@CJLinOHIO Not as good as your god though. As I recall, the abrahamic god was responsible for many stories involving mass genocide in the bible (Jericho, the flood, Nineveh, the list goes on), and even infanticide if I remember correctly (think Moses and the slaughter of the Egyptians innocent children).
@xchris1800 The problem is, it isn't. You name as many successful scientists from history who were religious as you can, and I could name just as many that weren't.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
what is it worth for a monkey to read if it has no the capacity to read?, in the same way what is it worth for an evolutionist to read books, and investigate if he has not understanding? He himself is a self-contradiction, what he defines by truth today is wrong tomorrow, bks everything evolves, even he is evolving, so we can never take seriously his claims. Serious claims come from something stable. Intelligence. Creation comes from a Designer.
@xchris1800 Stop equating facts with conjecture and superstition and pray silently in a corner out of sight where folks won't make fun of you for being silly.
who can argue with people who believe that no-intelligence created all these things? no-body, and what is ironical is that they call us idiots, to us who believe in the intelligence as Designer of all, 99 percent of all scientists in human history has been God believers, and we have their contributions, now it seems impossible to remove these "evolutionist"-parasites from the labs. We are against the zombie "science".
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in god, but this sort of comparison kinda gets on my nerves, it gives atheists a bad name.
Religion gave us probably the first proper order to society by making people follow laws that were supposed to be god given.....sure I think it was made up by a human but all the same I think they just knew a society that had less murder and theft would be a pretty good one. I'm not saying there's nothing bad about religion....but don't dismiss it as useless :)
@Sciocc0 Look at the facts. Religious societies have higher rates of crime and sexual abuse. Religious societies stifle scientific advancement. The religious take all the advantages of science and then condemn it. Religion has nothing of value to offer.
@thefuture067 No actually its the opposite extraordinary clam i.e an imaginary sky god, requires extraordinary proof i.e a Fox News live interview with said imaginary sky god. Until you hand that over you are utterly and completely full of shit. :)
Lets see God caused wars between humans, allowed for child abuse amongst his earthly representatives, disease, natural disasters, millions of starving, impoverished in third world nations while His churches in wealthy nations invest in huge mega building with large screen TVs and well staged musical productions in climate controlled comfort. Hhmmm seems that His earthly representatives fair well with the inventions of man while He, God, idly sits back and allows others of his CREATION to suffer
I want a creationist to try to explain to me how we were recently able to view a star being swallowed by a black hole...13.5 million light years away.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 a question i got you know the tower of babel story, didn't want us to reach the heavens by going up to high. why did he not stop us when we made planes and rockets??? lol jw if anyone can explain it cause i want to believe again!!!!
@cdemaster1 The answer to your question is simple: God was too busy manifesting the presence of his son in a tortilla chip and laughing at Islamic extremists at the time.
@cdemaster1 they say that we dont have evidence to believe in God but we actually do. the gifts the bible talks about in corinthians 12 talk about the gifts God gave us like healing. some of this is supposed to b evidence. or wat about how Jesus rose from the grave? and have u seen the hidden bible messages? the bible is to smart of a book to be authorized ( not written ) by men. look it it and gain ur faith back ! im telling the truth ! dont over-estimate the intelligence of man when u c it to
Um the earth is only 10,000 years old! evolution is just another religion.the eye could not have evolved. there are no transitional fossils. if we evolved from monkeys, howcome there are still monkeys? the bible only preaches goodness. 1st century, semi-literate peasants knew more about the world than today's scientists. So to answer your question, the devil is trying to trick us into believing it is actually 13.5 million light years away!
@FellOnSoundGarden What u said is the truth : and if these ppl really think they wudve sent a space probe to mars without OUR GOD laying down the foundations of the earth and setting the stars and planets in there places. then these ppl are nut. the bible says : if man thinks he is something when he is really NOTHING then he has deceived himself. and there right- religion has brought us nothing, but Jesus Christ gave us everlasting life ! AMEN
@thefuture067 prove it, if there is no evidence of that claim, then its an irrational belief. And why is your religion the right religion? what makes it the right above 1000's of other religions? They cant all be right, but they can all be wrong
No I am not serious. I am a graduate student in biology and an staunch atheist. I made that comment out of frustration for the ignoramuses that deny history and belittle science when it is convenient, but then go to the doctor/get vaccinations/use technology/ etc.
@FellOnSoundGarden thats cool friend , when i read your comment i thought ' this is sarcasm , surely' but then i thought , 'it wouldnt surprise me on here what brainwashed fundies would say' ..and since christopher hitchens has died , ive seen bullshit comments about how he had a deathbed conversion , well , they 'would' say that , wouldnt they..peace fellow atheist : )
Lol I know what you mean. When christopher hitchens was asked why he never got bored of debating theists, he responded:"Well, you never know what they're going to say next"
And, further, if we are also to give credence to the veracity and fulfillment of biblical prohecy, why should we not consider whether such prophecy may actually be brought about thru the manipulations of Satan? After all, if one studies the major prophetic events, and even reported "historical" biblical events, such as the crucifixion, then one shall immediately discern that nothing is able to come to pass without the necessary inputs of Satan. May "god" of the bible be a duplicitious entity?
If we are to give credence to the existence of Satan, the one who is purported to wish to usurp the one true god, and who also wishes to destroy Earth & Man, where would we most likely find evidence of this angelic demon who would "deceive the very elect"? Hanging about pubs and brothels? Or would it be more likely that he be the perpetrator of a religion which insists that the Earth, and 90% of mankind must be destroyed, by the "Son of God ~ who is The God", according to "Bible Revelation"?
"The God of The Buy-Bull ~ The All" (outside of whom nothing may exist without his agency, not even presumably the abstract of sin), is also apparently the same "god" who created natural deceit within the Venus Flytrap, which ensnares prey via this method. "He" is also the same "god" who is to (acording to Revelations) rid the cosmos of sin thru means of destroying 90% of his own creation, man, upon a bit of spherical flyshit of cosmic debris on the outer fringes of a minor cosmic galaxy!
I haven't even seen the video. can't watch on mobile. based on the comments, it must be pretty good. I see it got under someone's skin lol. have to check it out in the regular computer later.
@7DragonTech7 Somehow I missed and never addressed comments you made before my last reply. "Even if the universe is expanding, which has not been scientifically proven, it IS a closed system." It has been scientifically verified that the universe is expanding and continues to do so; if the universe was a closed system its energy could not be increasing nor could it continue expanding.
Then what, outside of the universe, is influencing the universe?
The "scientific verification" is a conjecture based upon a conjecture based upon another conjecture based upon yet another conjecture and so on...
Physical and spacial expansion is not observed in the Milky Way; why not? Maybe the universe is not actually expanding? Cosmologists are letting stellar lights play with their minds.
We know so little about deep space that to assert any absolutes is pure fantasy.
Well we can be sure of some things about deep space: the universe was clearly not designed in any way with human beings in mind. We are not special despite your mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you are.
Wow you are seriously deluded. There are 100-200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, each with their own billions of stars in each galaxy. most of those stars we can assume have some planets orbiting around them. the fact that we know of ONE petty planet that can support life SOME of the time on SOME of its surface means anything? 99% of ALL species to ever exist on Earth are extinct. Life as we know it evolved to survive in Earth's particular conditions.
(continued)Not the other way around. When there was no oxygen in our atmosphere, prokaryotes evolved to live without it. When simple algae started to proliferate, the atmosphere changed to a higher concentration of oxygen. Therefore multicellular organisms evolved to use that oxygen.
While there are some particulates on Earth like its distance to the sun to support liquid water, or it's ozone layer to protect against detrimental UV that are necessary for life as we know it to evolve. The simple fact that one planet, our of literally trillions and trillions, meets these conditions is not extraordinary. Neither is the homo sapien species. Judging by our genome, it was estimated that the human population was down to about 3000 members originally.
WE were that close to joining the other 99.9% of species and become extinct. We should not flatter ourselves, there is nothing designed or specially created for us. The sooner you realize that and realize our common ancestry to all other species makes you shift your perspective and gives you a sense of bewilderment in what science can teach us. It is so much better than false bronze age myths.
what you don´t see is the problem is not the criacionism but the lack of crtic the lack of question. Maybe if we conntinue to questionate the evolution we can have something else and more achivments...
The achievements of God? Well, let's just say that without His achievements, man would have no achievements. And the modern achievements of man are nothing in comparison to what He can do and has done, or what we have the potential to do; though our potential is still nothing in comparison to Him.
Need I demonstrate evidence? You will simply interpret any evidence to fit with your worldview. I cannot change your worldview.
How 'bout the existence of the universe? Such intricate, logical, defined, and collaborative systems, some not parallel in relation to each other, could not have come from a single expansion or explosion. Multiple points of universal origins are even more unlikely.
