This was a good 2:49 waste of my time. What you did was give years of supposed life progress that leads to nothing more than bacterias. Then you throw in plants in the middle as if plants had anything to do with the Cambrian animals sudden appearance. Since the animals didn't evolved from plants it renders them pointless to the sudden appearance. When its all set and done your video says bacterias turned to animals out of nowhere. This is an illusion of an explanation. But explains nothing.
How do you go from "bacteria" at 650 million years ago and then at 500 million years ago the cambrian explosion of ALL KINDS of FULLY FORMED ANIMALS appear seemingly out of nowhere? Especially with nothing in between..no evidence no fossils..nothing. The fossil record itself makes your whole premise moot. You are articulate but your lack of belief says alot about you. You sound smart but as it says in scripture.."anyone that says there is no God is a fool".
@bheadh It's the fact that multicellular life appeared relatively close (compared to the previous billions of years) to the time that the Cambrian explosion occurred. At that point, genes evolved the ability to link up more than one cell into one organism. The evolutionary path is a relatively easy one from there to linking up many cells - into tissues, then organs, organ systems, etc. The Cambrian explosion was the exploitation of this newfound branch in evolution.
Excellent video.....The sad thing is that the average human mind is incapable of processing billions of years. It is much easier, albeit erroneous to go with the easier to process 'Creation theory' . Fortunately we are entering a new age where the truth, however hard to digest is being explained in a more simple manner by individuals like you. Thanks.
Perfectly preserved microscopic embryos in pre Cambrian strata show its very favourable preservation conditions yet no ancestral fossils actually exist. Suggesting ancestral history is gross distortion and completely ignores the facts. Plausible fabrications may impress the delusional Darwinian faithful but such nonsense defies human intelligence!
@Raymulv But where are the Bunnies (vertebrates)? If the Cambrian explosion demonstrates creationism, it MUST contain representatives from the full spectrum CURRENT species. Instead, we have only archaic ancestral fossils to current species.
@dusktreader13 First of all, vertebrates account for less than 0.25% of the entire fossil record. The first known vertebrate fossils, found in China, date back to the early Cambrian. Cambrian sites in China and Canada reveal over 50 phyla, today there are about 38 left! This decrease in diversity is in direct contrast of what evolutionary theory predicts! The fact the cambrian contains more phyla than exist today, shows evolution never happened.No ancestral fossils ever existed!
@Raymulv So, 0.25% of fossils in the Cambrian SHOULD be vertebrates. And, some percentage of those vertebrates SHOULD be mammals. And some percentage of those mammals SHOULD be modern forms of mammals. Unfortunately, this is absolutely not the case. Your claim of "over 50 phyla" seems completely unsubstantiated beside the fact that phylum partitions are hotly contested among *real* biologists. If I had more characters, I'd explain why your claim of a decrease in diversity is also false.
@Raymulv So if species go extinct then evolution isn't possible? I'm sorry your fear of the unknown has driven you to cling so tightly to your mythology. It's unfortunate that as new technologies shed an ever increasing light on the mysteries of the universe that some people can't let go of that fear and accept that individual life is not eternal but that life as a process may go on and has gone for a very long time. Can't you just accept that "man in God's image" just means we gained awareness?
@tomblack2112 So if species go extinct then evolution isn't possible? No that is not what I said. The cambrian shows the sudden and abrupt appearance of ALL modern phyla some highly advanced and some not. Many became extinct, others survived. The only myth applied is that of evolution. The evidence from the fossil record exposes this fallacy. All phyla appear abruptly & fully formed. Later they simply disapear from the record. No evolution ever occured!
What a compilation of presupposed delusional fallacies! There is not one single shred of evidence to support this embarrassing fabrication. Idol speculation has no place in science.
I like how atheists are the ones that write the science textbooks used in universities. I would say in at least half of the science classes I have taken, the authors made little, sarcastic remarks about Christianity. When people take a science course they should learn about science, not some bullshit atheist propaganda. "Let me control the text books and I will control the state." Adolph Hitler (surprise surprise)
@surshot56 Are you talking about 600 years or so ago when scientific discoveries were deemed heretical by uninformed Christians who misinterpretted the bible? I guess you are trying to say its payback time huh. There is nothing that backs up atheism. There has been no event or process in nature that has contradicted God, however there are many that point to God.
@surshot56 Well you would have to discredit all historical accounts and all the profound spiritual messages Jesus Christ delivered to make that statement. You know whats up, but you deny it. One of those guys.
@mvayne80 Profound spiritual messages of Jesus? You mean when he cast demons into a herd of swine and they cast themselves over a cliff? What about the owner of those pigs? Did he get compensated for his loss? What about when Jesus caused the fig tree to wither and die for not producing fruit? Did the tree deserve that? What about the message to leave family to follow Jesus and give no thought for the morrow? Doesn't that make Jesus a mistaken apocalyptic prophet? Some spiritual messages huh?
@burkerow (1/2) Im sure you know that Einstein was the first to say the universe had a beginning. Now we have the Hubble telescope showing us the state of expansion the universe is in, which backs up Einstein. We know that the expansive forces are stronger than the gravitational forces or it would not be expanding, and we know that if either of these forces were not exactly the way they are in terms of strength we would not have a universe.
@burkerow (2/2) Stephen Hawking said the odds of that happening by chance are 1 in one hundred thousand million million, which clearly says that idea is not a rational one. That is one of many examples. Some of the hard headed scientists out there sting cling to that idea that the world & universe just kept beating the odds over and over throughout the billions of years it has existed. Wow it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer thats for sure!!!
@mvayne80 "Stephen Hawking said the odds of that happening by chance are 1 in one hundred thousand million million, which clearly says that idea is not a rational one."
Of course it's rational. Yet very few scientist especially physicists believe in God. Hawking doesn't, Susskind doesn't nor does Victor Stenger. The very scientist that you site in support of your argument does not believe in God. Exceedingly small odds do not mean an event won't happen, eventually it will.
@burkerow 1 in one hundred thousand million million. 1 in 10^41. Do you know how huge those numbers are???!!!! What are the chances of one person winning the lottery, with those kind of odds, many many times?? How is it that our one universe beat the 1 in 10^41 odds? Not rational, but different people have different ways of looking at things I guess. I dont judge you or anyone else. I can see it and I want others to see it as well.
@mvayne80 Some thoughts to rebut your fine tuning argument which seems to be a rather popular argument in Christian apologetics these days.
The fine tuning argument seems to come mostly from people that have little understanding of science in general and physics in particular. Examples of fine-tuning found in theological literature suffer from simple misunderstandings of physics. "Scientists" that promote these ideas intentionally manipulate numbers to make sense of their arguments.
@burkerow "Scientists" that promote these ideas intentionally manipulate numbers to make sense of their arguments." Sounds like you copy and pasted something someone else said because you yourself said you dont have much understanding. I have a decent (at worst) understanding of physics and science.
@mvayne80 You want to get into a competition of who has the better education and understanding of science? I have no idea what your education is and at some level our education is irrelevant.
I have a masters degree in biology, so I also have decent understanding of science and have the ability to read and understand much of it.
@burkerow I understand anthropom. buddy. so the "real" god is the one that is "too high" to have concern for humans or anything else he created, am i right or mistaken? if God had no concern then what would be the purpose of creating us? As far as personal attacks, sorry for calling you out on the volcano comparison you did. I dont have a masters in bio, but i have a minor in it and im close to a degree in engineering which means i have some understanding of science i would say.
@mvayne80 You are quite wrong to conclude that "some scientists are stubborn" and don't accept the fine tuning argument. They don't accept it for two reasons, 1. They understand physics better than you and 2. they prefer to continue to look for a natural explanation for existence.
