactly that reason that the religious frequently do insane and bizarre actions that endanger their own lives, because their lives mean nothing to them; how can they, when their holy text tells them otherwise. It's things like that, amongst others, that makes religion so dangerous and insane. Christians look forward to death/apocalypse... atheists look forward to a technological utopia.
@Vire70 Christians do not look forward to death. That is a common misconception. We look forward to our reward of an ideal spiritual utopia, commonly called heaven. When our time to die has come, it's our time, but we are in no hurry. An atheist will point out the radicals, and they do exist in every culture, religion, and ethnicity. The fact of the matter is that most Christians are not like that, and this life can mean everything, because it decides your fate when your body dies.
Most Christians are not like that because they only care about religion to the extent that it benefits them. It's why cookie-cutter Christianity has become so dominant in modern society; people get to pick and choose their bible verses and interpret anything anyway they want. They make their own religion, not hard with a book as enormously ambiguous as the bible.
@Vire70 Furthermore, in layman's terms, this life is just a stop on the ladder. After this life ends, eternity begins. So when I say this life is fleeting, that's why. Your idealistic technological utopia may exist...for a time. Nothing of this earth lasts forever, least of all anything made by man. An apocalypse of some type will come, make no mistake, may it be by man's hands or God's.
@Vire70 As to be expected, because you are so focused on the proven facts, and your own comfort, you've missed out on the important things to this short life. I can only hope that maybe one day you'll see the truth, or you'll be very very disappointed when your body dies and you find out that things don't just end. The fact of the matter is that I know and see something you won't, and you'll never see or feel that until you stop denying yourself the proof that you claim doesn't exist.
@Vire70 What sense does that make? That everything we are, everything that we've ever done just disappears when we die? Umm no...you and any other person that believes that is sadly mistaken. I have my proof that there is a God, that there is truth in faith, and that there's a reason everything all around us is happening. Prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled for example. And not vague ones, exact details. Explanation? You can't explain that. Try. I challenge you.
Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge regarding the subject. The reasoning behind Pascals Wagers failure has nothing whatsoever to do with the atheists thought that most likely no afterlife exists. It is entirely due to the subjective and unverified nature of the argument. I'm not going to baby you; Go. Look. It. Up!
As for prophecies, dont make me laugh. I've encountered this nonsense dozens of times over and EVERY prophecy without fail is laughably ambiguous and nonsensical. They, like most everything else in the bible, are up to interpretation. Christians are simply doing the exact same thing they, and the Muslims, do with the so called scientific knowledge in the bible/koran. They realize event X in RL has some slim resemblance to event Y in their book, then twist and twist.
@Vire70 Really now? Ambiguous you say? Well there are prophecies on mass dieoff of wildlife with no explanation, of false idols and prophets, and even the world rising up against man. With all that has been happening, there is nothing ambiguous about it. It's direct and accurate. Leave it to an atheist to try to get the last word with your small bit of understanding of existence. That's fine, you have and will miss out on most of what life is. You're right, ignorance is bliss. :)
Amusing. You use your complete ignorance of the natural events of our planet to support your claims. Prophecies predict mass die offs? Well guess what; WE are causing mass die offs. Not to mention things like huge numbers of fish dying in areas isn't very unusual at all, it happened in the past too. It's stuff like this which makes prophecy so laughable. Likewise, false idols and prophets? People predicted that before your precious religion was even conceived!
@Vire70 Your notion that human beings could cause something like mass wildlife dieoffs by themselves is laughable. And it's people like you that reinforce the notion that devout atheists are truly oblivious to their own idiocy. But fine...go ahead and think that. Without my "precious religion", the terms false idols and false prophets would never have come around, fool. I knew you would show your true side soon enough. You're not nearly as educated as you seem to think you are.
@Vire70 There's people just like you in every creed and religion, and they always pride themselves on being the counterargumentative and educated. The truth is far more grim, as your stupidity and obliviousness makes you dangerous to everyone in your life, and you don't even know it. The fact that your an atheist makes it worse, because you convince weak-willed people that everything that is and has ever been is because of chemical mistakes or because of man, which is a lie.
/yawn. A lie supported by mountains of evidence and logic. Yes, I do think I'm pretty educated. In some respects at least. I mean, encountering people like you constantly reinforces that sentiment. I actually had far greater expectations and respect for general human intelligence up until beginning debates with the religious; you have thoroughly disillusioned me.
Like I said, I tire of this. You are a stagnant fool incapable of logic. Enjoy your ignorance, it's all you have.
@Vire70 At least I know when I'm ignorant of something, it's called humility. It's something we Christians practice. You delude yourself into believing you actually know something when you don't. And who's the stagnant fool? Lol...I know all about science, physics, and history. My belief refutes the bits that claim science without God. You are the one that denies belief that there could be a God, because there's a chance your entire belief system would be refuted. Go look in the mirror.
@Vire70 But whatever...you're just one of those people who are oblivious of their own ignorance, and convice yourself of things that make no sense in a sane world. Psychologists call that a form of psychosis, I believe. Nonetheless every time you claim that something happened scientifically, but God was not involved, you show idiocy, not knowledge, and ignorance of your own lack therof. It's true, ignorance is bliss, so I'll allow you to keep believing in your Godless paradise.
@Vire70 Evolution has its place. It's true that animals have evolved over time to best cope with the environment in which they live. However, the mutations are not by chance. There is something greater than you, or I, or your tight grip on what you believe to be existence that is guiding said changes. Of course atheists like you could never understand that, because you refuse to believe in anything that doesn't fit neatly into your mind.