Interpret how you will. I have no authority over your thoughts.
@7DragonTech7 "Such intricate, logical, collaborative systems [...] could not have come from a single expansion or explosion". Care to explain WHY it's not possible? I'm guessing you can't, probably because you lack the understanding needed to prove your assertion. On the other hand, Stephen Hawking has proven that god is not necessary for the universe, stars, planets, and life to exist.
Please, go ahead. Try and refute one of the world's top most scientists.
@VincentKurayama I believe this guy is arguing from the Anthropic Principle. By which he is stating that natural laws and constants appear to be so acutely "fined tuned" for life, that believing that they "happened by chance" would be irrational.
However, this argument is fallacious. It assumes that conditions for human life are so demanding, the universe had to be created in a specific way by a God in order to support it. Additionally, it presupposes that there is only one universe.
If the universe had come from an explosion, stellar objects, especially those in the same system, would have very similar, if not identical, origin properties. But this is not the case. Local solar system examples: Uranus is relationally on its side; Venus' rotation is relationally in reverse; etc...
And it is impossible that the universe, as we know it, was derived from one condensed point. This would mean that, at one time, it was a single system, which then divided into...
…multiple, more defined systems. This contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as, in this theory, entropy decreases and order increases. The dimension of time does not allow for a developed and complex structural system to stem from an inferior structural system, unless influenced by intelligence.
Stephen Hawking is a human, just like everyone else. When you accept every one of his words, are you not treating him as a god?
@7DragonTech7 This is the second time in two days I've had to explain this, but seeing as the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the most commonly misunderstood law in physics (and since some people present a bastardized version of it). Entropy only applies to a closed system; the universe is not a closed system. *face-palm*
You keep spouting absolutes "this is impossible, that is impossible" with still no argument as to why other than "I can't explain it, therefore God".
That is where you're wrong. Did I not just say that, in the theory of the Big Bang, the universe was once a single system, concentrated at one condensed point? It was an entity containing every element of the universe that "evolved" into what we know it as today.
However, the universe, to itself, IS a closed system, unless you include a deity. The universe may go on forever, but it is still a closed system. I see how you work, though. You will keep telling me that there are...
@7DragonTech7 Really should have ordered these bloody comments...the universe is not a closed system as so far in that it is constantly expanding and increasing in entropy (which is impossible for a closed system). And no, I'm not saying there are more universes out there as we have never observed any other universe besides our own. You're trying to presenting a straw man of sorts.
I am not presenting a straw man. If what you say is true, then what I have added to your argument is necessary. Even if the universe is expanding, which has not been scientifically proven, it IS a closed system. It is closed because there is nothing but the universe, if that you say there are not multiple universes is also true. With the universe being the only system, it is a closed system.
…more universes out there, influencing our universe. But what influences those universes? Even more universes? You will continue in this way until there are an infinite quantity of universes, yet dimensional issues abound. Could our existence not be adequately explained by an infinite God?
That is not my argument. My argument is this: “impossible, therefore not this.” I can explain it; it’s just a matter of you understanding.
@7DragonTech7 Furthermore, your argument is entirely fallacious. Your mother is a human, and if she told you not to touch a hot stove and you accept this, you're not treating her as a god because she'll explain WHY you shouldn't, and even if she didn't, as a child she's more knowledgeable than you.
The point I am making is this: you're acting as if Steven Hawking has used ipse dixit (look it up, it's a logical fallacy). His statements are backed up with logical proofs as to why, unlike yours.
Correct. But then, I was a child. I am no longer a child. I can think for myself. What if Stephen Hawking tells you not to believe in God, and to just live your life for your own selfish desires; but after you die, you find out that there is a God? What if you are then condemned to non-existence?
Hawking's statements are backed up with his own rational reasoning. What if he is wrong?
@7DragonTech7 You seem to be making some false dichotomy in relation to religion and free-thinking, i.e. only if you're religious you can think for yourself (despite the massive irony of being told what to believe). Stephen Hawking isn't saying "don't believe in God". Being unnecessary does not equate to non-existence; in much the same vein as you could say it's unnecessary to drive to school when it's across the street instead of walking. This doesn't imply there is no car that could be used.
Whether you see it or not, Stephen Hawking and many other atheists of the scientific community imply that to believe in a deity is ignorant, ridiculous, and irrational. Even if they didn't directly say it, which they do, they are still implying it. And because they lead in many scientific discoveries, the average person will believe them.
@7DragonTech7 "[...]Stephen Hawking [...] imply that to believe in a deity is ignorant, ridiculous, and irrational." Scientifically speaking there is no proof of Gods existence ergo there is no rational reason to believe God exists. The reason why they imply such is because, yes, it IS irrational. Faith, by its very definition, is belief in something for which there is no proof; faith is illogical. Continuing (1)...
Faith is not illogical or blind; it is a meaningful and unconditional belief in the truth. If there were no purpose or evidence with which one could support a worldview, then it may be called “blind faith.” Otherwise, it should be deemed just as plausible as any scientific theory.
And no, your scientific worldview does not disprove anything of religion. You have as much faith in the scientific community as I do in God.
@7DragonTech7 ...continuing (1). And no, despite the advances of science, religion manages to hold its ground. Why? Any good marketer can tell you why: get them while they're young. Childhood indoctrination is quite disturbing to me, particularly because of how manipulative it is. But the tides are turning; the numbers of atheists are on the rise in the U.S. I guess people are just getting more skeptical.
It's not overall religion I'm advocating; it's the God of the Bible. Science does not contradict the Bible. Science supports the Bible. What you call "science" that contradicts the Bible are evolution and the Big Bang, but those are worldviews, thus religions, in themselves.
You accuse Christians of polluting children's minds; however, that is on the premise that the Bible is wrong. If the Bible were true, we would be doing our children a disfavor if we didn't teach it to them.
Wow! You really know how to roll up fallacies into a single line. Let's see: begging the question, question-begging epithet, ad hominem... three whole fallacies in one sentence!
You presume that the Bible is not true, though you have never thoroughly and analytically tested it. You claim that evolution is true, though you have never thoroughly and analytically tested it.
Evolution IS a worldview. Face it, anything which requires even the slightest bit of faith is a worldview.
@7DragonTech7 speciation has been observed in the lab. but i don't even need that because ppl breed dogs. therefor no faith necessary. the theory is just the particulars of HOW mutations and whatnot occur. not THAT they occur.
since there is no way of determining which parts of the bible are metaphors or literal it must either be all literal or all metaphor. and it thinks the earth in flat and that the sun orbits us. since theses are wrong why should genesis be any more correct?
...They are still all dogs. You're not going to get a house cat from a Saint Bernard. And you can't go back up to a German Shepard from two Chiwawas. It's degenerative mutation. Information is lost, not added; thus, the opposite of evolution.
Translation and word-interpretation play a lot into learning from the Bible. If you don't entirely understand a word or set of words, you aren't going to get the true meaning. You have to refer to the Hebrew and Greek roots. (modern dialect)
@7DragonTech7 o god you're quoting the video with the animated fat guy who said "evilution" i LOVE to see even ONE peer reviewed work about this "degenerative" mutation in breeding. but thats besides the point.
Are you saying that the bible does NOT say that the earth is flat? if so what does it say? for that matter if it doesn't say that then what does it REALLY say about adam and eve?
Who? No, I came to that conclusion on my own. However, it is not yet a conclusion, because I am still contemplating it. But the evidence really is leaning on the side of anti-evolution.
I'm not saying it can't be critically interpreted that way. But you must understand; at one point, the majority of all land was a single continent, Pangaea. That would mean that, from the point of human inhabitants, the world (dry land) would be relatively flat. (continued...) 1-1
1-2 …The Bible may very well mean, in a way, a flat world. (Historical “falling off the edge of the world” could be paralleled with going to the outermost of Pangaea, possibly resulting in falling into the major body of water (ocean) and drowning.) But there are also other Biblical references indicating that the entire earth is a sphere. Which is a scientific statement way before its own time.
@7DragonTech7 so you ARE admitting that it is metaphorical. excellent. ok so if "falling of the edge" just means walking to the end of Pangaea then adam and eve being the "first humans" could just mean that they founded the first city.
For that matter where are the biblical references that the earth is a sphere? you said that they exist but give no source.
It's not metaphorical. It's just different terminology. You need to know the roots of the derived language(s) to understand the true meaning. Dialects, translations, and modern terminology all play into how you interpret the Bible. The general meaning is easy to understand. But the more technical subjects require deeper knowledge, which I don't believe you have, which directly affects your conclusion.
What does that have to do with a single continent?
See?! You do not have the basic knowledge of the Bible and Hebrew language required to know what it actually means. Horizon is a translation, circle is a translation, the meaning is sphere.
You ignored the last passage. It is referring to the coming of Christ, in which one verse says it will occur during the day and a subsequent verse says it will occur during the night. It could not be both unless earth were a spherical object.