There are about 8x10^68 possible combinations in a deck of 52 cards. That's more than the number of atoms in the universe. What are the chances of shuffling a deck into a perfectly ordered deck? If all 6 billion people on this planet shuffled a deck every second, you should not expect to see a perfectly ordered deck in millions of years. BUT, with enough time it will happen, maybe on the next shuffle
@burkerow "fine tuning argument is false" I am waiting for someone to give a rational explanation of how NOTHING became a ridiculously organized life-sustaining universe, which started off as an infinitely small point with damn near infinite mass that defies all understanding and physics.
@mvayne80 There are truffles growing at the base of a tree behind my house. There are dozens of environmental factors that if even slightly different, the truffle would not exist. From the perspective of the truffle, it would seem that the universe somehow conspired or had an intelligent designer only so the truffle could exist. BUT this is what is referred to as "reverse engineering logical fallacy" and it is what you do when you use the anthropic principle to argue for intelligent design.
@mvayne80 Physicists Frank Wilczek and Victor Stenger agree that the answer to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that nothingness is unstable. There are mathematical reasons for this. In what is called the "nonboundary scenario", the universe has a probability of something rather than nothing and can actually be calculated at over 60%.
@mvayne80 The natural state of things is that something is actually more likely than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention-not a full one. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect of there is no God.
@mvayne80 If you want to define a fine tuned universe (anthropic principle) using extremely small odds to argue against a natural cause for the universe, you should also give a probability for the existence of an intelligent designer. Perhaps the existence of your supernatural God is even a smaller probability than a naturally occurring universe and life. Especially since all we know of, so far, are naturally occurring phenomenon.
@mvayne80 Every event in our past that we "thought" had a supernatural cause, became a natural cause once we really understood it. There is no reason for me to assume that trend will not continue into any foreseeable future.
Lets see if you can think for yourself and not take a week to respond due to you rigorously searching for anything that opposes my statements no matter how ridiculous it is. and by the way what the heck are you talking about with your claims of me anthropomorphizing God? " why should I worship this unknown creative force anymore than I would worship a volcano for it's creative abilities?" With that comment alone I can see we are light years apart. This became a waste of time 4 me. sorry
@mvayne80 I have a busy job and a busy life. I respond to your comments based on my ability to "waste my time" with people like you. If you don't understand an anthropomorphized god then you don't understand the Christian or Muslim god. If all we're talking about is an Aristotelian god, then we have no quarrel.
Oh BTW, do better than your personal attacks such as "if you can think for yourself". I've attempted to be respectful of you, but your response is usually how it goes when you lose!
@burkerow (1/2) Hey man ( im assuming you are a man) I was thinking about our conversation today and I wanted to apologize to you for being a little rude. Im sure your a decent guy, and I try to be but I guess I have my moments. I shouldnt have told you to think for yourself when its clear you are totally capable of that and are entitled to your own views concerning the existence of God, etc, etc. God is impossible for anyone to wrap their heads around, and believing is very difficult.
@mvayne80 I would be delusional, like most people here, if I really thought I could change anybody's mind and convert them to atheism. That's not why I post comments here. I come here in hopes of having a Socratic dialogue of a sorts so we can learn from each other. But nobody seems to be able to keep emotions out of it and they all deteriorate to insults.
@mvayne80 Just a little advice, if you want to have a successful and civil dialogue with someone, start by keeping your emotions out of it, keep insults out of it, keep assumptions and judgments about the other person out of it. Stick to the point that you're discussing. As soon as you show disrespect for your audience, it doesn't matter whether you are right, you've lost the argument because you've lost your credibility and more importantly you've lost your audience.
@burkerow (1/2) Honestly I am fully aware the I do not have the power to change anyone's mind and have known that for quite a while. There is a biblical quote that goes something like, "The planter is nothing, and the waterer is nothing. It is all about the one who gives the increase (God)." when I get snappy it is me displaying a lack of patience due to having a busy life myself.
@mvayne80 If I made assumptions about you, it was that you probably had at least some college education in science. While I have a graduate degree in science, I don't think our education have a place in these discussions. That's making an appeal to authority, and I would rather just stick to the point being discussed. One can be an erudite and make very intelligent arguments without ever having been to college. I would rather let the argument stand on its own merit, irrespective of education.
@burkerow Remark about your assumption about me.. Now you are trying to put yourself on a higher platform by subtly attacking my education which is, in reality, sufficient enough to engage in this sort of conversation with you and most others. I have debated some really intelligent scientists (phds) and their knowledge of biology only took them so far. Just a basic understanding of science in general with a lot of common sense is enough from my experience. I see you touched on that already
@mvayne80 No, i am not trying to "put myself on a higher platform" than you. I told you that it does not matter to me what your education is. A formal education is not the only thing that contributes to the validity of ones argument. For all I know you may have a higher IQ than me and you may be better read than me. That does not matter. It's how well we frame our argument that matters.
@mvayne80 When I said that I assumed you had at least some college science, it could have been a PhD. I had no idea and it didn't matter. That's what I saying.
@burkerow God cares in a way that is beyond understanding and His intelligence is infinite. He knows everything and knew everything before He created this universe. He knew you before He formed you in the womb. How are those human attributes? I think its clear that people who choose to believe in a god that is beyond love, etc, are really trying to push away the idea that one day they will be judged for their thoughts and actions.
@mvayne80 I am sorry, I will still have to vehemently disagree with you and say that traits such as intelligence and love and caring is a form of anthropomorphizing, at least it's giving that force animation. Karen Armstrong gives a history of the early concepts of god and they simply began with, still are patterned after man. The concept of god throughout history is just a larger than life version of man. Yes we have endowed it with infinite power, but its just a version of man.
@burkerow Well I guess we can agree to disagree about the Christian God. One could say your idea that God cannot love or care is placing limitation on a limitless being and Im sure we could go round and round with that. The Christian God wasnt created and wasnt endowed with infinite power. You act like the people who wrote the bible said lets get together and give our God all these powers because it sounds cool. All you are doing is giving me your opinions.
@mvayne80 I spent the first 30 years of my life as a Christian. I was "born again" when I was a teenager. I taught Sunday school in a Quaker church in my 20's. But my science education and my common sense began to make me wonder if we can even know absolute truths. There are thousands of Christian denominations because nobody can agree, even within the same faith. SO, I turned to studying philosophy to get answers. I remain agnostic for 20 years and finally got off the fence 4 years ago.
@burkerow Well I want to thank you for sharing your experience with me and I must say it is not an uncommon story. Many people that grow up religiously in the church end up moving away from it for whatever reason. My mom and her four sisters went to Catholic school from elementary all the way to high school, and once they were done they all quit going to church. Presently 2 of my aunts are into the New Age Psychic thing and the rest go to church every blue moon.
@burkerow I myself am non-denominational and dont agree with many of the other types of Christians namely Catholics and Y.E. Creationists. One of the nastier debates Ive been in was with a Y.E. Creationist on an anti-creationist channel. I tried to reach out to her and "bridge the gap" between our viewpoints and basically was told I was going to hell for not believing the earth is 6 thousand years old lol. I was like "where in the bible does it say your salvation rests upon the y.e. belief?"
@mvayne80 My biggest problem with Christianity was that I could not reconcile the biblical stories with reality. I could not justify problems with theodicy. It was when I rejected a notion of God that all of my questions and difficulty with religion began to make sense. I no longer struggle with God's demands for child sacrifice and genocide and eternal punishment, just for not believing. He doesn't exist, at least how he's describe in the bible. Can a god exist as a creative force? Maybe.