I give up on this tedious conversation. Like most theists you are simply beyond the grasp of logic. No matter that Evolution is a rocksolid undeniable scientific theory, or that you conversely have absolutely zero evidence for your own 'conclusions', it doesn't matter because you've made it obvious that evidence is nothing to you. What matters to you clearly is that you're happy and feel good, like most of the deluded in the world. Well, enjoy that. They say ignorance is bliss.
@Vire70 Even Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, relgion without science is blind." You don't have to choose one or the other. Through religion, evolution can be explained with detail, and the reason for the findings - just as science can explain why "the moon will be as blood" and "the seas will run as blood"...lunar eclipse and the "red tide" algal bloom. What I don't understand is why someone who is obviously educated can't see that. They go together, as they were meant to.
And how do you know all that Dr. Ahmed? I bet he's doing it only for money. Hehe, she is just fabulous saying 'do we really need that? why not just take the bible literally?' Pure stupidiyt in its finest.
Pancake505 3 days ago
I've heard and read these arguments in my lifetime. Science has demonstrated a methodology to examine, model, test, predict and explain the natural universe; with the tenet that new things will be discovered allowing new ideas to emerge. Religion is the commitment that all being is manifested from the will of ultimate divinity containing the past,present and future. It is demonstrated that their are people who can live and understand both views; living in the best of all possible worlds.
granddad2002 1 week ago
@Vampyrekai regardless if you consider it split hairs or not. When you said humans evolved for apes... was simply wrong. Get over it.
Xenthoid 1 week ago
Why did he call Cro-magnon a pre-human
Xenthoid 2 weeks ago
Plus, there are books which are left out of the Bible just because the church does not accept them.
Topazman12 2 weeks ago
Wait, what? Clay can reproduce itself? Where did Kutty get his doctorate from again?
I'm having a real hard time taking this guy seriously.
FrankLightheart 3 weeks ago
Maybe you came from monkey ,but not me
nhendrych 3 weeks ago
@nhendrych No, you came from dirt. Haven't made much progress, have you?
dorsk188 1 week ago
I have never seen someone who has so many facts and not able to make the proper connections.
Slotzan 1 month ago
Maybe he should have written his theory on an index card or a paper before he started stammering through this half-baked interview.
Montesama314 1 month ago
So this guy is trying to say that Adam is the first human, but he and Eve are not the first "human", that there was a non-developed version before him.
We had sex with animals, or some version of man that God hid the whole time, then?
Well, they sure forgot to write all THAT in the Bible's book of Genesis...
Or could it be that you're just pulling this theory out of your ass?
Montesama314 1 month ago
Christians have no shame, even when it is blatantly obvious that their argument is unsustainable. They go and pull some nonsense out of their butts. If God only made Adam and Eve, as it states in the scriptures, there were no people made before Adam and Eve for their offspring to marry.
The only logical answer to human procreation if one believes the creation story, is incest.
Not some humans that God created and stowed away for when it is time to procreate.
Then again, I am using "LOGIC."
gorillabang79 1 month ago
Yes, but Christians believe that the world is only "6000 years" old...
MADMANx511 1 month ago
if that guys gets a Ph'd for that it makes Ph'ds a fucking joke
ubernagash 1 month ago
I think he said,"Blessed are the cheese-makers."
pytko3 1 month ago
is this a joke?
iSniPe4FuN 1 month ago
Depends on the translation. Adam and Eve could be a word for 2 nations. Cain and Abel could be 2 new nations, when the Cain nation destroyed Abel civilization. The God head labeled them with karma mark. Today's interpretation is all wrong.
Topazman12 1 month ago
@Topazman12 Maybe God should work on his communication skills.
Smithpolly 1 month ago
Human DNA 25,000 years ago? I thought the bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old? ha! bullshit..
P90XWEEKLY 1 month ago
@P90XWEEKLY It doesn't say 6,000 years old that's some peoples interpretation.
smoovemillions 1 month ago
And he is a DR, people seize to amaze me.
vancarbus 1 month ago
who is this clown ? the Book of Jubilees (a jewish sacred book) explains that Cain married his sister Awan before he killed Abel and was cast out. Eve the begat Seth when she was 130 years old and then she had Azura 6 years later. Seth married Azura and had many children, of which eventually descended Noah, Abraham's (Ibrahim for muslims) grandfather.
zaxxxon 1 month ago
This might take the prize for most retarded religious argument on Youtube.....and THAT is really saying something.
damnbigfish 1 month ago
this is the sort of useless mental twisting and turning you have to perform when you commit yourself to a belief that isn't based in evidence.
Richy15251 1 month ago
bible says adam and eve were the first people on earth, this idiot says there were people before them, therefore the bible is right, WTF
MsAwesomeasian 1 month ago
Of what exactly is this moron a doctor? Shouldn't someone be checking his qualifications?
mikelheron20 1 month ago
Even if they did commit incest, humans could not have survived more than a couple of generations through inbreeding before deformities kicked in, not to mention becoming sterile. Adam and Eve is just hilarious.
DEREKSEA1 1 month ago
wait...so the descendents of adam and eve never committed incest because there were humans before adam and the bible's creation story isn't real?
ewhite3746 1 month ago
Wow... this was just too hard to watch.. Really sad actually.
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen I tell you, This guy is completely nuts, Adam and Eve's kids married from the existing population. he's the craziest christian ever.
604maximus12 1 month ago
This guy is representing a pantheist approach to religion. If everyone had this guy's views there wouldn't actually be an issue with religion in the world. People with his views acknowledge that religious scriptures aren't to be taken literally and are a set of stories some of which have been misinterperated over the years, some were symbolic, some will have just been made up. The problem occurs when a fox news anchor comes along and says something stupid like 'Science proves existence of God!"