@7DragonTech7 no i prefer to refer to the last verse as a contradiction. and seriously the "circle on the water boundary of light and darkness" i don't see any way that's not horizon. and "above the circle of the earth" above is kind meaningless when there is a sphere involved because up isn't A direction.
But back on the previous point what about my Adam and Eve reinterpretation like your "edge" reinterpretation? what do you think about that statement?
So you believe in a flat earth? Those verses would only be contradictory if the world were flat. You know, I'm beginning to think that it's the atheists who believe the world is flat.
You still have not proven that it couldn't be a sphere. Bible scholars know what they're talking about; you don't.
Okay, please clarify the point you're trying to make with Adam and Eve. I have no clue what you're trying to prove with that.
@7DragonTech7 WHAT im pointing out that the BIBLE believes that the earth is flat.
well the thing i was trying with adam and eve is that i was trying to get you to admit that the "first human" thing could be as metaphorical as the "edge of earth" thing and then id point out that that basically nullifies the biblical reason to oppose evolution.
But you have not pointed anything out. Whatever point you were trying to make, you have not proven it. There is nothing to back up your claim.
The "first human" is not metaphorical. And I didn't say the "edge of the earth" is metaphorical either; there are just different views of what it really means, down to the last detail.
Well, aside from your rather atrocious communicative writing, fallacious logic, and deficient research, it's been a pleasure debating with you.
@7DragonTech7 if "edge of earth" means "edge of Pangaea" then guess what THAT'S A METAPHOR. not to mention humans didn't exist that long ago.
its funny to talk to someone who doesn't know what a metaphor is. and i'm loving that you have gone to the ad hominem attacks now. you are losing ground, i love it. laughs maniacally.
Well, seeing as how you are a hypocrite who does not understand what he is talking about, and seeing as also I am not typically one to take advantage of those with lesser intelligence, I will now leave this fruitless argument. You cannot be convinced simply because you do not possess the adequate understanding.
@7DragonTech7 Comment the 3, after jumping around a bit. As for whether I'd do what Stephen Hawking says because he said so, did I not previously point out ipse dixit? I'd think you could realize from me pointing out a logical fallacy I am quite capable of detecting one when I read or hear it. As for the whole "what if you're wrong" thing...this is another false dichotomy in which there are only two options: you being right and me being wrong or you being wrong and me being right. --cont
@7DragonTech7 Cont-- There are, in fact, more than two possibilities. We certainly can't both be right, that would be contradictory, but we could both be wrong. What if Islam is right? What if the Egyptians had it right? Hindus?
As for the what if I am condemned to non-existence...that sounds exactly like being dead, so uh...I'm failing to see a punishment -- why would I want to exist forever?
Perhaps you should refer to the best-selling book, worldwide. Perhaps you should consider the most logical, rational, and scientific worldview.
It's not just non-existence. You will be judged in the hellfire of our dying solar system. You will be judged according to your heart, and what you did while alive. When you have completed your sentence, both your body and soul will be licked up in your final pain with flame.
@7DragonTech7 The most logical, rational, and scientific worldview? Less than 10% of scientists believe in God's existence vs. a book written during the Bronze Age by goat-herders. Tough choice...
Again, the appeal to consequence isn't winning me over to your point of view...none of it supports why God exists.
Precisely! Which is an immense insult on the reasoning of modern scientists.
One cannot explain why God exists, as it is beyond our comprehension. He just does. Always has, always will. It is just as you cannot explain the existence of our universe (without MAJOR assumptions).
@7DragonTech7 I did mean "vs." as those were the options I was comparing.
You misunderstood what I said. You say there is a God, I'm not convinced. You tell me I'll suffer when I die, I say that's irrelevant to the matter - it doesn't prove to me that there is a God. Peter 3:15 states "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." Why then, is it that Christians refuse to answer requests for evidence of God?
The options you were comparing were God's existence and God's word?
It begins within your heart. I cannot give you solid evidence that God exists, nor can you give me solid evidence that God doesn't exist. Scientific observations point to the Bible and God, but they will not change your heart. I know God exists because I see Him; I've seen the work of God in my life and in the lives around me. I know Him. But that is not your evidence; it's mine. Only you can change your heart.
Who told the Church that the earth was flat? Scientists. Who believed the scientists? The Church!
If DNA is information, code, then where did it come from? Life only comes from life? Where did life begin? Not in as primordial soup. That was toxic to life as we know it.
@Wheetbix69 SAY WHAT!!?? Gosh, What scientist told the Church the earth was flat? The Church told the scientist what to do and say. Burned 'em at the stake for saying the sun was the center of the solar system. "The 4 corners of the earth..." The fact that everyone will see Christ's return in the sky all at the same time...."The pillars of the earth" etc etc, blah blah blah
"Burned 'em at the stake for saying the sun was the center of the solar system"
I suppose here you're talking about Galileo, who was most definitely NOT burned at the stake, nor was he killed for his belief in heliocentrism.
Eh, but never let's the facts get in the way of great story, that's par for the course for you guys. That's how they came up with evolution in the first place.
@Wheetbix69 These were not scientists but theologists.
Instead of asking questions on Youtube, go on the Internet or in a library, take some books about evolution and start reading. Duh, is it so hard to educate yourself?
2.9 billion base pairs at 4 pairs per byte means 714,000,000 roughly bytes thats less than a cd for the whole human genome. It may expand into a lot more detail when decoded but thats the instructions.
I'll see your rocket and raise you a universe! That's what my God built...if you really want to meet God...don't look up...look in...the love you feel for anything comes from God...and is inside you! :D
the weird thing is that modern science has only been around for about 500 years. Imagine when we actually get to 1,000 years. We will have explored the Milky Way by then.
@flyingscience2 the genetic information in humans can be stored in about 750 MB. Yup, that means you carry a copy of the human genome on a flash drive the size of your thumbnail.
@flyingscience2 The haploid human genome contains 23,000 protein-coding genes, far fewer than had been expected before its sequencing. In fact, only about 1.5% of the genome codes for proteins, while the rest consists of non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and non coding DNA. And do not forget that the genes are the same for a lot of cells. So, having a trillion cells doesn't mean a trillion different genes.
@Razorsharp445 yeah right, and our parents randomly popped out of nothingness billion years ago.. whatever i don't even care about you anyway.. if you wanna keep thinking a pear is an apple you keep doing that.
@Doum92 oh i do not need to prove anything about the pink unicorn that follows me everyday , he's my friend, we play video games every friday night together but since he evolved into a unicorn in about 100 billion years, he kind lags.. and that's a fact!
Also WildCatsKitten, as the coup-de-grace, you would probably reply to my responses in order to save your ego and save face. You know whats the funny thing? I don't even have to be right about that and you can pretend to be a troll (to try to "save face" and pretend like you weren't serious), and the winner is still me.
The manual technology was far ahead of science. But no they think because they invented digital historically AFTER manual operations that it MUST be better. I am sick and tired of a bunch of geeks inventing shit I don't need. We need to take 99% of scientists and inventors and put them to useful work like sorting my garbage for me so I don't have to do it. BTW most of my garbage is because some fucking scientist thought it was great to package everything in bubble packs. So fuck you.
Science has invented so much shit we don't need on our cars that our mechanic can hardly even work on them anymore. They need to take all that digital shit and shove it up their asses. My old car with manual everything worked perfectly and instantly. This digital crap causes people to run over others while trying to figure out when it's going to work and to find the stupid little button that takes 5 seconds to finally kick in when you DO push it.
SCIENCE needs to spend more time inventing things we need such as instant hot water or instant cold water already filtered out of the faucet. But no they are busy wasting their time with a failed bullshit theory that does us no fucking good whatsoever. They invent new cell phones that spy on us and have so much shit on them that they never work right. I keep losing my signal and the sound quality is SHIT. They need to work on that instead of a camera that tracks where the pic was taken.
Scientific achievements? That's a laugh. Every day science creeps forward with it's agenda of world enslavement and you're proud? Technology has allowed govt and corporations to spy on us and destroy our right to privacy. It is destroying our freedoms everyday. Science allows Monsanto to hybridize all of our food source plants and leave us with nothing. They are lobbying congress now to outlaw home gardens. Control the food supply and the information and you control the people.
AND GET THIS FOLKS when they tested the first atom bomb, they were worried that it could blow up the whole Earth. But guess what? You guessed, the sorry bastards pushed the button anyway. That's a fucking scientist for you. And BTW they took the HAARP and just to see what would happen they blew a hole in the ozone layer. Isn't that great? You science worshiping holes are worshiping the devil.
@MaximusArurealius I think you're basing off all your accusations and think that scientists have influenced politics directly. Well sir, it's obvious that since the government sponsors science to create things, they're also going to eventually figure out weapons or useless things of use, and use that for their benefit. +no one worships science. Objective science, one with no political backing behind it, is much, much better at explaining/making things than most if not all other things.