@burkerow I would suggest you watch some William Lane Craig videos if you havent already. That guy is feared by all atheists when it comes to intellectual debates and its for good reason. The guy is at the top of the food chain when it comes to this subject, and even Dawkins declined to debate him. The guy is a genius. He has, I believe, two phds, one in philosophy, one in some sort of religious study, and has a great knowledge of science as well.
@mvayne80 In fact I have watched dozens of WLC videos. Additionally I have even given him some of the same kudos that you have, those being that I think he is one of the best Christian apologist out there. I also have a book to which he has contributed, titled "Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" I also own a copy of Albert Schweitzer's book "Quest For The Historical Jesus", but it's still on my reading list.
@mvayne80 Just one more thought about WLC, while he is quite a brilliant debater, he also extensively uses a repackaged form of the Kalam argument. As you may know the Kalam is a reformulated version of Socrate's un-moved mover or prime mover. While WLC uses it quite effectively it really is full of logical errors. It might work on Christians to bolster their faith, but to a critical thinker it fails tests of logic.
@burkerow Im glad you can appreciate WLC but I have to disagree with you statement about his logic. The man eats, drinks, breathes, sleeps, and dreams logic lol. If WLC or an equal wasnt around my faith would be fine but I admit it is nice that the best argument out there is for God.
Most of our opinions and beliefs come from being educated with information gathered by other people. I can't think for myself when it comes to difficult concepts like relativity or quantum physics, I must read the experts and at some level take their word for it. I do not have a television but my living room is dominated by books. I do read a lot and yes I did reference some books for my reply, but I have read most of them.
@mvayne80 I have many books written by Christians because I feel a need to read both sides of the issue. I have Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box", which I think is crap and bad science. It's no wonder he can't get essays on this published in peer review journals. But, I also own Karen Armstrong's book "A Case For God" and while I have come to a different conclusion than she, I think her book is fabulous. She is the reason I can stay open to at least a deist type god.
(2/2) I am very passionate about this subject of God. Usually I am the one getting attacked on here and it ranges from "simpleton" to homosexual pedophile lol. I would say you are one of the more worthy "adversaries" I have exchanged dialogue with and I am sure I am not the one to convince you of anything. Personally, I think scientific evidence is the best way to approach a non-believer, but I myself do not need it. Individual spiritual discoveries are what really open people's eyes.
@mvayne80 I am truly sorry that you have been attacked by atheist, and I would like to apologize for my atheist cohorts, but very few people on these sites conduct themselves with much class, even Christians. BTW, atheists are more hated than even homosexuals, just read some recent polls on Americans attitudes toward atheists. If you really want to know what it feels like to be despised, just announce to people that you're an atheist. But how we are treated doesn't excuse our own bad behavior.
@burkerow At times when I have deep thoughts about God like who or what He is and how is it possible for a being like Him to exist, my head almost explodes. All of His abilities are said to be infinite and I would have to say His mysteriousness also falls into that category. His fingerprints are everywhere but people have obstacles to overcome in order for their eyes to open. Truly believing in God is the most difficult thing and our own self will is what blocks us.
@mvayne80 Finally; I think we can both agree that a naturally occurring universe, beginning with an infinitely massive singularity 14 billion ya, is mind boggling, as is quantum mechanics, string theory and multi universes. But that's because the human brain does not have the experience to conceptualize them. I think we can also agree that the alternative, and intelligent creator is also mind boggling, as you've stated. I just think a god is infinitely more complex, if you think about it.
@mvayne80 I will stand by my volcano analogy. A volcano has both destructive and creative force. Ancient man gave natural forces human attributes and worshiped and sacrificed to them. They threw the virgin into the volcano. We can't understand the creative force of the universe so we have called it God and we've anthropomorphized it by giving it human attributes such as caring and intelligence. You've done that also. Just my opinion, I know.
@burkerow The natural forces are natural because that is what we can see, touch, examine, falsify, etc, and I have no argument with that. The individual must read between the lines to concur there is a underlying supernatural force governing these natural forces. Science explains the how, but the why of it is explained to a small degree when dealing with the overall big picture.
@burkerow(1/2) The bible gives the best account of a God if you take into consideration all the evil in the world (of course there is good as well). I dont give God human attributes and Im sure you have heard that Christians believe they are created in God's image. I am not talking physical characteristics or personalities but the spirit thats inside which we are not aware of most of the time. Giving God attributes such as caring and intelligence is not anthropomorphizing.
@mvayne80 I would suggest that you have a bias in your thinking. You can more easily accept the "anthropic principle" or 'fine tuning argument" because it supports your belief in God, rather than the other way around. I don't think it was that you thought the fine tuning argument made more sense and led you to belief in God. But I have bias in my thinking as well. I prefer to accept the scientific method and keep my beliefs falsifiable. Therefore I will wait for more natural explanations.
@burkerow I totally agree with you about my thinking being bias. I will be the first to admit that, but it did not start off that way. Growing up, I would say I was caught in between, and most often I leaned toward doubt. I wont go into my own personal spiritual discoveries that placed me in the position I am in today because we both know those discoveries have no meaning to anyone other than myself. God reveals Himself in many ways all of which are on an individual basis.
@mvayne80 I give you the right to use the word god to describe the unknowable creative processes of the universe. But, maybe you can describe this god. Justify why you anthropomorphize your intelligent designer with human attributes? More importantly why should I worship this unknown creative force anymore than I would worship a volcano for it's creative abilities?
@mvayne80 To give you credit, I do have difficulty wrapping my brain around these admittedly difficult concepts of cosmology. I can't conceptualize quantum mechanics or string theory, or singularities very well, so it is here I will need to defer to the expertise of greater minds than my own. But there is no reason yet to concede to the idea of a god. We continue to find natural explanations for things we don't yet understand.
@mvayne80 The default position of any belief claim should be agnosticism. A Christian should defend his reason for struggling against a current past pantheism and deism and then on to theism, then past all the theistic religions such as islam, judaism and settle on Christianity. As for me, I start with agnosticism and move in the direction evidence pushes me; to atheism.
@surshot56 Ive debated atheists that claim to be former Christians who came to this great rational realization that religion is false, and if you tell them they werent truly Christians they bite your head off. Truth be known, they were probably "agnostic Christians" just like you.
@mvayne80 Of course former Christians would bite your head off if you tried to tell them they were never truly Christians. Where to you get the authority to judge someone else's spirituality or belief system based only on the fact that they rejected their faith? True believers change their mind all the time. Read Bart Erhman's biography, and then maybe you should read a few of his books.
@burkerow Bart Erhman is not a respected New Testament scholar for starters but nice try. Ever hear of Antony Flew? This guy was the Alpha Male atheist until he finally accepted the existence of God through the testimony of science. So let me ask you something. You say that evidence pushes you towards atheism so I would like to hear of this evidence because you would be the first atheist in the history of the world to provide it.
@mvayne80Bart "Erhman is not a respected New Testament scholar".
Says who? You? Reference please. He has a bachelor from Moody Bible, a MDiv from Wheaton, PhD from Princeton. Most of his critics are evangelical commentators. Go figure!
BUT that was not my point was it? I was making the point that he was a Christian but left the faith. But you would judge him for not being a real Christian, I guess on the grounds that he doesn't know his bible very well and left Christianity.
"This guy was the Alpha Male atheist until he finally accepted the existence of God"
By the same rational that you say a Christian who leaves the faith was not really a Christian, shouldn't you say the same thing about Flew? Maybe he was never a real atheist.