TomMackio 1 month ago
Why does it matter? If there are only two humans and they have kids who cares if they have incest? It does not matter. They survived, we are here. Oh well :-)
0112358134711 2 months ago
Hilarious! Religious people resorting to pretending science can explain the flaws in their fairy tales. I laughed all the way through this. Gold!
smjltd 2 months ago 2
fuck this guy
420 videos
getatmegamer 2 months ago
WAIT...you believe in Adam and Eve...but you say there were human begins before Adam and Eve...but God created the Earth when created...How do you people believe this shit?
WyattsFreakinChannel 2 months ago
Obviously this man is under duress. He looks like someone's shocking his chair every two seconds. FREE AHMED KUTTY, YOU MONSTERS!
dorsk188 2 months ago
His science gibberish is all wrong by the way. Y-chromosomal "Adam" lived 142 000yrs ago and mitochondrial "Eve" lived 200 000 years ago. Jeez, why didn't he just look it up in wikipedia or something?
winterstellar 2 months ago
Never mind his religious gibberish, what's wrong with him? Is it parkinson's disease, or what is it, that constant twitching?
winterstellar 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wtf he's trying to prove the bible is accurate if taken literally, while saying the bible is inaccurate because it says adam and eve are the first people , the bible didn't say the first "fully developed" it said first people so this dude needs to stfu...
ayjaybay93 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he's clutching at straws that aren't even there, and i don't know why people try so hard to take the bible literally and use it as some sort of defense and excuse for mistreating ppl who have different views and lifestyles, and different beliefs because it's "what the Bible says."
ayjaybay93 2 months ago
Comment removed
ayjaybay93 2 months ago
Comment removed
ayjaybay93 2 months ago
So, this guy is saying people were evolving until god decided they were finished and perfect? I'm confused. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Danarchistic1 2 months ago
So... he accepts that evolution can explain how humanity evolved from apes... but he clings to the biblical story of adam and eve why? Oh religion... You can fuck up minds like nothing else.
Vampyrekai 2 months ago 10
@Vampyrekai Humans didn't evolve from apes. We evolved from hominids and Hominins.
Xenthoid 2 weeks ago
@Xenthoid Yay! The technicality guru has come and corrected my wording error! My eyes are opened! ... You really think I didn't know that or are you just trying to sound like a smart ass? The family 'Hominidae' is a branch of the superfamily 'Hominoidea' which all apes fall into and are even called 'great apes' as a synonym. You are spiliting hairs.
Vampyrekai 1 week ago
atheists and christians alike are incredibly obtuse in their interpretations of the bible.
honestly, i think if the original authors knew what brain-dead morons we'd devolve into, they'd have dumbed it down for our collective benefit.
the truth is we arrogantly underestimate the intellect of the ancients. hell, we don't even know how the pyramids were built or why....or even when (2560 BC? uh, no. try 10000 BC)
both the pyramids and the bible are relics from a superior breed of man.
eleutheromaniac 2 months ago
@eleutheromaniac the bible is dumbed down! It doesn't explain anything with anything besides magic. That's a dumbed down as it gets.
tristbjorn 2 months ago
@tristbjorn how do you figure that..
TheButtascotchbro1 2 months ago
@tristbjorn like i said: obtuse. like a block of wood, you are.
when an idiot sees a picasso painting as just 'a buncha squigly lines', that says more about the idiot than the painting. similiarly when someone sees one of the most esoteric and psychologically insightful texts in human history as 'magical fairy tales'.
look up this fact: the human brain has been shrinking for the past 10 000 years. draw your own conclusion, though i'm betting you'll draw the wrong one.
eleutheromaniac 2 months ago
@eleutheromaniac Please be coherent.
Graynumber 2 months ago
@Graynumber okay, me make more clear 4u.
u = dumbdumb, small brain. think is smart than everyone, but not. much like child. know nothing, think know everything. not even know what "god" mean. think he old man in cloud rofl fail
people long b4u, write big confusing book and build things 2 last many moons = smartsmart, bigger brain, humble before wise God. like famous smartsmart Socrates say: "you say i am wise, but i tell you only God is wise"
me clear or me need 2 dumb down more?
eleutheromaniac 2 months ago
@eleutheromaniac Yes please. The grammar and spelling were too exquisite for mine eyes.
Graynumber 2 months ago
Even if this was proven true, he would still have to write another book explaining how Noah and his family didn't commit incest after the flood that killed every other human.
FullMetalElectroma 2 months ago
So, god created people before creating light, planets, etc? Did he make this shit up on the spot lol?
goofydog07 2 months ago
@goofydog07 where do you get that from..people before light and the planets and things..
TheButtascotchbro1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's someone who believes in evolution on Fox? I laughed so hard when he answers her retard question at 3:34.
Also, people were a lot more intelligent in the past than is commonly thought. The pre-socratics were very early pre-cursors to the theory of evolution, especially in the fragmental writings we have of Anaximander (610-546 BC), but glimpses can be seen in Democritus (460-370 BC).
Monadshavenowindows 2 months ago
Comment removed
Monadshavenowindows 2 months ago
...
nait08 2 months ago
What a bunch of hogwash. Religion gets dumber every day. First of all, Adam and Eve were the first couple mentioned in the Bible and they lived approximately 6000 years ago according to the literal reading of the Bible. 25,000 years ago is not 6,000 years ago. Secondly, the mitochondrial Eve was the female ancestor, or common ancestor, of all modern day humans on their mother's side. It has nothing to do with Adam or Eve.
Nashhinton 2 months ago
And this children is how you change 5 days into 20 000 years...
18booma 2 months ago
never having read the bible, does it say that adam was the first man? probably just made this book to sell to idiots
RiotRanger 2 months ago
I'm not saying it was Aliens. But seriously Aliens?