Your hero stutterfoot does, And a grown man putting the sophomoric " science for the win" is a retard, Furthemore, it is funny that a pantheist like stutterfoot is trying to compare scientific achievements to religious achievements, Stutterfoots religion of Worshipping nature as god has contributed nothing to the achievements of scientists, it has contributed to the entertainment of laughing at tards like stutterfoot.
If the person creating this video was honest, then why isn't the Atom Bomb showed in the video? in the end if you wanted to be honest with this dishonest video, you would have shown man, which was created by a creator. However science in it's arrogance claims humans evolved and with all that was in this video, and the belief that humans evolved, how come science can not create life in any form? Science is good, but arrogant science is not.
SCIENTISTS ARE GOING TO KILL AND ENSLAVE US Destruction of the human race: Do you even have a clue as to how many WMDs that scientists have invented and they are still working on more. They have bombs (a-bomb, h-bomb, neutron bomb). They have chemical weapons which we don't even know how many they have invented and the next thing is the bio weapons. Those are the ones you should be worried about. All it takes is one little bitty miscalculation and the thing will be unleashed on all of mankind.
@gbp2000 You're welcome, I just thought you were needing a little support. All this science shit just pisses me off. The millions and millions of people who have been enslaved, murdered, and maimed because of science aren't too happy with it either. BUT THEY HAVE NO VOICE
God created one thing that without this nothing on this video would have been created, which is man. However, there is one thing that man has created in the arrogant science world that has not been shown, the ATOM BOMB! And with the scientif creation of the ATOM BOMB, there's no one that will be around to care in a 1000 years. Is it even possible that Science will not destroy all man kind in a under 1000 years with it's development of the Bomb? Science: short term good, long term like cancer.
@OptimalElement More people were killed with the use of advanced weapons developed by science in the 20th century than all the people allegedly killed by religion. I have one question to you, but I do not expect an honest answer. Without science, would it be possible to kill off the entire human race at will?
@OptimumIdiot"And religion already was used as an excuse to destroyed entire civilizations" But the religion of atheism as already outstripped all the religions in history combined. Look at Russia, China and all the other communist (atheist) countries. AND don't you even tell me something so fucking stupid as communism has nothing to do with atheism because only an uneducated moron wouldn't know that communism is govt enforced atheism.
Atheism is not a religion because an atheist is the one who does not believe or at least remains skeptical of the supernatural. Yes, Stalin and many communist leaders may have been atheists, but Crimes committed by communist countries was not in the name of atheism. It was for economical and political reasons. Hitler was a catholic, a christian. So is it valid to suggest Nazism occurred because of christianity?
By the way my parents grew up in the Soviet Union through out 70s and 80s and religion was permitted. My mother herself is a christian. So saying they were ''atheist'' countries is a flawed statement. Today in Sweden about 85% of population are atheist. I don't see them engaging in any genocidal activities.
@OptimumIdiot, Hitler was an occultist. Which means the ultimate of atheism. The steps of damnation are 1. reject truth (liberalism) 2. reject the church 3. reject God #4 embrace satan. So he WAS one of you guys after all.
Next question, since you're going to start bitching about being grouped with the occult, tell us why it is that when a satanist comes here that you atheists ALWAYS side with him, never criticize him, and never make fun of his BS? Is it because you are on his side? I think so.
@OptimumIdiot, So you are one of the New Russians. That tells us the whole story. You're a fucking liar. So your mother must not be much of a committed Christian. It's funny how you asshole atheists will claim Russia was not atheist, but you come here to the U.S. and tell us that we are not a Christian country. You like to butter your bread on both sides don't you? The Russian govt is now building churches. Why? Because atheism FAILED and always does. No society can be based on atheism and last.
First of all, I am not Russian. I am Ukrainian. Secondly I didn't come to US. I never been to US. I moved to Ireland. Secondly if you had the education of your own countries history, you would know that the founders clearly established a separation between state and church. And if you say I am a liar then clearly any educated person who will read your comment will know who is the real uneducated liar here. You argue like a typical troll. Int hat case I refuse to reply to you.
@MaximusArurealius Because the majority of people are weak and need a reason to explain their existence even though there isn't one, right? (from a spiritual pov)
The atheist bus campaign was designed to help atheists that are weak just like you, The slogan " There probably is no god so stop worrying and enjoy your life" was brought out to comfort weaklings like you who are scatred that you will be judged, the atheist bus campaign is a comfort blanket to queers like you.
Oh forgot, you left out all the killing. Man is real good at that at that too.
CJLinOHIO 6 days ago
@CJLinOHIO Not as good as your god though. As I recall, the abrahamic god was responsible for many stories involving mass genocide in the bible (Jericho, the flood, Nineveh, the list goes on), and even infanticide if I remember correctly (think Moses and the slaughter of the Egyptians innocent children).
frankboblarry 3 days ago
When did my God last sequence a genome ? My God made the mother fu*king genome.
CJLinOHIO 6 days ago
Gotta love Bladerunner.
FrankLightheart 3 weeks ago
Understanding of nature comes from people who love God.
xchris1800 3 weeks ago
@xchris1800 The problem is, it isn't. You name as many successful scientists from history who were religious as you can, and I could name just as many that weren't.
9hello123 3 weeks ago
@xchris1800 I call bullshit on that talk to David Attenborough. Seriously grow up
kanto2233 3 weeks ago
@xchris1800 god who? jesus? allah? budha? jehova? plus a hundreds of thousand of saints? mama mary? who?
magiccaloy1972 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what is it worth for a monkey to read if it has no the capacity to read?, in the same way what is it worth for an evolutionist to read books, and investigate if he has not understanding? He himself is a self-contradiction, what he defines by truth today is wrong tomorrow, bks everything evolves, even he is evolving, so we can never take seriously his claims. Serious claims come from something stable. Intelligence. Creation comes from a Designer.
xchris1800 3 weeks ago
@xchris1800 Stop equating facts with conjecture and superstition and pray silently in a corner out of sight where folks won't make fun of you for being silly.
kanto2233 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
who can argue with people who believe that no-intelligence created all these things? no-body, and what is ironical is that they call us idiots, to us who believe in the intelligence as Designer of all, 99 percent of all scientists in human history has been God believers, and we have their contributions, now it seems impossible to remove these "evolutionist"-parasites from the labs. We are against the zombie "science".
xchris1800 3 weeks ago
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in god, but this sort of comparison kinda gets on my nerves, it gives atheists a bad name.
Religion gave us probably the first proper order to society by making people follow laws that were supposed to be god given.....sure I think it was made up by a human but all the same I think they just knew a society that had less murder and theft would be a pretty good one. I'm not saying there's nothing bad about religion....but don't dismiss it as useless :)
Sciocc0 4 weeks ago
@Sciocc0 Look at the facts. Religious societies have higher rates of crime and sexual abuse. Religious societies stifle scientific advancement. The religious take all the advantages of science and then condemn it. Religion has nothing of value to offer.
Hyperplaterine 4 weeks ago 6
"Who's gonna care in a thousand years?"
"Everyone."
"What do you mean, everyone?"
"EEEEVEEERYOOOOOOOOONE!!!!!!!"
hillarious
MidnightSt 1 month ago 4
let me get this straight ! i DONT NEED to prove my God to be real ! all i need to do is prove that YOUR THEORY IS WRONG !
thefuture067 1 month ago
@thefuture067 No actually its the opposite extraordinary clam i.e an imaginary sky god, requires extraordinary proof i.e a Fox News live interview with said imaginary sky god. Until you hand that over you are utterly and completely full of shit. :)
kanto2233 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thefuture067 "i DONT NEED to prove my God to be real !"
Yes you do, you absolutely do, unless your intention is to make yourself look like a bafoonish cretin.
Helge129 1 week ago
BRAVO !!!! clap clap clap , one of the best videos on the net !!!
EdyMar77 1 month ago
Lets see God caused wars between humans, allowed for child abuse amongst his earthly representatives, disease, natural disasters, millions of starving, impoverished in third world nations while His churches in wealthy nations invest in huge mega building with large screen TVs and well staged musical productions in climate controlled comfort. Hhmmm seems that His earthly representatives fair well with the inventions of man while He, God, idly sits back and allows others of his CREATION to suffer
psychicpriest 1 month ago
@psychicpriest well said , great comment.
grumpyguts1967 1 month ago
Wait, we landed on Titan!?
icarus212001 1 month ago
@icarus212001 LOL UR SO RIGHT !
thefuture067 1 month ago
I came for the atheism. I stayed for the Vangelis.