@burkerow I am surprised you never heard of him being that you are an atheist. All atheists looked up to this guy until he trashed 50 years of work when he realized, through science, that God is real. That says a lot and is a huge step for a person to take. I think that sort of action, admitting he was wrong, is what keeps many others that hold a similar position from doing the same. Pride and EGO play huge factors.
@burkerow "Maybe he was never a real atheist." There is a difference my friend. Someone can easily fake being a Christian and play the part for a number of reasons. Since you tried to reverse my statement and make a point, I ask, why would a Christian or believer in God in general, pretend to be an atheist? That just does not make sense Im sorry. I can see a person trying to become a Christian but having doubts in God, but not truly believing and lying about it.
@mvayne80 1/2 Furthermore you should not use a capital for god when speaking of Flew's god. He specifically said he was NOT Christian and did not accept the God of the bible. His god was more of an Aristotelian god. While Flew said he is a deist he also does not support the historicity or deity of Jesus. I get that and I don't necessarily quarrel with his acceptance of deism. I can and have made a case for a deistic type god or creator as Aristotle and even Karen Armstrong describes.
@burkerow Now I see you are becoming familiar with your atheist predecessors former role model.Yes, I know Flew was not a Christian but I take into consideration that Flew is referring to the creator of the universe, God. Flew came to the conclusion that he was wrong about atheism at the end of his life so why does that all of a sudden make him an expert on God? If Flew only couldve lived another 20 or 30 years he probably would have changed his tuned on that as well.
@mvayne80 2/2 That god is very difficult if not impossible to refute, but like Aristotle's god, that god is irrelevant and I see no reason to worship it. If you want to make a case for the Hebrew God Yahweh or Elohim, I will argue that god does not exist but if he did I would not want to worship him.
@mvayne80 1/2 "So let me ask. You say that evidence pushes you towards atheism so I would like to hear of this evidence because you would be the first atheist in the history of the world to provide it."
No I wouldn't. But I could just as easily ask the same thing as you. Show me evidence of God, because you would be the first Christian in history to provide it. But these comments get us nowhere.
@burkerow "Show me evidence of God." I gave you an example of the fine tuning of the universe and I know there are like 40 or 41 more similar to it. I heard that if you put them all together and calculated the odds of them all happening by chance, you are looking at 1 in 10^41. Those kind of numbers are ridiculous. Apparently I skimmed over your comment about deism so if you are leaning that way, good for you! Its definitely a huge step from atheism.
@mvayne80 2/2 You seem well read and I'm sure anything I can say, you may have already heard. What counts as "evidence" for or against God is different for me than for you. If you want to discuss a specific issue then please feel free to bring it up and I will do my best to have a dialogue with you.
@burkerow (1/2)Thanks for the compliment. I can tell you are bright yourself :D. Yes I have heard it all (mostly) concerning this topic. Well I realize Hawking isnt a believer but the evidence he provided shouts Creator and the funny thing is the guy doesnt realize it (or maybe he does realize it but something causes him to reject this idea). His profession involves understanding the universe and he is obviously so consumed by it that it has become his god figuratively speaking.
@burkerow "Where to you get the authority to judge.." I think of it more as an observation than a judgement. I dont judge people by their actions, but when a person makes the transition to atheism, I think its fair to say they were never true believers to begin with.The so-called former Christians were just conditioned to "believe" during childhood and a true belief in God cannot come by force. U can put a kid through Catholic school but they will go their own way @ some point.
@mvayne80 "I dont judge people by their actions......... I think its fair to say they were never true believers to begin with"
Of course you judge people and no it's not fair. The only respectful way to be is to take people at their word when they've had an experience to which you are not a witness. I don't believe any person is in a position to judge the heart and soul of another. Who would do that except a pretentious bigot? I know it wouldn't be a real Christian. Or would it?
@mvayne80 " scientific discoveries were deemed heretical by uninformed Christians who misinterpretted the bible?"
name one thing scientific in the bible that's at the level above the technology of the time it was written. If you say "washing your hands" You fail because of pagan bath houses.
"There is nothing that backs up atheism"
So nothing backs up my personal lack of belief in your cult that refuses to provide evidence for its claims?
@mvayne80 Atheists don't write science textbooks, scientists do. It just so happens that most scientists are atheist. You have just used a form of inductive reasoning which has led you into a logical fallacy.
@burkerow (2/2) Did you know that Dawkins said everything seems to be intelligently designed? Dawkins clearly wanted special attention on the word SEEMS, but how ridiculous it that? Total D.E.N.I.A.L. (Dont Even Know I Am Lying).
@mvayne80 "I like how atheists are the ones that write the science textbooks used in universities."
Don't be so glum chum christians are still writing coloring books for children. and ghost stories for adults. And why not they are really good at fiction =D
@mvayne80 "When people take a science course they should learn about science, not some bullshit atheist propaganda. "
What you really mean is, you think the science is atheism, and you want your religious fiction preached in its place.Your cult can offer no proof for itself, but your fervent want /desire for it to be preached in classrooms as fact. Obviously your religion has no facts. Thus your violent inability to to view the evident lack of evidence in favor of your cults claims.
@mvayne80 I blocked/deleted you for cut and paste spamming. Now I'm going to interject a conversation into your cut and paste spam, since you were obviously bored.
Care to address any of my other comments or can't you offer anything to rebut my statements?
nope. all we say is evolution didn't happen. Who created us is the next step. All body plans appeared suddenly. The other side would hypothesize what we think millions of years may be wrong if all sedimentary rock were formed by hydrological sorting. A documentary called experiments in stratification show just that. Where a fossil found above may acyually be older then a fossil found lower. It would also explain all the out-of-place artifacts we keep finding. The earth may be old not fossils.
@easymoney4ever "hydrological sorting" does not explain what you think it does. When I hear that as an explanation I always picture all of the earth put into a giant bowl and mixed up and the left to settle. Even if there was some magical rainstorm on the surface, it would not stir up all the layers of the earth down to the core. The smallest grain of truth can be used to justify the most inane Hovind-esque ramblings. Sorry if I misrepresented you, but I trust the current science a bit more.
@rrpostalagain Yes, fair enough. You could be right. You could be wrong. And I appreciate your open minded tone. I don't trust the scientists anymore. But I don't hate science. I really think we'll find sedimentary rocks are mud piles of a great flood. biblical or not. Either way, I hope we find the real truth. I hate not knowing. I just read the lost tablets of Enki. If you haven't read the translations, do so. Some mind bending explanations for a brain to gobble up. :) it's on youtube now
@easymoney4ever You shouldn't trust scientists, i say being on my way to becoming one, instead you should trust the science, or at leasts the benefits we have from it :)
Scientists after all, are just humans, like carpenters they can make mistakes.. the science however is arrived at through very rigorous metahuman processes.. Of course there can be hoaxes, but these are always exposed in due time, and well a hoax will never produce implementable science anyway ^^
@GronTheMighty Yes, I suspect it is hard for every man to leave his learned biases behind. For whenever I think I know something, truth smacks it down. lol The older I get the more open minded I become. Seems backwards logically thinking. But it's just evidence of our true ignorance to the realities of our existence. Do we desire that which cannot be known? I hope not. But we should make the best of the ride ahead. good luck brother.
@easymoney4ever Well my perspective, for now, is that the difficult thing is reminding oneself every step of the way that what we know we only know to varying degrees of certainty, but never to the 100% we strive for.