SpiritofthePoor 2 months ago
Comment removed
joelz389 2 months ago
AMAZING!!! So there now were ppl before Adam. Hmmmm. But they were still made from clay and evolved. This monkey business is lucrative. It literally has no end.
commoncents78 2 months ago
RELIGION: 1.conclusion 2.we make processing 3.we made up facts to support this conclusion
SCIENCE: 1.facts 2.data processing 3.experiments 4.repeat of experiments 5.more data processing 6.science community testing your results 7.then if everyone come to the same results we have a theory
i prefer science fellows!it has more responsibility!whats your opinion?
manosFox 3 months ago
In the words of Monty Python's Life of Brian "Ohhhh He's making it up as he goes along.."!
RuudVanDrijver 3 months ago
So he is making something up to be more believable.what a bunch of crap!
msc8472 3 months ago
that's a furlee dovaluped human right there : /
MisterNickOtine 3 months ago
No scientists think that life came from clay. Anyone who thinks that doesn't understand clay or life. Scientist believe that ancient organisms originated and evolved in the oceans!
BrandonSchleifer 3 months ago
@BrandonSchleifer Christians belive we came from clay.
sclf 3 months ago
@sclf Like I said: no SCIENTISTS believe we came from clay. Even if you just use the atoms from clay, not even the molecules, you cannot make a living thing.
BrandonSchleifer 3 months ago
If religious people don't like their beliefs being laughed at then they should not have such hysterical beliefs.
directtalk1 3 months ago 21
I could go on more than I have but I hope I have made my point.
Religion can be used for many positive moral values, although it can be reasoned we would have reached that anyway without it. But it is also used to justify really questionable ones too. You simply cannot have one without the other.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
In Arizona, Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at a hospital, authorized a legal abortion to save the life of a 27-year-old mother of 4 who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from severe complications of pulmonary hypertension. The decision was made after consultation with the mother’s family, her doctors and the local ethics committee. But the bishop , Thomas Olmsted, excommunicated Sister Margaret, saying, “The mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s.” WTF is that?!
cloudstone123 3 months ago
The astonishing thing to me is that even very important religious figures have made, to me, really disgusting decisions in their beliefs.
When a reporter attended the keynote address of a representative of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences' , the reporter asked how he reconciled his own views about science with the activities of the Church, from false claims about condoms and AIDS in Africa to pedophilia among the clergy, he was denounced by one speaker after another for intolerance.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
Simply saying, 'Your argument is flawed. It is God's will. It needs no explanation' is not a good argument if you claim to be a biblical follower and cannot even reference one passage in the bible to justify it.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
I think it is quite telling that the religious population as a whole appears to have not even read the bible, the source of their beliefs. I actually have a great deal of respect for people who do the work for their faith by at least reading the text. You can keep the church out of it and interpreting the bible is a whole other issue. But to have least read it is the basic issue here. If you read it and can find passages from it to explain your beliefs, that really makes you stand out.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
Now I wouldn't call myself an atheist exactly. I do not claim that God doesn't exist. I just claim that I am not convinced he does or not if the bible, written by people from 2000 years ago would had no concept of some of the very basic understandings of the natural world, is the only source of information on the topic.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
Stepping further, 44% of Catholics "rarely or never" read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
Many Americans report that they would like to learn more about the Bible. 35% say they are "very interested" in deepening their understanding of the Bible and 40% say they are "somewhat interested." 24% of respondents report no interest in learning more about the Bible. Those who report the highest levels of interest in the Bible include women and people from the southern part of the United States.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
46% of those with a postgraduate degree say the Bible answers basic life questions, compared to 72% of those with a high school education or less.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
65% of Americans agree that the Bible "answers all or most of the basic questions of life." But half of people who believe this about the Bible read it at least weekly. 28% of those who agree with this say they rarely or never read the Bible. Those with more education are less likely to think that the Bible is a comprehensive guide to life than are the less educated.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
About one American in seven reports an involvement that goes beyond reading the Bible. 14% currently belong to a Bible study group. In terms of frequency of readership, 16% of Americans say that they read the Bible every day, 21% say they read it weekly, 12% say they read the Bible monthly, 10% say less than monthly and 41% say that they rarely or never read the Bible.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
In a Gallup poll, 59% of polled Americans read the Bible at least one occasion, with the most likely readers being women, non-whites, older people, Republicans, and political conservatives. Readership declined from the 1980s overall, from 73% to 59%. The percentage of those who read the Bible at least once a week has decreased over the last decade, from 40% in 1990 to 37%.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
Looking at some comments and I want to interject with statisics about the regular average, everyday religious person.
In a poll among Christians in America, and this poll was conducted by a biblical organization, they found that the lack of biblical literacy in America is at epidemic levels.
35% of born-again Christians do not read the Bible at all. In addition, among those who say they read the Bible, the vast majority only read it during the one hour they attend church each Sunday morning.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
They fucked with the apes...
ApatheticOmniscience 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into buildings.
LOGICandREAS0N 3 months ago
well adam and eve never existed u fucking moron,it is nuthing but a ridiculous creation myth invented by bronze age camel herders
thescorpionking2020 3 months ago
christianity is a far simpler view than evolution is. Evolution is a highly complex science, while it only takes a 5 year old to understand magic stories like creation.
8698gil 3 months ago
This is a prime example of religion fighting science for centuries, then when it has lost all arguments, tries to wrangle its way in and give god all the credit for stuff that only the scientific method could have ever accomplished. So annoying.
rossini55 3 months ago 14
@rossini55 No, the idea that evolution and divine creation are mutually exclusive is wrong. The enabler of education, be it religion or science, is communication. It is naïve to believe that early man could understand the complexity of evolution and that the Creator would explain it in modern day context.
daurigl 3 months ago
@daurigl Evolution and 'divine creation' as claimed in the bible ARE mutually exclusive. They CANNOT be reconciled. They have 2 totally different accounts. God could at least have attempted to say that the earth is 4.5bn years old, and that animals changed over vast periods of time, and they are all related to a common ancestor, that isnt too difficult to explain is it? Even a bronze age man could grasp the basics. But No, god went with the Adam & Eve story. God failed big time. Sorry.
rossini55 3 months ago
@daurigl
Actually if you're going by the ludicrous genesis account of man being spontaneously magicked into existence alongisd the planets, stars, plants and animals and everything else, then yes Evolution and Creationism most certainly are mutually exclusive. Especially since most Creationists believe the earth is a few thousand years old, something we know for a fact is not true.