Freytogo 1 month ago
I want a creationist to try to explain to me how we were recently able to view a star being swallowed by a black hole...13.5 million light years away.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 a question i got you know the tower of babel story, didn't want us to reach the heavens by going up to high. why did he not stop us when we made planes and rockets??? lol jw if anyone can explain it cause i want to believe again!!!!
cdemaster1 1 month ago
@cdemaster1 The answer to your question is simple: God was too busy manifesting the presence of his son in a tortilla chip and laughing at Islamic extremists at the time.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 makes sense lol
cdemaster1 1 month ago
@cdemaster1 they say that we dont have evidence to believe in God but we actually do. the gifts the bible talks about in corinthians 12 talk about the gifts God gave us like healing. some of this is supposed to b evidence. or wat about how Jesus rose from the grave? and have u seen the hidden bible messages? the bible is to smart of a book to be authorized ( not written ) by men. look it it and gain ur faith back ! im telling the truth ! dont over-estimate the intelligence of man when u c it to
thefuture067 1 month ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13
Um the earth is only 10,000 years old! evolution is just another religion.the eye could not have evolved. there are no transitional fossils. if we evolved from monkeys, howcome there are still monkeys? the bible only preaches goodness. 1st century, semi-literate peasants knew more about the world than today's scientists. So to answer your question, the devil is trying to trick us into believing it is actually 13.5 million light years away!
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Here's to hoping that your comment is for the Lulz and not serious.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden What u said is the truth : and if these ppl really think they wudve sent a space probe to mars without OUR GOD laying down the foundations of the earth and setting the stars and planets in there places. then these ppl are nut. the bible says : if man thinks he is something when he is really NOTHING then he has deceived himself. and there right- religion has brought us nothing, but Jesus Christ gave us everlasting life ! AMEN
thefuture067 1 month ago
@thefuture067 prove it, if there is no evidence of that claim, then its an irrational belief. And why is your religion the right religion? what makes it the right above 1000's of other religions? They cant all be right, but they can all be wrong
Multimorten 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden are you for real? your brain has melted beyond the point of no return.
grumpyguts1967 1 month ago
@grumpyguts1967
No I am not serious. I am a graduate student in biology and an staunch atheist. I made that comment out of frustration for the ignoramuses that deny history and belittle science when it is convenient, but then go to the doctor/get vaccinations/use technology/ etc.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden thats cool friend , when i read your comment i thought ' this is sarcasm , surely' but then i thought , 'it wouldnt surprise me on here what brainwashed fundies would say' ..and since christopher hitchens has died , ive seen bullshit comments about how he had a deathbed conversion , well , they 'would' say that , wouldnt they..peace fellow atheist : )
grumpyguts1967 1 month ago
@grumpyguts1967
Lol I know what you mean. When christopher hitchens was asked why he never got bored of debating theists, he responded:"Well, you never know what they're going to say next"
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
Homo Sapiehn Sapien > Homo Divinitas
mager56723 1 month ago
DO NOT DOUBT WHAT THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER DO.
hagamablabla 2 months ago
I'm very impressed with what man can do . . .
hughc023 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Thunderf00t
And, further, if we are also to give credence to the veracity and fulfillment of biblical prohecy, why should we not consider whether such prophecy may actually be brought about thru the manipulations of Satan? After all, if one studies the major prophetic events, and even reported "historical" biblical events, such as the crucifixion, then one shall immediately discern that nothing is able to come to pass without the necessary inputs of Satan. May "god" of the bible be a duplicitious entity?
MagenticAdam66 2 months ago
If we are to give credence to the existence of Satan, the one who is purported to wish to usurp the one true god, and who also wishes to destroy Earth & Man, where would we most likely find evidence of this angelic demon who would "deceive the very elect"? Hanging about pubs and brothels? Or would it be more likely that he be the perpetrator of a religion which insists that the Earth, and 90% of mankind must be destroyed, by the "Son of God ~ who is The God", according to "Bible Revelation"?
MagenticAdam66 2 months ago
"The God of The Buy-Bull ~ The All" (outside of whom nothing may exist without his agency, not even presumably the abstract of sin), is also apparently the same "god" who created natural deceit within the Venus Flytrap, which ensnares prey via this method. "He" is also the same "god" who is to (acording to Revelations) rid the cosmos of sin thru means of destroying 90% of his own creation, man, upon a bit of spherical flyshit of cosmic debris on the outer fringes of a minor cosmic galaxy!
MagenticAdam66 2 months ago
Cool Soundtrack to Video
MisterTutor2010 2 months ago
I haven't even seen the video. can't watch on mobile. based on the comments, it must be pretty good. I see it got under someone's skin lol. have to check it out in the regular computer later.
ronda1117 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DragonTech7 Somehow I missed and never addressed comments you made before my last reply. "Even if the universe is expanding, which has not been scientifically proven, it IS a closed system." It has been scientifically verified that the universe is expanding and continues to do so; if the universe was a closed system its energy could not be increasing nor could it continue expanding.
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
Then what, outside of the universe, is influencing the universe?
The "scientific verification" is a conjecture based upon a conjecture based upon another conjecture based upon yet another conjecture and so on...
Physical and spacial expansion is not observed in the Milky Way; why not? Maybe the universe is not actually expanding? Cosmologists are letting stellar lights play with their minds.
We know so little about deep space that to assert any absolutes is pure fantasy.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7
Well we can be sure of some things about deep space: the universe was clearly not designed in any way with human beings in mind. We are not special despite your mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you are.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden
And I suppose that the earth's atmosphere, air, water, and complex biological systems that support us make us the muck of the universe?
7DragonTech7 1 month ago
@7DragonTech7
Wow you are seriously deluded. There are 100-200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, each with their own billions of stars in each galaxy. most of those stars we can assume have some planets orbiting around them. the fact that we know of ONE petty planet that can support life SOME of the time on SOME of its surface means anything? 99% of ALL species to ever exist on Earth are extinct. Life as we know it evolved to survive in Earth's particular conditions.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@7DragonTech7
(continued)Not the other way around. When there was no oxygen in our atmosphere, prokaryotes evolved to live without it. When simple algae started to proliferate, the atmosphere changed to a higher concentration of oxygen. Therefore multicellular organisms evolved to use that oxygen.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@7DragonTech7
While there are some particulates on Earth like its distance to the sun to support liquid water, or it's ozone layer to protect against detrimental UV that are necessary for life as we know it to evolve. The simple fact that one planet, our of literally trillions and trillions, meets these conditions is not extraordinary. Neither is the homo sapien species. Judging by our genome, it was estimated that the human population was down to about 3000 members originally.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@7DragonTech7
WE were that close to joining the other 99.9% of species and become extinct. We should not flatter ourselves, there is nothing designed or specially created for us. The sooner you realize that and realize our common ancestry to all other species makes you shift your perspective and gives you a sense of bewilderment in what science can teach us. It is so much better than false bronze age myths.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
what you don´t see is the problem is not the criacionism but the lack of crtic the lack of question. Maybe if we conntinue to questionate the evolution we can have something else and more achivments...
TVCulturaInutil 3 months ago
The achievements of God? Well, let's just say that without His achievements, man would have no achievements. And the modern achievements of man are nothing in comparison to what He can do and has done, or what we have the potential to do; though our potential is still nothing in comparison to Him.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7
You have not demonstrated one single piece of evidence for your personal religious opinions.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
Need I demonstrate evidence? You will simply interpret any evidence to fit with your worldview. I cannot change your worldview.
How 'bout the existence of the universe? Such intricate, logical, defined, and collaborative systems, some not parallel in relation to each other, could not have come from a single expansion or explosion. Multiple points of universal origins are even more unlikely.
Interpret how you will. I have no authority over your thoughts.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DragonTech7
ts not a matter of choice.
You simply can't.
odinata 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 "Such intricate, logical, collaborative systems [...] could not have come from a single expansion or explosion". Care to explain WHY it's not possible? I'm guessing you can't, probably because you lack the understanding needed to prove your assertion. On the other hand, Stephen Hawking has proven that god is not necessary for the universe, stars, planets, and life to exist.
Please, go ahead. Try and refute one of the world's top most scientists.
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama I believe this guy is arguing from the Anthropic Principle. By which he is stating that natural laws and constants appear to be so acutely "fined tuned" for life, that believing that they "happened by chance" would be irrational.
However, this argument is fallacious. It assumes that conditions for human life are so demanding, the universe had to be created in a specific way by a God in order to support it. Additionally, it presupposes that there is only one universe.
ApatheticOmniscience 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
If the universe had come from an explosion, stellar objects, especially those in the same system, would have very similar, if not identical, origin properties. But this is not the case. Local solar system examples: Uranus is relationally on its side; Venus' rotation is relationally in reverse; etc...
And it is impossible that the universe, as we know it, was derived from one condensed point. This would mean that, at one time, it was a single system, which then divided into...
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
…multiple, more defined systems. This contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as, in this theory, entropy decreases and order increases. The dimension of time does not allow for a developed and complex structural system to stem from an inferior structural system, unless influenced by intelligence.