Yet, we have to strive for the 100%, because that is one of the key things that motivate us and gives us the option of continuing or giving up - setting an unreachable goal, in my view, is thusly not a bad thing, but a nescessary evil in a way :))
@easymoney4ever '' I really think we'll find sedimentary rocks are mud piles of a great flood''
Hey bro, they already looked, about 200 years ago. They didn't find a mud layer with all the dead bodies in it. No evidence for a flood at all. Just distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossils in them. Floods don't do that. Floods don't sort fossils. Floods don't make limestone reefs. Floods don't make ash layers.
@easymoney4ever Geology proves there was never a global flood. Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossils in them. Dinosaure ruled the earth for 160 million years, fossils ARE old. All sedimentary rock is not water borne, some are ash layer. The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is wind blown sand. It has desert fossils in it.
@gregrutz No man. When looked at carefully, It is all just educated speculations. You should know you form your conclusions on information you trust, but may be misleading you. Those things you claim may turn out to be other than what you think you know. Same with my assumptions. But for you to try to elevate what you think to universal truth is not wise if you are truly pursuing truth. All we really know is that we are all ignorant, and we should all focus on our agreement. The alternative? War
@easymoney4ever educated speculations?!? You don't know anything about science, do you. It is a fact that dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160,000,000 years, no a guess or assumption. It is a fact the stars are millions of light years away. It is a fact the the Grand Canyon took millions of years to lay down all those sediments. What is your trusted TRUTH? a 2000 year old book.
@gregrutz Stop acting like if a person believes in the bible it will hinder his ability to learn. All science is founded by the believers you feel will hurt knowledge. You are the only one between us saying you know that which you could not. You don't have to insult the truth by putting forth your opinion as fact. Then imply me ignorant? You throw those ever changing numbers around like the guy in the shell game.
@easymoney4ever You can't learn Geology, it does not fit with your bible stories. Science is not founded by believers, others need to see the date too. Or there would be the science of Jesus and the science of budda and the science of allah.
Evolution is not my opinion, it has been accepted as a fact. About 150 years ago. There is even a theory to show how it happens.
@easymoney4ever all sedimentary rock were formed by hydrological sorting'' Not all sedimentary rock is water borne. The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is wind blown sand. It has desert fossils in it. Some layers are ash from volcanos. Some layers are slow growing coral reefs. Flood don't do that, there was no flood.
listen GOD is an energy intelligence all things need and subsists on energy scientific fact. creationist and scientists need to stop causing all this ideoligical gridlock its unecessary as well as infantile. evolution is a fact but, scientists must accept the fact that the process is guided by an outside force its not a random process.
@gregrutz you still have not defined what nature is, you see people always use the word nature when they are uncomfortable using the word GOD and thats only becuase most people have a distaste for religion with good reason but, people have the wrong thoughts and ideas of GOD
@doctorw2 I have meet some dumb creationists, but you are the first one who does not know what 'nature' is. No wonder you don't understand the scientists who study it. There is mass and energy but they are really one, kind of like god and jesus. Some people study nature so we can go to the moon and email. You should read a science book.
@gregrutz listen i am a scientist myself but, im not afraid to use the G word when it comes to understanding how these laws came to be and no i am not a christian,muslim or jew i do not subscribe to any religious belief but, i do know it takes intelligence to make laws and especialy to concieve them. nothing works on its own impetus and no matter how many may say something to the contrary in the light of logic and reason their arguments hold no validity.
The reason creationists talk about the cambrian explosion is not because they think it shows miraculous creation (if they agree there was a cambrian then they have to accept evolution since then) they think it's a hole in the theory of evolution. Thier twisted logic means that they think any percived fault in evolution supports creationism.
@phookadude Cambrian explosion also took about 6 million years to occur which compared to the entire life span of the universe is rather minuscule and a seemingly an instant. Creationist say it was an instant but don't mention the 6 million years part because they want to make it sound like it literally happened in an instant while in reality 6 million years is a lot of time for life to evolve and diversify. Rapid evolution not instant creation lol.
Right i have watched documentaries before about this the first signs of life started to create oxygen the algae i think it was. And soon as there was enough oxygen for more complex life then the life appeared but it never appeared as quick as some religious idiots say i mean 65 million years isn't a couple of weeks. Dinosaurs were still around 65 million years ago so that is how long it is!
I can't believe the lengths the creationist cocks go to to prove they are right!
lets not miss the forest for the trees ... why must life exist at all??? just think how much more amazing it would be for life to form if God doesn't exist!!!!! where did all the new genetic info come from?
It is illogical to think that the Earth isn't billions of years old.
Just look into the night sky. Even the stars you can see are millions of light years away. This means that it has taken the light that you see millions of years to even reach Earth.
Now get a telescope. The galaxies you can see are billions of light years away.
Put a high-powered telescope into orbit above the pollution of out atmosphere. You can see galaxies 15-16 billion light years away.
With a better understanding of the material FaithRationale, you would be asking which came first: DNA or protein.
Just because there is a gap in a current model of understanding doesn't necessitate the insertion of God to fill in that gap. We don't completely understand the particle associated with gravity either, but neither are we going to suppose that "God himself is pulling matter together personally." We're passed the God in gaps each time we come upon something not currently explained.
You are basically re-trumping up irreducible complexity arguments (but likely are unaware of it, since you probably just heard the question elsewhere as an 'evolutionist stumping question.'
that's right the RNA is transcribed from DNA with enzyme RNA polymerase and further processed by other enzymes. all of these components must present in the same place at the same time. the reason why we believe god because there's intelligence, or an aim in the creation for example the symbiotic relationship between flowers and pollinators. just look at the shapes of male and female genitals they match together perfectly like nut and bolt. all these are purposeful designs.
Simple single cell organisms came first from non-living organic material (Look up Abiogenisis). These produced RNA which led to the production of DNA. DNA led to multicellular organisms.
@carnemolidazh I like how "Abiogenisis" replaced the old "Spontaneous Generation." Louis Pasteur proved that flies do not spontaneously spawn from meat and rats from rags, but now its called abiogenesis and we rely on it for the origin of life. The practice of medicine depends on testable theories like, if I autoclave my instruments, they will not spontaneously spawn new microorganisms, but evolutionary biology is not so restricted as that.
@carnemolidazh Interestingly, back in the day, the supposed day of the primordial soup, when no biological molecules were currently present, life just sort of sprang forth. But now, now with biological molecules just lying around (microbiology 301: life is ubiquitous), this nifty abiogenesis thing doesn't happen any more. I don't think so.
@carnemolidazh We should go back to the good old days of testable science, like they do in medical schools, to solve a specific problem. And as to questions of origins or in cases where some new and interesting fossil is found, we should all try out phrases like "I don't know," or "that's interesting, I wonder what it means." Refreshing.
@kjgeorgiegirl test and repeat it then, go dig up some fossils and explain where they came from. Sequence some chimp and human DNA and find the 1% difference and explain it.
Desertprairie is absolutely correct. This video ignores an infinite amount of biological complexity, statistical improbability, and makes such great leaps of dare I say it, FAITH, that one has to conclude that it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. In fact, it does more to highlight the failure of Darwinism and the theory of Evolution in the midst of critical thinking.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny !
By evolution I assume you mean Neo-Darwinian evolution. It is quite possible that sudden appearance in the fossil record and numerous "living fossils" falsify the theory and not be recognized as doing so by the scientific community. The explanations of "rarity of fossils," and "perfectly suited for their niche," with regard to these two occurances, are only supported by evidence of common descent. You end up going right back to the strawman argument.
That's entirely untrue. Dissenting researchers and scientists are marginalized and black-balled. I recommend viewing Ben Stein's movie "Expelled". The research of very intelligent and highly accredited scientists who challenge the theory of evolution are deliberately kept from the public discussion.