Vire70 3 months ago
So there were people on this earth 25,000 years before god created Adam & Eve? How come the 'infallible' god of the bible forgot he'd already created them when telling the garden of eden lie?
And now we hear (without any supporting scientific evidence, of course) that CLAY has magical creationist properties! The doctor sounds to me like just another believer trying to worm out of answering a difficult question by moving the goalposts, and making stuff up as he goes along...
GodsTalkingSnake 3 months ago 8
If god really was simply trying to speak in a language the early people understood, how come he did so in a way that all the animals were already created before the creation of man out of clay began? It's not the most glaring inconsistency in the account, but still a noteworthy one...
eshnajizzle 3 months ago
on the red corner... BROSEPHSTALIIIIIIIIIINNNN!!!!! and on the blue corner.... VIRE70........!!!!
koowilliams 3 months ago
@koowilliams Cool, a referee! Can I wear the purple trunks? Awesome!
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
I think i've just been mind fucked O.o pardon my language...this is more confusing than Calculus. Just say we don't fucking know! how hard is that..smh
jhiselebardot 3 months ago
If anything, his book suggests that the entire christian chronology is flawed.
DevLcL 3 months ago
It's always fun watching a creationist try to mix magic with science when they don't have a good understanding of the science that they are using to support the case. It always gets them tangled up in their web of stupidity so that finally at the end they they don't know up from down.
xynth101088 3 months ago
The doctor did GREAT UNTIL he got to "God took Adam and Eve to lead humanity as the first two modern humans. That statement is the beginning of the doctor's FAIL. Theists are the MASTERS of moving the goal posts around.
mythicalhell 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87 (continued)
And it isn't preordained or guaranteed to happen. You have to appreciate that when the environment changes and all bar a mutated strain of that organism can't survive, then they simply die out. 99% of all life that has existed in earths history is extinct. What is left is a miniscule portion. It's certainly not all fun and games.
It isn't just that there's no evidence for outside interference; it's that there's no need for it at all. Evolution works. Occams Razor.
Vire70 4 months ago
@Vire70 Just as creationism can "work". There's every bit of verifying evidence out there for creationism as there is for evolution. The difference is that if you're an atheist, you're not looking for creationism proof, you're look for contradictions and/or evolutionary proof. The problem with that is the proof for both is biased, and so the only "truth" there is is what you believe to be true...what makes the most sense to you.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
The problem is creationism relies on endless fallacious leaps in logic. I don't really want to get into it because I could write a book about it (and many have) and youtube doesn't give me enough room. The point is though that evolution works. It's a primary base of modern biology. It's used by researchers to advance medicine and biological research. Anyone who seriously studies the subject cannot deny it. It's true there's bias, but objective facts dont lie.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 No facts are completely objective...for that to be so, there would need to be a person verifying these facts that literally has no emotions or moral compass one way or the other. All "facts" - whether religious, scientific, or otherwise - are biased. But here's something found by a scientist that has yet to be disproven. youtube. com/watch?v=z4UK1UaOsRc Watch the entire video before commenting please and try to explain.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
You're wrong. The point of 'facts' are to divorce them from human bias/perception. Something like 2+2=4 is undeniably true. Likewise 'this theory clearly explains phenomena that aids science' is something that applies to evolution. It is a fact, divorced from human judgement, because we can simply look at the end results.
Moreover, like most Christian fallacies, I need not explain polonium halos because someone better has already refuted it;
tinyurl(dot)com/polanium
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Perhaps, but the end results are iterpreted quite differently from person to person, and thus lies bias. Mathematics are hard and concrete...it is not a science, it is arithmetic dealing with non-changing, universal variables that have been irefutably "proven", not theorized. Science will always be biased, as are most "facts" in the world not related to an obviously observable, such as "we are born, we live, and our body dies." Can't be argued. The rest can always, because of bias.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
You're trying too hard to dismiss it. What is the point? Everyone in the world with any credibility in science accepts evolution because it consistently fits what we see in biology in every way. Quite literally the only people you see disagreeing with that are incredibly biased individuals who are trying to push their agenda, which is generally something to do with religion. Evolution has nothing to do with religion, it just happens to discredit it. It's like (continued)
Vire70 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87 (continued)
it's like dismissing astronomical findings because they don't support your preconceived notion that the earth is the center of the universe. In actual fact that is exactly what religious people did for a long time. They ignored evidence and the blatant reality simply because they had some other hunch that didn't agree with it. The exact same is happening with evolution. I guarantee you every bit of 'evidence' or support for creationism you can find, I can refute.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Just as I can explain the findings of evolution. Faith is the basis for Christianity, and as I said before faith is believing in something you know - feel in your bones and soul - is right, even when you're told you're wrong. There are plenty of "credible" scientists out there that are Christian, and while they agree there is credibility in the belief of evolution, "the Big Bang", and others, they also realize that things don't add up. {continued}
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Really? I've never seen/read about a single credible scientist who dismisses evolution. It is, in every case without fail, a case of overly biased individuals with a highly religious background who dismiss evolution because it contradicts their preconceived beliefs. Think about it; how many non-religious individuals have you come across who think evolution is nonsense? None, that's how many.