Stephen Hawking is a human, just like everyone else. When you accept every one of his words, are you not treating him as a god?
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 This is the second time in two days I've had to explain this, but seeing as the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the most commonly misunderstood law in physics (and since some people present a bastardized version of it). Entropy only applies to a closed system; the universe is not a closed system. *face-palm*
You keep spouting absolutes "this is impossible, that is impossible" with still no argument as to why other than "I can't explain it, therefore God".
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
That is where you're wrong. Did I not just say that, in the theory of the Big Bang, the universe was once a single system, concentrated at one condensed point? It was an entity containing every element of the universe that "evolved" into what we know it as today.
However, the universe, to itself, IS a closed system, unless you include a deity. The universe may go on forever, but it is still a closed system. I see how you work, though. You will keep telling me that there are...
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 Really should have ordered these bloody comments...the universe is not a closed system as so far in that it is constantly expanding and increasing in entropy (which is impossible for a closed system). And no, I'm not saying there are more universes out there as we have never observed any other universe besides our own. You're trying to presenting a straw man of sorts.
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
I am not presenting a straw man. If what you say is true, then what I have added to your argument is necessary. Even if the universe is expanding, which has not been scientifically proven, it IS a closed system. It is closed because there is nothing but the universe, if that you say there are not multiple universes is also true. With the universe being the only system, it is a closed system.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
…more universes out there, influencing our universe. But what influences those universes? Even more universes? You will continue in this way until there are an infinite quantity of universes, yet dimensional issues abound. Could our existence not be adequately explained by an infinite God?
That is not my argument. My argument is this: “impossible, therefore not this.” I can explain it; it’s just a matter of you understanding.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 Furthermore, your argument is entirely fallacious. Your mother is a human, and if she told you not to touch a hot stove and you accept this, you're not treating her as a god because she'll explain WHY you shouldn't, and even if she didn't, as a child she's more knowledgeable than you.
The point I am making is this: you're acting as if Steven Hawking has used ipse dixit (look it up, it's a logical fallacy). His statements are backed up with logical proofs as to why, unlike yours.
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
Correct. But then, I was a child. I am no longer a child. I can think for myself. What if Stephen Hawking tells you not to believe in God, and to just live your life for your own selfish desires; but after you die, you find out that there is a God? What if you are then condemned to non-existence?
Hawking's statements are backed up with his own rational reasoning. What if he is wrong?
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 You seem to be making some false dichotomy in relation to religion and free-thinking, i.e. only if you're religious you can think for yourself (despite the massive irony of being told what to believe). Stephen Hawking isn't saying "don't believe in God". Being unnecessary does not equate to non-existence; in much the same vein as you could say it's unnecessary to drive to school when it's across the street instead of walking. This doesn't imply there is no car that could be used.
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
Whether you see it or not, Stephen Hawking and many other atheists of the scientific community imply that to believe in a deity is ignorant, ridiculous, and irrational. Even if they didn't directly say it, which they do, they are still implying it. And because they lead in many scientific discoveries, the average person will believe them.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 "[...]Stephen Hawking [...] imply that to believe in a deity is ignorant, ridiculous, and irrational." Scientifically speaking there is no proof of Gods existence ergo there is no rational reason to believe God exists. The reason why they imply such is because, yes, it IS irrational. Faith, by its very definition, is belief in something for which there is no proof; faith is illogical. Continuing (1)...
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
Faith is not illogical or blind; it is a meaningful and unconditional belief in the truth. If there were no purpose or evidence with which one could support a worldview, then it may be called “blind faith.” Otherwise, it should be deemed just as plausible as any scientific theory.
And no, your scientific worldview does not disprove anything of religion. You have as much faith in the scientific community as I do in God.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 ...continuing (1). And no, despite the advances of science, religion manages to hold its ground. Why? Any good marketer can tell you why: get them while they're young. Childhood indoctrination is quite disturbing to me, particularly because of how manipulative it is. But the tides are turning; the numbers of atheists are on the rise in the U.S. I guess people are just getting more skeptical.
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
It's not overall religion I'm advocating; it's the God of the Bible. Science does not contradict the Bible. Science supports the Bible. What you call "science" that contradicts the Bible are evolution and the Big Bang, but those are worldviews, thus religions, in themselves.
You accuse Christians of polluting children's minds; however, that is on the premise that the Bible is wrong. If the Bible were true, we would be doing our children a disfavor if we didn't teach it to them.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 but the bible is NOT true and evolution is proven fact not a worldview, and you're an idiot.
morpheuskibbe 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
Wow! You really know how to roll up fallacies into a single line. Let's see: begging the question, question-begging epithet, ad hominem... three whole fallacies in one sentence!
You presume that the Bible is not true, though you have never thoroughly and analytically tested it. You claim that evolution is true, though you have never thoroughly and analytically tested it.
Evolution IS a worldview. Face it, anything which requires even the slightest bit of faith is a worldview.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 speciation has been observed in the lab. but i don't even need that because ppl breed dogs. therefor no faith necessary. the theory is just the particulars of HOW mutations and whatnot occur. not THAT they occur.
since there is no way of determining which parts of the bible are metaphors or literal it must either be all literal or all metaphor. and it thinks the earth in flat and that the sun orbits us. since theses are wrong why should genesis be any more correct?
morpheuskibbe 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
...They are still all dogs. You're not going to get a house cat from a Saint Bernard. And you can't go back up to a German Shepard from two Chiwawas. It's degenerative mutation. Information is lost, not added; thus, the opposite of evolution.
Translation and word-interpretation play a lot into learning from the Bible. If you don't entirely understand a word or set of words, you aren't going to get the true meaning. You have to refer to the Hebrew and Greek roots. (modern dialect)
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 o god you're quoting the video with the animated fat guy who said "evilution" i LOVE to see even ONE peer reviewed work about this "degenerative" mutation in breeding. but thats besides the point.
Are you saying that the bible does NOT say that the earth is flat? if so what does it say? for that matter if it doesn't say that then what does it REALLY say about adam and eve?
morpheuskibbe 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
Who? No, I came to that conclusion on my own. However, it is not yet a conclusion, because I am still contemplating it. But the evidence really is leaning on the side of anti-evolution.
I'm not saying it can't be critically interpreted that way. But you must understand; at one point, the majority of all land was a single continent, Pangaea. That would mean that, from the point of human inhabitants, the world (dry land) would be relatively flat. (continued...) 1-1
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
1-2 …The Bible may very well mean, in a way, a flat world. (Historical “falling off the edge of the world” could be paralleled with going to the outermost of Pangaea, possibly resulting in falling into the major body of water (ocean) and drowning.) But there are also other Biblical references indicating that the entire earth is a sphere. Which is a scientific statement way before its own time.
What are you saying about Adam and Eve?
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 so you ARE admitting that it is metaphorical. excellent. ok so if "falling of the edge" just means walking to the end of Pangaea then adam and eve being the "first humans" could just mean that they founded the first city.
For that matter where are the biblical references that the earth is a sphere? you said that they exist but give no source.
morpheuskibbe 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
It's not metaphorical. It's just different terminology. You need to know the roots of the derived language(s) to understand the true meaning. Dialects, translations, and modern terminology all play into how you interpret the Bible. The general meaning is easy to understand. But the more technical subjects require deeper knowledge, which I don't believe you have, which directly affects your conclusion.
What does that have to do with a single continent?
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
Isaiah 40:22 "He resides above the circle of the earth... ...He spreads out the heavens like a curtain and makes his abode from them."
Proverbs 8:27 "...when He established the heavens; when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep."
Job 26:10 "He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters, at the boundary of light and darkness."
Luke 17:31, 34 "On that day...", "...on that night..."
The Biblical Hebrew word for "circle" (חוג—chuwg) also means "round" or "sphere."
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 all three of those refer to the horizon.
morpheuskibbe 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
See?! You do not have the basic knowledge of the Bible and Hebrew language required to know what it actually means. Horizon is a translation, circle is a translation, the meaning is sphere.
You ignored the last passage. It is referring to the coming of Christ, in which one verse says it will occur during the day and a subsequent verse says it will occur during the night. It could not be both unless earth were a spherical object.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 no i prefer to refer to the last verse as a contradiction. and seriously the "circle on the water boundary of light and darkness" i don't see any way that's not horizon. and "above the circle of the earth" above is kind meaningless when there is a sphere involved because up isn't A direction.
But back on the previous point what about my Adam and Eve reinterpretation like your "edge" reinterpretation? what do you think about that statement?
morpheuskibbe 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
So you believe in a flat earth? Those verses would only be contradictory if the world were flat. You know, I'm beginning to think that it's the atheists who believe the world is flat.
You still have not proven that it couldn't be a sphere. Bible scholars know what they're talking about; you don't.