So wheres the transitional forms to get from simple life to the complexity of the animals found in the Cambrian explosion?
QuinnBook 3 months ago
This was a good 2:49 waste of my time. What you did was give years of supposed life progress that leads to nothing more than bacterias. Then you throw in plants in the middle as if plants had anything to do with the Cambrian animals sudden appearance. Since the animals didn't evolved from plants it renders them pointless to the sudden appearance. When its all set and done your video says bacterias turned to animals out of nowhere. This is an illusion of an explanation. But explains nothing.
jouc12 8 months ago
WHAT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY IS YOUR VIDEO THAT STRIDE OVER GALAXIES OF ASSUMPTIONS
billytistrak 8 months ago
How do you go from "bacteria" at 650 million years ago and then at 500 million years ago the cambrian explosion of ALL KINDS of FULLY FORMED ANIMALS appear seemingly out of nowhere? Especially with nothing in between..no evidence no fossils..nothing. The fossil record itself makes your whole premise moot. You are articulate but your lack of belief says alot about you. You sound smart but as it says in scripture.."anyone that says there is no God is a fool".
bheadh 9 months ago
@bheadh It's the fact that multicellular life appeared relatively close (compared to the previous billions of years) to the time that the Cambrian explosion occurred. At that point, genes evolved the ability to link up more than one cell into one organism. The evolutionary path is a relatively easy one from there to linking up many cells - into tissues, then organs, organ systems, etc. The Cambrian explosion was the exploitation of this newfound branch in evolution.
rawssremix 8 months ago
Aliens put us are.
PsychLion 9 months ago
Excellent video.....The sad thing is that the average human mind is incapable of processing billions of years. It is much easier, albeit erroneous to go with the easier to process 'Creation theory' . Fortunately we are entering a new age where the truth, however hard to digest is being explained in a more simple manner by individuals like you. Thanks.
TheMikehattan 11 months ago
PLEASE dont troll on this video, if you disagree, then take your own damm time and effort to make a video to tell why
konohanominato 1 year ago
Perfectly preserved microscopic embryos in pre Cambrian strata show its very favourable preservation conditions yet no ancestral fossils actually exist. Suggesting ancestral history is gross distortion and completely ignores the facts. Plausible fabrications may impress the delusional Darwinian faithful but such nonsense defies human intelligence!
Raymulv 1 year ago
@Raymulv But where are the Bunnies (vertebrates)? If the Cambrian explosion demonstrates creationism, it MUST contain representatives from the full spectrum CURRENT species. Instead, we have only archaic ancestral fossils to current species.
Also, every fossil IS an ancestral fossil.
dusktreader13 10 months ago
@dusktreader13 First of all, vertebrates account for less than 0.25% of the entire fossil record. The first known vertebrate fossils, found in China, date back to the early Cambrian. Cambrian sites in China and Canada reveal over 50 phyla, today there are about 38 left! This decrease in diversity is in direct contrast of what evolutionary theory predicts! The fact the cambrian contains more phyla than exist today, shows evolution never happened.No ancestral fossils ever existed!
Raymulv 10 months ago
@Raymulv So, 0.25% of fossils in the Cambrian SHOULD be vertebrates. And, some percentage of those vertebrates SHOULD be mammals. And some percentage of those mammals SHOULD be modern forms of mammals. Unfortunately, this is absolutely not the case. Your claim of "over 50 phyla" seems completely unsubstantiated beside the fact that phylum partitions are hotly contested among *real* biologists. If I had more characters, I'd explain why your claim of a decrease in diversity is also false.
dusktreader13 10 months ago
@Raymulv So if species go extinct then evolution isn't possible? I'm sorry your fear of the unknown has driven you to cling so tightly to your mythology. It's unfortunate that as new technologies shed an ever increasing light on the mysteries of the universe that some people can't let go of that fear and accept that individual life is not eternal but that life as a process may go on and has gone for a very long time. Can't you just accept that "man in God's image" just means we gained awareness?
tomblack2112 10 months ago
@tomblack2112 So if species go extinct then evolution isn't possible? No that is not what I said. The cambrian shows the sudden and abrupt appearance of ALL modern phyla some highly advanced and some not. Many became extinct, others survived. The only myth applied is that of evolution. The evidence from the fossil record exposes this fallacy. All phyla appear abruptly & fully formed. Later they simply disapear from the record. No evolution ever occured!
Raymulv 10 months ago
What a compilation of presupposed delusional fallacies! There is not one single shred of evidence to support this embarrassing fabrication. Idol speculation has no place in science.
Raymulv 1 year ago
I like how atheists are the ones that write the science textbooks used in universities. I would say in at least half of the science classes I have taken, the authors made little, sarcastic remarks about Christianity. When people take a science course they should learn about science, not some bullshit atheist propaganda. "Let me control the text books and I will control the state." Adolph Hitler (surprise surprise)
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 "Let me control the text books and I will control the state."
Christians have been doing this shit for years. SURPRISE SURPRISE.
surshot56 1 year ago
@surshot56 Are you talking about 600 years or so ago when scientific discoveries were deemed heretical by uninformed Christians who misinterpretted the bible? I guess you are trying to say its payback time huh. There is nothing that backs up atheism. There has been no event or process in nature that has contradicted God, however there are many that point to God.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 There is nothing that backs up Christianity.
surshot56 1 year ago
@surshot56 Well you would have to discredit all historical accounts and all the profound spiritual messages Jesus Christ delivered to make that statement. You know whats up, but you deny it. One of those guys.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Profound spiritual messages of Jesus? You mean when he cast demons into a herd of swine and they cast themselves over a cliff? What about the owner of those pigs? Did he get compensated for his loss? What about when Jesus caused the fig tree to wither and die for not producing fruit? Did the tree deserve that? What about the message to leave family to follow Jesus and give no thought for the morrow? Doesn't that make Jesus a mistaken apocalyptic prophet? Some spiritual messages huh?
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow (1/2) Im sure you know that Einstein was the first to say the universe had a beginning. Now we have the Hubble telescope showing us the state of expansion the universe is in, which backs up Einstein. We know that the expansive forces are stronger than the gravitational forces or it would not be expanding, and we know that if either of these forces were not exactly the way they are in terms of strength we would not have a universe.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@burkerow (2/2) Stephen Hawking said the odds of that happening by chance are 1 in one hundred thousand million million, which clearly says that idea is not a rational one. That is one of many examples. Some of the hard headed scientists out there sting cling to that idea that the world & universe just kept beating the odds over and over throughout the billions of years it has existed. Wow it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer thats for sure!!!
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 "Stephen Hawking said the odds of that happening by chance are 1 in one hundred thousand million million, which clearly says that idea is not a rational one."
Of course it's rational. Yet very few scientist especially physicists believe in God. Hawking doesn't, Susskind doesn't nor does Victor Stenger. The very scientist that you site in support of your argument does not believe in God. Exceedingly small odds do not mean an event won't happen, eventually it will.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow 1 in one hundred thousand million million. 1 in 10^41. Do you know how huge those numbers are???!!!! What are the chances of one person winning the lottery, with those kind of odds, many many times?? How is it that our one universe beat the 1 in 10^41 odds? Not rational, but different people have different ways of looking at things I guess. I dont judge you or anyone else. I can see it and I want others to see it as well.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Some thoughts to rebut your fine tuning argument which seems to be a rather popular argument in Christian apologetics these days.