Einstein quote mining is unimpressive. Religion suppresses Science at every chance.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 The only reason that an athiest leans on evolution is because there is no other way to explain what happened if there is no God. And since most evolutionists are athiests before they come across evolution, they have it as the end-all be-all of existence. An athiest says "because there is no God, evolution is the only possible conclusion." Not "because evolution is the only possible path, there is no God." No one has come across evolution and stopped believing in God. {continued}
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Going to have to disagree. Whilst I don't know anyone personally, I'm sure people have seriously questioned their religion due to evolution. And not just evolution but other Science too.
Likewise most people who accept evolution aren't atheists. Nor were they atheists when they accepted it. Certainly, amongst atheists almost all believe evolution is true, but that is due to our standards of evidence, not because we need an explanation.(continued)
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 The truth of the matter is that if your evidence and the theory of evolution is so set in stone, then why do these debates still go on in the world? After all, a theory is only a belief in what happened based on your interpretations of observations and findings. Who's to say those aren't biased? Is a human involved? Then it's biased. If evolution were irefutable, there would be no religion, there would be no spirituality because everything could be explained with solid proof.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Why do these debates go on? Because people like you are incapable of divorcing yourself from bias long enough to see reality as it actually is. It is actively utilised in Science every day all around the world. Of Biologists, the people who actually study the subject in question, over 99% accept it.
Evolution is irrefutable; the reason there is still religion is because theists are deaf dumb and blind when it comes to contrary views. As you well demonstrate.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Athiests look to suppress religion at ever possible chance. We can go on and on, but the point is that everything you can say "theists" do, so do athiests. You say we deny science? I don't agree, but you deny God. You say a religious scientist isn't credible? I say one that belives accidents led to all existence is not credible. You believe religion is biased? Look how strongly you hold onto your own athiest beliefs. {continued}
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
You say 'atheist beliefs', showing you still misunderstand. Atheism is not a belief system. It is a REJECTION of YOUR theist belief system.
And yes, atheists try to suppress religion. Because it is an illogical system of thought that perverts human kind in their youth, who grow up to spread irrational policies that detriment society.
You keep speaking about 'accidents'. Guess what? Accidents don't exist. Things happen because of a physical causal chain. It's not magic.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 An athiest "believes" that there is no God, believes that evolution is the only way, believes that we live, we die, and nothing happens. Atheism is a belief in itself whether you like it or not. In quite a few ways, it is a religion, except that it deals with no heavenly dieties...only science.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
No, atheists don't believe there IS a god. It is not an active belief, in the same way as being bald isn't a hair style. It's a lack thereof. You wouldn't say you have an active belief that concepts you've never learned about are right/wrong, yes? It's the same thing.
Likewise none of the other things you attribute to atheism are correct; they are common in atheists but it is by no means a result of atheism. It's mostly a result of logic.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Also, you say theism is illogical? That seems rather biased. You are weighing how logical my belief is against your own belief. Theism is only illogical to someone who denies it, which then negates your belief that it is illogical because of bias. As far as the policies, how is it detriment to society? Don't murder? Respect your parents/elders? Don't steal? I kinda figured those were good things...
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
I say it is illogical because it meets no standards of evidence to confirm its validity; therefore believing in it is equal to believing that any fantasy you could imagine is equally true, which is pure nonsense. You can deny that all you like but I have personally examined hundreds of theists claims of evidence for their god and in every case it has been something completely ridiculous; prophecies, personal testimony, fallacies galore, etc.
(continued)
Vire70 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87 (continued)
If evolution was contradicted I, and every other atheist I know, would abandon it and simply acknowledge that we don't know how life began. Now, that is impossible, because Evolution has rock solid evidence in favor of it - it's not unstable enough to 'simply be wrong'. But even if it WERE, "goddidit" would NEVER, under ANY circumstances, EVER be a satisfactory answer. It explains exactly NOTHING. It's a non-answer, a place-holder for real knowledge.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 "goddidit" is completely satisfactory for someone who believes in him. Everything is explained in our religious texts, and reinforced by what we observe and find in the world. For an athiest it's not, because you refuse to see or feel what we do.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Goddidit shouldn't be an satisfactory explanation even for those who believe in a God, because as I said it explains exactly nothing. You learn nothing from that answer. It has no practical benefit to human society. It even actively disinclines people from seeking the real answer; thus is anti-intellectual in nature. It doesn't tell you how, why, or even when such a thing happened. You can't demonstrate it, study it, etc. It is fundamentally useless on every level.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Sorry, but you can't and won't "win" here, and neither will I. The fact of the matter is that a Christian - such as myself - has seen and experienced things that you refuse to. That is why I believe. I see evolution and judge by what I've felt and seen just in my short life. Evolution is inconclusive, just as you think belief in a diety is. Also, on the most basic level, who has more to lose? If you're right, we die, and nothing happens. If I'm right, you go to hell, and I do not.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
I'm well aware that I won't convince you. Theists like you are beyond that point, unfortunately. But perchance others will read our little debate and be swayed. Or not; either way, I find these debates amusing and they help me practice my debating skills.
You can continue calling Evolution inconclusive; that's fine, since by now I'm certain you have almost no understanding of the topic.