Okay, please clarify the point you're trying to make with Adam and Eve. I have no clue what you're trying to prove with that.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 WHAT im pointing out that the BIBLE believes that the earth is flat.
well the thing i was trying with adam and eve is that i was trying to get you to admit that the "first human" thing could be as metaphorical as the "edge of earth" thing and then id point out that that basically nullifies the biblical reason to oppose evolution.
AND NOW IM BORED off to watch pushing daisies
morpheuskibbe 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
But you have not pointed anything out. Whatever point you were trying to make, you have not proven it. There is nothing to back up your claim.
The "first human" is not metaphorical. And I didn't say the "edge of the earth" is metaphorical either; there are just different views of what it really means, down to the last detail.
Well, aside from your rather atrocious communicative writing, fallacious logic, and deficient research, it's been a pleasure debating with you.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 if "edge of earth" means "edge of Pangaea" then guess what THAT'S A METAPHOR. not to mention humans didn't exist that long ago.
its funny to talk to someone who doesn't know what a metaphor is. and i'm loving that you have gone to the ad hominem attacks now. you are losing ground, i love it. laughs maniacally.
morpheuskibbe 3 months ago
@morpheuskibbe
BAHAHAHAHA!!! XD This is hilarious!
Well, seeing as how you are a hypocrite who does not understand what he is talking about, and seeing as also I am not typically one to take advantage of those with lesser intelligence, I will now leave this fruitless argument. You cannot be convinced simply because you do not possess the adequate understanding.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 and boom goes the troll. you will not get a rise out of me. for i am not trollbait.
morpheuskibbe 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DragonTech7
I've personally debunked your garbage on several occasions.
odinata 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 Comment the 3, after jumping around a bit. As for whether I'd do what Stephen Hawking says because he said so, did I not previously point out ipse dixit? I'd think you could realize from me pointing out a logical fallacy I am quite capable of detecting one when I read or hear it. As for the whole "what if you're wrong" thing...this is another false dichotomy in which there are only two options: you being right and me being wrong or you being wrong and me being right. --cont
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
I beg to differ.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 Cont-- There are, in fact, more than two possibilities. We certainly can't both be right, that would be contradictory, but we could both be wrong. What if Islam is right? What if the Egyptians had it right? Hindus?
As for the what if I am condemned to non-existence...that sounds exactly like being dead, so uh...I'm failing to see a punishment -- why would I want to exist forever?
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
Perhaps you should refer to the best-selling book, worldwide. Perhaps you should consider the most logical, rational, and scientific worldview.
It's not just non-existence. You will be judged in the hellfire of our dying solar system. You will be judged according to your heart, and what you did while alive. When you have completed your sentence, both your body and soul will be licked up in your final pain with flame.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 The most logical, rational, and scientific worldview? Less than 10% of scientists believe in God's existence vs. a book written during the Bronze Age by goat-herders. Tough choice...
Again, the appeal to consequence isn't winning me over to your point of view...none of it supports why God exists.
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama (I'm sure you meant "via" and not "vs.")
Precisely! Which is an immense insult on the reasoning of modern scientists.
One cannot explain why God exists, as it is beyond our comprehension. He just does. Always has, always will. It is just as you cannot explain the existence of our universe (without MAJOR assumptions).
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
@7DragonTech7 I did mean "vs." as those were the options I was comparing.
You misunderstood what I said. You say there is a God, I'm not convinced. You tell me I'll suffer when I die, I say that's irrelevant to the matter - it doesn't prove to me that there is a God. Peter 3:15 states "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." Why then, is it that Christians refuse to answer requests for evidence of God?
VincentKurayama 3 months ago
@VincentKurayama
The options you were comparing were God's existence and God's word?
It begins within your heart. I cannot give you solid evidence that God exists, nor can you give me solid evidence that God doesn't exist. Scientific observations point to the Bible and God, but they will not change your heart. I know God exists because I see Him; I've seen the work of God in my life and in the lives around me. I know Him. But that is not your evidence; it's mine. Only you can change your heart.
7DragonTech7 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DragonTech7
"One cannot explain why God exists."
One cannot even demonstrate that a god exists.
odinata 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with here in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.needgod.com
standingontruth1 3 months ago
Who told the Church that the earth was flat? Scientists. Who believed the scientists? The Church!
If DNA is information, code, then where did it come from? Life only comes from life? Where did life begin? Not in as primordial soup. That was toxic to life as we know it.
Wheetbix69 3 months ago
@Wheetbix69 SAY WHAT!!?? Gosh, What scientist told the Church the earth was flat? The Church told the scientist what to do and say. Burned 'em at the stake for saying the sun was the center of the solar system. "The 4 corners of the earth..." The fact that everyone will see Christ's return in the sky all at the same time...."The pillars of the earth" etc etc, blah blah blah
baldone46 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baldone46
"Burned 'em at the stake for saying the sun was the center of the solar system"
I suppose here you're talking about Galileo, who was most definitely NOT burned at the stake, nor was he killed for his belief in heliocentrism.
Eh, but never let's the facts get in the way of great story, that's par for the course for you guys. That's how they came up with evolution in the first place.
andypro7777 3 months ago
@Wheetbix69 These were not scientists but theologists.
Instead of asking questions on Youtube, go on the Internet or in a library, take some books about evolution and start reading. Duh, is it so hard to educate yourself?
Doum92 3 months ago in playlist Favoris de Doum92
@Wheetbix69 And I forgot about abiogenesis and micro/macrobiology.
Doum92 3 months ago in playlist Favoris de Doum92
2.9 billion base pairs at 4 pairs per byte means 714,000,000 roughly bytes thats less than a cd for the whole human genome. It may expand into a lot more detail when decoded but thats the instructions.
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
I'll see your rocket and raise you a universe! That's what my God built...if you really want to meet God...don't look up...look in...the love you feel for anything comes from God...and is inside you! :D
myfitnesstream 3 months ago
Comment removed
ADADEL1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myfitnesstream Got any evidence for that?
ADADEL1 3 months ago
@myfitnesstream Invented by you to fill a need of understanding and love.
Doum92 3 months ago
@myfitnesstream Your God took 6 days, mine was faster.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@myfitnesstream
That's special pleading, I call bullshit. You first need to demonstrate a god exists.
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
the weird thing is that modern science has only been around for about 500 years. Imagine when we actually get to 1,000 years. We will have explored the Milky Way by then.
RockSmithStudio 3 months ago
The Genetic information in just one cell has more information and systems than the space shuttle.
Now times that by a trillion to make a human and I can clearly see what God can do against what man can do.
flyingscience2 3 months ago
@flyingscience2 the genetic information in humans can be stored in about 750 MB. Yup, that means you carry a copy of the human genome on a flash drive the size of your thumbnail.
RockSmithStudio 3 months ago
@RockSmithStudio "the genetic information in humans can be stored in about 750 MB."
Not even close.
One human cell (except for red blood cells) contains enough genetic information to fill 3 GB's of hard drive space.
One cell.
We have trillions of cells.
Do not pass go, do not collect 200$.
flyingscience2 3 months ago
@flyingscience2 RockSmith is still absolutely correct - 3gb would still fit on a thumbdrive, or on a mini SD card.
parsivalshorse 3 months ago
@flyingscience2 The haploid human genome contains 23,000 protein-coding genes, far fewer than had been expected before its sequencing. In fact, only about 1.5% of the genome codes for proteins, while the rest consists of non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and non coding DNA. And do not forget that the genes are the same for a lot of cells. So, having a trillion cells doesn't mean a trillion different genes.
Doum92 3 months ago
@Doum92 "So, having a trillion cells doesn't mean a trillion different genes."
Yeah, I know that.
The reason I brought up that we have trillions of cells was to show that they need to work together.
All our function's work together in harmony unless we are sick.
I know we don't have trillions of Genes.
flyingscience2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flyingscience2
You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
You've never taken a science class in your life.
odinata 3 months ago
@flyingscience2 Your functions work in harmony even when you are sick.
Doum92 3 months ago
this guy is.. damn..i can't beleive how humans are so stupid, i understand God's frustration..btw you'r actually giving credits to God's creation..
Modafuckaz 3 months ago
@Modafuckaz God doesn't exist how can we be his creations. We are our parents' creations unless you say you were born from God's vag*na
Razorsharp445 3 months ago
@Razorsharp445 i can understand you not beleiving God exists but you can't prove he doesn't and you obvioulsy can debate properly. *ignores*
Modafuckaz 3 months ago
@Modafuckaz use of sarcasm = total failure...
You just can't admit the fact that we were given life by our parents, not some magical sky daddy
Razorsharp445 3 months ago
@Razorsharp445 yeah right, and our parents randomly popped out of nothingness billion years ago.. whatever i don't even care about you anyway.. if you wanna keep thinking a pear is an apple you keep doing that.