The fine tuning argument seems to come mostly from people that have little understanding of science in general and physics in particular. Examples of fine-tuning found in theological literature suffer from simple misunderstandings of physics. "Scientists" that promote these ideas intentionally manipulate numbers to make sense of their arguments.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow "Scientists" that promote these ideas intentionally manipulate numbers to make sense of their arguments." Sounds like you copy and pasted something someone else said because you yourself said you dont have much understanding. I have a decent (at worst) understanding of physics and science.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 You want to get into a competition of who has the better education and understanding of science? I have no idea what your education is and at some level our education is irrelevant.
I have a masters degree in biology, so I also have decent understanding of science and have the ability to read and understand much of it.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow I understand anthropom. buddy. so the "real" god is the one that is "too high" to have concern for humans or anything else he created, am i right or mistaken? if God had no concern then what would be the purpose of creating us? As far as personal attacks, sorry for calling you out on the volcano comparison you did. I dont have a masters in bio, but i have a minor in it and im close to a degree in engineering which means i have some understanding of science i would say.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 You are quite wrong to conclude that "some scientists are stubborn" and don't accept the fine tuning argument. They don't accept it for two reasons, 1. They understand physics better than you and 2. they prefer to continue to look for a natural explanation for existence.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Why the fine tuning argument is false.
Let me use a deck of cards as an analogy.
There are about 8x10^68 possible combinations in a deck of 52 cards. That's more than the number of atoms in the universe. What are the chances of shuffling a deck into a perfectly ordered deck? If all 6 billion people on this planet shuffled a deck every second, you should not expect to see a perfectly ordered deck in millions of years. BUT, with enough time it will happen, maybe on the next shuffle
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow "fine tuning argument is false" I am waiting for someone to give a rational explanation of how NOTHING became a ridiculously organized life-sustaining universe, which started off as an infinitely small point with damn near infinite mass that defies all understanding and physics.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 There are truffles growing at the base of a tree behind my house. There are dozens of environmental factors that if even slightly different, the truffle would not exist. From the perspective of the truffle, it would seem that the universe somehow conspired or had an intelligent designer only so the truffle could exist. BUT this is what is referred to as "reverse engineering logical fallacy" and it is what you do when you use the anthropic principle to argue for intelligent design.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Physicists Frank Wilczek and Victor Stenger agree that the answer to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that nothingness is unstable. There are mathematical reasons for this. In what is called the "nonboundary scenario", the universe has a probability of something rather than nothing and can actually be calculated at over 60%.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 The natural state of things is that something is actually more likely than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention-not a full one. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect of there is no God.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 If you want to define a fine tuned universe (anthropic principle) using extremely small odds to argue against a natural cause for the universe, you should also give a probability for the existence of an intelligent designer. Perhaps the existence of your supernatural God is even a smaller probability than a naturally occurring universe and life. Especially since all we know of, so far, are naturally occurring phenomenon.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Every event in our past that we "thought" had a supernatural cause, became a natural cause once we really understood it. There is no reason for me to assume that trend will not continue into any foreseeable future.
burkerow 1 year ago
Lets see if you can think for yourself and not take a week to respond due to you rigorously searching for anything that opposes my statements no matter how ridiculous it is. and by the way what the heck are you talking about with your claims of me anthropomorphizing God? " why should I worship this unknown creative force anymore than I would worship a volcano for it's creative abilities?" With that comment alone I can see we are light years apart. This became a waste of time 4 me. sorry
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I have a busy job and a busy life. I respond to your comments based on my ability to "waste my time" with people like you. If you don't understand an anthropomorphized god then you don't understand the Christian or Muslim god. If all we're talking about is an Aristotelian god, then we have no quarrel.
Oh BTW, do better than your personal attacks such as "if you can think for yourself". I've attempted to be respectful of you, but your response is usually how it goes when you lose!
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow (1/2) Hey man ( im assuming you are a man) I was thinking about our conversation today and I wanted to apologize to you for being a little rude. Im sure your a decent guy, and I try to be but I guess I have my moments. I shouldnt have told you to think for yourself when its clear you are totally capable of that and are entitled to your own views concerning the existence of God, etc, etc. God is impossible for anyone to wrap their heads around, and believing is very difficult.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I would be delusional, like most people here, if I really thought I could change anybody's mind and convert them to atheism. That's not why I post comments here. I come here in hopes of having a Socratic dialogue of a sorts so we can learn from each other. But nobody seems to be able to keep emotions out of it and they all deteriorate to insults.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Just a little advice, if you want to have a successful and civil dialogue with someone, start by keeping your emotions out of it, keep insults out of it, keep assumptions and judgments about the other person out of it. Stick to the point that you're discussing. As soon as you show disrespect for your audience, it doesn't matter whether you are right, you've lost the argument because you've lost your credibility and more importantly you've lost your audience.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow (1/2) Honestly I am fully aware the I do not have the power to change anyone's mind and have known that for quite a while. There is a biblical quote that goes something like, "The planter is nothing, and the waterer is nothing. It is all about the one who gives the increase (God)." when I get snappy it is me displaying a lack of patience due to having a busy life myself.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 If I made assumptions about you, it was that you probably had at least some college education in science. While I have a graduate degree in science, I don't think our education have a place in these discussions. That's making an appeal to authority, and I would rather just stick to the point being discussed. One can be an erudite and make very intelligent arguments without ever having been to college. I would rather let the argument stand on its own merit, irrespective of education.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow Remark about your assumption about me.. Now you are trying to put yourself on a higher platform by subtly attacking my education which is, in reality, sufficient enough to engage in this sort of conversation with you and most others. I have debated some really intelligent scientists (phds) and their knowledge of biology only took them so far. Just a basic understanding of science in general with a lot of common sense is enough from my experience. I see you touched on that already
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 No, i am not trying to "put myself on a higher platform" than you. I told you that it does not matter to me what your education is. A formal education is not the only thing that contributes to the validity of ones argument. For all I know you may have a higher IQ than me and you may be better read than me. That does not matter. It's how well we frame our argument that matters.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 When I said that I assumed you had at least some college science, it could have been a PhD. I had no idea and it didn't matter. That's what I saying.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow God cares in a way that is beyond understanding and His intelligence is infinite. He knows everything and knew everything before He created this universe. He knew you before He formed you in the womb. How are those human attributes? I think its clear that people who choose to believe in a god that is beyond love, etc, are really trying to push away the idea that one day they will be judged for their thoughts and actions.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I am sorry, I will still have to vehemently disagree with you and say that traits such as intelligence and love and caring is a form of anthropomorphizing, at least it's giving that force animation. Karen Armstrong gives a history of the early concepts of god and they simply began with, still are patterned after man. The concept of god throughout history is just a larger than life version of man. Yes we have endowed it with infinite power, but its just a version of man.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow Well I guess we can agree to disagree about the Christian God. One could say your idea that God cannot love or care is placing limitation on a limitless being and Im sure we could go round and round with that. The Christian God wasnt created and wasnt endowed with infinite power. You act like the people who wrote the bible said lets get together and give our God all these powers because it sounds cool. All you are doing is giving me your opinions.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I spent the first 30 years of my life as a Christian. I was "born again" when I was a teenager. I taught Sunday school in a Quaker church in my 20's. But my science education and my common sense began to make me wonder if we can even know absolute truths. There are thousands of Christian denominations because nobody can agree, even within the same faith. SO, I turned to studying philosophy to get answers. I remain agnostic for 20 years and finally got off the fence 4 years ago.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow Well I want to thank you for sharing your experience with me and I must say it is not an uncommon story. Many people that grow up religiously in the church end up moving away from it for whatever reason. My mom and her four sisters went to Catholic school from elementary all the way to high school, and once they were done they all quit going to church. Presently 2 of my aunts are into the New Age Psychic thing and the rest go to church every blue moon.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@burkerow I myself am non-denominational and dont agree with many of the other types of Christians namely Catholics and Y.E. Creationists. One of the nastier debates Ive been in was with a Y.E. Creationist on an anti-creationist channel. I tried to reach out to her and "bridge the gap" between our viewpoints and basically was told I was going to hell for not believing the earth is 6 thousand years old lol. I was like "where in the bible does it say your salvation rests upon the y.e. belief?"