Oh, and you followed up with pascals wager; a common fallacy employed by theists.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 I'm beyond the point of convincing because I know many things you don't about life, and your simplistic devotion to science without spirituality has blinded you to them. Your debating skills are on par with a child's "no it isn't; yes it is" as you probably think mine is. The truth of the matter is that there is much more to experience that you could never find in a book, but you've denied yourself that. Pascal's Wager is employed often because it is quite a wager.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Pascals wager is employed by the gratuitously ignorant who spew the fallacies of their forefathers. It is an entirely worthless argument that has been debunked a hundred times over, like every other major argument theists have. That doesn't stop them, and you, from employing it time and time again of course, because you people are just incapable of learning anything that's uncomfortable to you. It's a game of repeated denial, because reality HAS to be comfortable, apparently.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 I'm perfectly capable of learning anything and everything, if it makes sense. You on the other hand fit into the uncomfortable learner seat. You seem to like to fit everything into a tight little box where everything has rules that you can learn and are concrete. That has never, will never be what existence is. Also, the "heaven and hell argument" can never be debunked. No one can come back once dead, so someone like you can never know that it doesn't exist.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
That is your opinion. Scientists, the people responsible for medicine, engineering, better general quality of life, etc, would probably disagree. I think results speak more highly than your paltry 'feelings' ever will, so your opinion on the matter really means less than nothing to me.
The heaven and hell argument, pascals wager, is absolutely laughable. That you think it is convincing only demonstrates your own inability to learn anything uncomfortable. Go look it up.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 If existence were set on rules that could be learned and were constant, everything could be explained. The fact of the matter is that there are many many things that cannot be explained. Leaps in logic that make no sense. In my sad defunct little Christian life, I've seen "fallicies" that we often describe as miracles. Through faith, I've seen a parapalegic get up and walk. Where's your explanation for that? There isn't one in science, because medically it's impossible. {continued
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Let me ask you, regarding these so called medical miracles. Have you ever seen something completely escaping interpretation and bias? There's an atheist website/forum dedicated to this issue, called Why Wont God Heal Amputees. Basically, of any 'miracle' you come across they are always invariably something that can happen naturally. Medical remission does happen. I don't know about a paraplegic walking, but did you ever question as to whether they really were? You just accept
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Furthermore, Pascal's Wager is laughable to someone who doesn't believe in such out-of-body existence, which to me is laughable. My observation is that atheists don't want to be responsible for things they do in this life...that there's no final consequences. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what all atheist beliefs seem to point to. If there is no heaven or hell, nothing you do on earth matters. You can murder, rape, and steal and there are no ultimate consequences. {continued}
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
No, Pascals wager is laughable to anyone with a brain and the ability to use Google. Apparently one of those you lack, seeing as you clearly ignored my request to go and look it up. Since apparently I do have to do everything in this conversation, here;
rationalwiki(dot)org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
Atheists are the opposite of your assumption. We are the only ones responsible for our actions. Even if your derisive misinterpretation of our morals was accurate; So? Reality !=comfort
Vire70 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87 Also regarding your attack on atheists for having no morals. First, some facts;
Atheists proportionally are far fewer in prisons and committing crimes. Atheists divorce less, commit fewer crimes, are proportionally more educated than the religious, etc.
Furthermore Christianity suffers the exact same problems as Atheism does regarding morality. Yes, you're accountable. Up until you use the magical loophole Christianity provides by simply being 'forgiven' by god, for no reason.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 I never said atheists have no morals. What I said is that to you, there's no ultimate consequence for any bad things you may have done. Say you kill someone. Maybe you feel bad, maybe you don't, and then you die. What happens? For an atheist, you believe that when you're dead, you're dead. There's nothing else that can happen to you. Also as far as forgiveness goes, there's nothing "magical" about it. It can't be got by just anyone. {continued}
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
You impled there was no reason for athiests to be moral. What you don't understand is that consequences happen here, in reality. Just because we don't have the threat of fantasy land afterlife doesn't make us amoral. This can be seen by the lack of criminality amongst atheists; they are in fact less likely to commit crimes, because we value the sole life that we have.
So no, there's no magical justice system. But there's no need. And yes anyone can be forgiven in christianity
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 As far as your statistics, they are biased and inaccurate. Atheists are fewer in prison's because often a person "finds God" in a situation like that. Atheists divorce less because less of them get married. They are said to commit fewer crimes because less of them get caught because they don't have that feeling that God is watching what they're doing, and so don't get as nervous when committing said crimes. Also, "educated" is a matter of perspective.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
All wrong as usual. Atheists are fewer in prisons, probably mostly as a result of being higher educated. There's a direct correlation between education, atheism, and lack of criminality. Likewise the most atrocious places on the planet are the most religious, and uneducated. And no, education is not a matter of opinion at all.
Likewise the proportionality of theist versus atheist in prisons accounts for those who have converted inside. They're still -far- lower.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 There's a perspective for everything - good and evil, right and wrong, and educated and uneducated. I understand the different sciences in the world and how they work. However unlike you, I know that this life is fleeting, as is this world. Because fo that, I tend to devote more of my time to religious aspects than I do things of this world, simply because this world will pass on. If you truly believe that this life is all there is to existence, then you're a fool. {continued}
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Exactly. You think this life is just a stop on the ladder. It's inconsequential. It is for exactly that reason that the religious frequently do insane and bizarre actions that endanger their own lives, because their lives mean nothing to them; how can they, when their holy text tells them otherwise. It's things like that, amongst others, that makes religion so dangerous and insane. Christians look forward to death/apocalypse... atheists look forward to a technological utopia.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Christians do not look forward to death. That is a common misconception. We look forward to our reward of an ideal spiritual utopia, commonly called heaven. When our time to die has come, it's our time, but we are in no hurry. An atheist will point out the radicals, and they do exist in every culture, religion, and ethnicity. The fact of the matter is that most Christians are not like that, and this life can mean everything, because it decides your fate when your body dies.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Most Christians are not like that because they only care about religion to the extent that it benefits them. It's why cookie-cutter Christianity has become so dominant in modern society; people get to pick and choose their bible verses and interpret anything anyway they want. They make their own religion, not hard with a book as enormously ambiguous as the bible.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Furthermore, in layman's terms, this life is just a stop on the ladder. After this life ends, eternity begins. So when I say this life is fleeting, that's why. Your idealistic technological utopia may exist...for a time. Nothing of this earth lasts forever, least of all anything made by man. An apocalypse of some type will come, make no mistake, may it be by man's hands or God's.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@Vire70 As to be expected, because you are so focused on the proven facts, and your own comfort, you've missed out on the important things to this short life. I can only hope that maybe one day you'll see the truth, or you'll be very very disappointed when your body dies and you find out that things don't just end. The fact of the matter is that I know and see something you won't, and you'll never see or feel that until you stop denying yourself the proof that you claim doesn't exist.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@Vire70 What sense does that make? That everything we are, everything that we've ever done just disappears when we die? Umm no...you and any other person that believes that is sadly mistaken. I have my proof that there is a God, that there is truth in faith, and that there's a reason everything all around us is happening. Prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled for example. And not vague ones, exact details. Explanation? You can't explain that. Try. I challenge you.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge regarding the subject. The reasoning behind Pascals Wagers failure has nothing whatsoever to do with the atheists thought that most likely no afterlife exists. It is entirely due to the subjective and unverified nature of the argument. I'm not going to baby you; Go. Look. It. Up!