Modafuckaz 3 months ago
@Modafuckaz Wrong context, there is no reasoning nor logic in your arguement. Good day
Razorsharp445 3 months ago
@Razorsharp445 lololol hit me up when you evolve again k?
Modafuckaz 3 months ago
@Modafuckaz You can't prove that the almighty pink unicorn that follows you everyday doesn't exist.
Doum92 3 months ago
@Doum92 oh i do not need to prove anything about the pink unicorn that follows me everyday , he's my friend, we play video games every friday night together but since he evolved into a unicorn in about 100 billion years, he kind lags.. and that's a fact!
Modafuckaz 3 months ago
@Modafuckaz The universe isn't even 100 billion years old, you dumbass.
Doum92 3 months ago
Comment removed
Modafuckaz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Microphones aren't for listening they are for talking"
--MaximusArurealius
odinata 4 months ago
Also WildCatsKitten, as the coup-de-grace, you would probably reply to my responses in order to save your ego and save face. You know whats the funny thing? I don't even have to be right about that and you can pretend to be a troll (to try to "save face" and pretend like you weren't serious), and the winner is still me.
blahblahblahblah.
TomRaphaelWolf 4 months ago
The manual technology was far ahead of science. But no they think because they invented digital historically AFTER manual operations that it MUST be better. I am sick and tired of a bunch of geeks inventing shit I don't need. We need to take 99% of scientists and inventors and put them to useful work like sorting my garbage for me so I don't have to do it. BTW most of my garbage is because some fucking scientist thought it was great to package everything in bubble packs. So fuck you.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Why don't you do it, we're the ones with the brains. :p
TomRaphaelWolf 4 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf
You believe your brain was not created to recognize truth.
hahahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 4 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Why?
hahahahahahahahahahaha
TomRaphaelWolf 4 months ago
Science has invented so much shit we don't need on our cars that our mechanic can hardly even work on them anymore. They need to take all that digital shit and shove it up their asses. My old car with manual everything worked perfectly and instantly. This digital crap causes people to run over others while trying to figure out when it's going to work and to find the stupid little button that takes 5 seconds to finally kick in when you DO push it.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
SCIENCE needs to spend more time inventing things we need such as instant hot water or instant cold water already filtered out of the faucet. But no they are busy wasting their time with a failed bullshit theory that does us no fucking good whatsoever. They invent new cell phones that spy on us and have so much shit on them that they never work right. I keep losing my signal and the sound quality is SHIT. They need to work on that instead of a camera that tracks where the pic was taken.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
Scientific achievements? That's a laugh. Every day science creeps forward with it's agenda of world enslavement and you're proud? Technology has allowed govt and corporations to spy on us and destroy our right to privacy. It is destroying our freedoms everyday. Science allows Monsanto to hybridize all of our food source plants and leave us with nothing. They are lobbying congress now to outlaw home gardens. Control the food supply and the information and you control the people.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
AND GET THIS FOLKS when they tested the first atom bomb, they were worried that it could blow up the whole Earth. But guess what? You guessed, the sorry bastards pushed the button anyway. That's a fucking scientist for you. And BTW they took the HAARP and just to see what would happen they blew a hole in the ozone layer. Isn't that great? You science worshiping holes are worshiping the devil.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius I think you're basing off all your accusations and think that scientists have influenced politics directly. Well sir, it's obvious that since the government sponsors science to create things, they're also going to eventually figure out weapons or useless things of use, and use that for their benefit. +no one worships science. Objective science, one with no political backing behind it, is much, much better at explaining/making things than most if not all other things.
TomRaphaelWolf 4 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf The atheists ALL worship science. It's their god.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf
" no one worships science"
Your hero stutterfoot does, And a grown man putting the sophomoric " science for the win" is a retard, Furthemore, it is funny that a pantheist like stutterfoot is trying to compare scientific achievements to religious achievements, Stutterfoots religion of Worshipping nature as god has contributed nothing to the achievements of scientists, it has contributed to the entertainment of laughing at tards like stutterfoot.
hahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 4 months ago
If the person creating this video was honest, then why isn't the Atom Bomb showed in the video? in the end if you wanted to be honest with this dishonest video, you would have shown man, which was created by a creator. However science in it's arrogance claims humans evolved and with all that was in this video, and the belief that humans evolved, how come science can not create life in any form? Science is good, but arrogant science is not.
gbp2000 4 months ago
SCIENTISTS ARE GOING TO KILL AND ENSLAVE US Destruction of the human race: Do you even have a clue as to how many WMDs that scientists have invented and they are still working on more. They have bombs (a-bomb, h-bomb, neutron bomb). They have chemical weapons which we don't even know how many they have invented and the next thing is the bio weapons. Those are the ones you should be worried about. All it takes is one little bitty miscalculation and the thing will be unleashed on all of mankind.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Well articulated. Thank you.
gbp2000 4 months ago
@gbp2000 You're welcome, I just thought you were needing a little support. All this science shit just pisses me off. The millions and millions of people who have been enslaved, murdered, and maimed because of science aren't too happy with it either. BUT THEY HAVE NO VOICE
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
God created one thing that without this nothing on this video would have been created, which is man. However, there is one thing that man has created in the arrogant science world that has not been shown, the ATOM BOMB! And with the scientif creation of the ATOM BOMB, there's no one that will be around to care in a 1000 years. Is it even possible that Science will not destroy all man kind in a under 1000 years with it's development of the Bomb? Science: short term good, long term like cancer.
gbp2000 4 months ago
@gbp2000
And religion already was used as an excuse to destroyed entire civilizations.
OptimalElement 4 months ago
@OptimalElement More people were killed with the use of advanced weapons developed by science in the 20th century than all the people allegedly killed by religion. I have one question to you, but I do not expect an honest answer. Without science, would it be possible to kill off the entire human race at will?
gbp2000 4 months ago
@OptimumIdiot"And religion already was used as an excuse to destroyed entire civilizations" But the religion of atheism as already outstripped all the religions in history combined. Look at Russia, China and all the other communist (atheist) countries. AND don't you even tell me something so fucking stupid as communism has nothing to do with atheism because only an uneducated moron wouldn't know that communism is govt enforced atheism.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
Atheism is not a religion because an atheist is the one who does not believe or at least remains skeptical of the supernatural. Yes, Stalin and many communist leaders may have been atheists, but Crimes committed by communist countries was not in the name of atheism. It was for economical and political reasons. Hitler was a catholic, a christian. So is it valid to suggest Nazism occurred because of christianity?
OptimalElement 4 months ago
@OptimalElement
By the way my parents grew up in the Soviet Union through out 70s and 80s and religion was permitted. My mother herself is a christian. So saying they were ''atheist'' countries is a flawed statement. Today in Sweden about 85% of population are atheist. I don't see them engaging in any genocidal activities.
OptimalElement 4 months ago
@OptimumIdiot, Hitler was an occultist. Which means the ultimate of atheism. The steps of damnation are 1. reject truth (liberalism) 2. reject the church 3. reject God #4 embrace satan. So he WAS one of you guys after all.
Next question, since you're going to start bitching about being grouped with the occult, tell us why it is that when a satanist comes here that you atheists ALWAYS side with him, never criticize him, and never make fun of his BS? Is it because you are on his side? I think so.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Why did he say he was doing all of his stuff for god? Such as the purification of jews?
TomRaphaelWolf 4 months ago
@OptimumIdiot, So you are one of the New Russians. That tells us the whole story. You're a fucking liar. So your mother must not be much of a committed Christian. It's funny how you asshole atheists will claim Russia was not atheist, but you come here to the U.S. and tell us that we are not a Christian country. You like to butter your bread on both sides don't you? The Russian govt is now building churches. Why? Because atheism FAILED and always does. No society can be based on atheism and last.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
Russian political and social problems have nothing to do with atheism/theism. Study history of the country in detail before making such comments.
OptimalElement 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
First of all, I am not Russian. I am Ukrainian. Secondly I didn't come to US. I never been to US. I moved to Ireland. Secondly if you had the education of your own countries history, you would know that the founders clearly established a separation between state and church. And if you say I am a liar then clearly any educated person who will read your comment will know who is the real uneducated liar here. You argue like a typical troll. Int hat case I refuse to reply to you.
OptimalElement 4 months ago
@OptimalElement
naturalistic pantheism is your religion, You worship nature as god
You didn't understand the cigarette analogy because you are stupid!
hahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Because the majority of people are weak and need a reason to explain their existence even though there isn't one, right? (from a spiritual pov)
TomRaphaelWolf 4 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf
The atheist bus campaign was designed to help atheists that are weak just like you, The slogan " There probably is no god so stop worrying and enjoy your life" was brought out to comfort weaklings like you who are scatred that you will be judged, the atheist bus campaign is a comfort blanket to queers like you.
hahahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 4 months ago