(continued)
Vire70 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
As for prophecies, dont make me laugh. I've encountered this nonsense dozens of times over and EVERY prophecy without fail is laughably ambiguous and nonsensical. They, like most everything else in the bible, are up to interpretation. Christians are simply doing the exact same thing they, and the Muslims, do with the so called scientific knowledge in the bible/koran. They realize event X in RL has some slim resemblance to event Y in their book, then twist and twist.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Really now? Ambiguous you say? Well there are prophecies on mass dieoff of wildlife with no explanation, of false idols and prophets, and even the world rising up against man. With all that has been happening, there is nothing ambiguous about it. It's direct and accurate. Leave it to an atheist to try to get the last word with your small bit of understanding of existence. That's fine, you have and will miss out on most of what life is. You're right, ignorance is bliss. :)
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
Amusing. You use your complete ignorance of the natural events of our planet to support your claims. Prophecies predict mass die offs? Well guess what; WE are causing mass die offs. Not to mention things like huge numbers of fish dying in areas isn't very unusual at all, it happened in the past too. It's stuff like this which makes prophecy so laughable. Likewise, false idols and prophets? People predicted that before your precious religion was even conceived!
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Your notion that human beings could cause something like mass wildlife dieoffs by themselves is laughable. And it's people like you that reinforce the notion that devout atheists are truly oblivious to their own idiocy. But fine...go ahead and think that. Without my "precious religion", the terms false idols and false prophets would never have come around, fool. I knew you would show your true side soon enough. You're not nearly as educated as you seem to think you are.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@Vire70 There's people just like you in every creed and religion, and they always pride themselves on being the counterargumentative and educated. The truth is far more grim, as your stupidity and obliviousness makes you dangerous to everyone in your life, and you don't even know it. The fact that your an atheist makes it worse, because you convince weak-willed people that everything that is and has ever been is because of chemical mistakes or because of man, which is a lie.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
/yawn. A lie supported by mountains of evidence and logic. Yes, I do think I'm pretty educated. In some respects at least. I mean, encountering people like you constantly reinforces that sentiment. I actually had far greater expectations and respect for general human intelligence up until beginning debates with the religious; you have thoroughly disillusioned me.
Like I said, I tire of this. You are a stagnant fool incapable of logic. Enjoy your ignorance, it's all you have.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 At least I know when I'm ignorant of something, it's called humility. It's something we Christians practice. You delude yourself into believing you actually know something when you don't. And who's the stagnant fool? Lol...I know all about science, physics, and history. My belief refutes the bits that claim science without God. You are the one that denies belief that there could be a God, because there's a chance your entire belief system would be refuted. Go look in the mirror.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@Vire70 But whatever...you're just one of those people who are oblivious of their own ignorance, and convice yourself of things that make no sense in a sane world. Psychologists call that a form of psychosis, I believe. Nonetheless every time you claim that something happened scientifically, but God was not involved, you show idiocy, not knowledge, and ignorance of your own lack therof. It's true, ignorance is bliss, so I'll allow you to keep believing in your Godless paradise.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@Vire70 Evolution has its place. It's true that animals have evolved over time to best cope with the environment in which they live. However, the mutations are not by chance. There is something greater than you, or I, or your tight grip on what you believe to be existence that is guiding said changes. Of course atheists like you could never understand that, because you refuse to believe in anything that doesn't fit neatly into your mind.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
@brosephstalin87
I give up on this tedious conversation. Like most theists you are simply beyond the grasp of logic. No matter that Evolution is a rocksolid undeniable scientific theory, or that you conversely have absolutely zero evidence for your own 'conclusions', it doesn't matter because you've made it obvious that evidence is nothing to you. What matters to you clearly is that you're happy and feel good, like most of the deluded in the world. Well, enjoy that. They say ignorance is bliss.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Vire70 Even Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, relgion without science is blind." You don't have to choose one or the other. Through religion, evolution can be explained with detail, and the reason for the findings - just as science can explain why "the moon will be as blood" and "the seas will run as blood"...lunar eclipse and the "red tide" algal bloom. What I don't understand is why someone who is obviously educated can't see that. They go together, as they were meant to.
brosephstalin87 3 months ago
So there were humans before you think anything was made by god? Holy fuck religion is confusing.
brongarago 4 months ago
So Adam and Eve weren't important then? Therefore Genesis is a pointless account? Has he just disproven Creationism? Ha!
chimaeraproductions 4 months ago
How did he get a PHD? He is retarded, I want to know what it was in.
blairejack 4 months ago
Mr. Madagascar sounds fully drunk with cheap Yindian Alcohol..