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 My biggest problem with Christianity was that I could not reconcile the biblical stories with reality. I could not justify problems with theodicy. It was when I rejected a notion of God that all of my questions and difficulty with religion began to make sense. I no longer struggle with God's demands for child sacrifice and genocide and eternal punishment, just for not believing. He doesn't exist, at least how he's describe in the bible. Can a god exist as a creative force? Maybe.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow I would suggest you watch some William Lane Craig videos if you havent already. That guy is feared by all atheists when it comes to intellectual debates and its for good reason. The guy is at the top of the food chain when it comes to this subject, and even Dawkins declined to debate him. The guy is a genius. He has, I believe, two phds, one in philosophy, one in some sort of religious study, and has a great knowledge of science as well.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 In fact I have watched dozens of WLC videos. Additionally I have even given him some of the same kudos that you have, those being that I think he is one of the best Christian apologist out there. I also have a book to which he has contributed, titled "Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" I also own a copy of Albert Schweitzer's book "Quest For The Historical Jesus", but it's still on my reading list.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Just one more thought about WLC, while he is quite a brilliant debater, he also extensively uses a repackaged form of the Kalam argument. As you may know the Kalam is a reformulated version of Socrate's un-moved mover or prime mover. While WLC uses it quite effectively it really is full of logical errors. It might work on Christians to bolster their faith, but to a critical thinker it fails tests of logic.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow Im glad you can appreciate WLC but I have to disagree with you statement about his logic. The man eats, drinks, breathes, sleeps, and dreams logic lol. If WLC or an equal wasnt around my faith would be fine but I admit it is nice that the best argument out there is for God.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 On thinking for myself.
Most of our opinions and beliefs come from being educated with information gathered by other people. I can't think for myself when it comes to difficult concepts like relativity or quantum physics, I must read the experts and at some level take their word for it. I do not have a television but my living room is dominated by books. I do read a lot and yes I did reference some books for my reply, but I have read most of them.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I have many books written by Christians because I feel a need to read both sides of the issue. I have Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box", which I think is crap and bad science. It's no wonder he can't get essays on this published in peer review journals. But, I also own Karen Armstrong's book "A Case For God" and while I have come to a different conclusion than she, I think her book is fabulous. She is the reason I can stay open to at least a deist type god.
burkerow 1 year ago
(2/2) I am very passionate about this subject of God. Usually I am the one getting attacked on here and it ranges from "simpleton" to homosexual pedophile lol. I would say you are one of the more worthy "adversaries" I have exchanged dialogue with and I am sure I am not the one to convince you of anything. Personally, I think scientific evidence is the best way to approach a non-believer, but I myself do not need it. Individual spiritual discoveries are what really open people's eyes.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I am truly sorry that you have been attacked by atheist, and I would like to apologize for my atheist cohorts, but very few people on these sites conduct themselves with much class, even Christians. BTW, atheists are more hated than even homosexuals, just read some recent polls on Americans attitudes toward atheists. If you really want to know what it feels like to be despised, just announce to people that you're an atheist. But how we are treated doesn't excuse our own bad behavior.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow At times when I have deep thoughts about God like who or what He is and how is it possible for a being like Him to exist, my head almost explodes. All of His abilities are said to be infinite and I would have to say His mysteriousness also falls into that category. His fingerprints are everywhere but people have obstacles to overcome in order for their eyes to open. Truly believing in God is the most difficult thing and our own self will is what blocks us.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Finally; I think we can both agree that a naturally occurring universe, beginning with an infinitely massive singularity 14 billion ya, is mind boggling, as is quantum mechanics, string theory and multi universes. But that's because the human brain does not have the experience to conceptualize them. I think we can also agree that the alternative, and intelligent creator is also mind boggling, as you've stated. I just think a god is infinitely more complex, if you think about it.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I will stand by my volcano analogy. A volcano has both destructive and creative force. Ancient man gave natural forces human attributes and worshiped and sacrificed to them. They threw the virgin into the volcano. We can't understand the creative force of the universe so we have called it God and we've anthropomorphized it by giving it human attributes such as caring and intelligence. You've done that also. Just my opinion, I know.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow The natural forces are natural because that is what we can see, touch, examine, falsify, etc, and I have no argument with that. The individual must read between the lines to concur there is a underlying supernatural force governing these natural forces. Science explains the how, but the why of it is explained to a small degree when dealing with the overall big picture.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@burkerow(1/2) The bible gives the best account of a God if you take into consideration all the evil in the world (of course there is good as well). I dont give God human attributes and Im sure you have heard that Christians believe they are created in God's image. I am not talking physical characteristics or personalities but the spirit thats inside which we are not aware of most of the time. Giving God attributes such as caring and intelligence is not anthropomorphizing.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I would suggest that you have a bias in your thinking. You can more easily accept the "anthropic principle" or 'fine tuning argument" because it supports your belief in God, rather than the other way around. I don't think it was that you thought the fine tuning argument made more sense and led you to belief in God. But I have bias in my thinking as well. I prefer to accept the scientific method and keep my beliefs falsifiable. Therefore I will wait for more natural explanations.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow I totally agree with you about my thinking being bias. I will be the first to admit that, but it did not start off that way. Growing up, I would say I was caught in between, and most often I leaned toward doubt. I wont go into my own personal spiritual discoveries that placed me in the position I am in today because we both know those discoveries have no meaning to anyone other than myself. God reveals Himself in many ways all of which are on an individual basis.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I give you the right to use the word god to describe the unknowable creative processes of the universe. But, maybe you can describe this god. Justify why you anthropomorphize your intelligent designer with human attributes? More importantly why should I worship this unknown creative force anymore than I would worship a volcano for it's creative abilities?
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 To give you credit, I do have difficulty wrapping my brain around these admittedly difficult concepts of cosmology. I can't conceptualize quantum mechanics or string theory, or singularities very well, so it is here I will need to defer to the expertise of greater minds than my own. But there is no reason yet to concede to the idea of a god. We continue to find natural explanations for things we don't yet understand.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 LOL
surshot56 1 year ago
@surshot56 I see you are an "agnostic Christian." I didnt know those two words went together. Oxymoron?
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 The default position of any belief claim should be agnosticism. A Christian should defend his reason for struggling against a current past pantheism and deism and then on to theism, then past all the theistic religions such as islam, judaism and settle on Christianity. As for me, I start with agnosticism and move in the direction evidence pushes me; to atheism.
burkerow 1 year ago
@surshot56 Ive debated atheists that claim to be former Christians who came to this great rational realization that religion is false, and if you tell them they werent truly Christians they bite your head off. Truth be known, they were probably "agnostic Christians" just like you.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Of course former Christians would bite your head off if you tried to tell them they were never truly Christians. Where to you get the authority to judge someone else's spirituality or belief system based only on the fact that they rejected their faith? True believers change their mind all the time. Read Bart Erhman's biography, and then maybe you should read a few of his books.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow Bart Erhman is not a respected New Testament scholar for starters but nice try. Ever hear of Antony Flew? This guy was the Alpha Male atheist until he finally accepted the existence of God through the testimony of science. So let me ask you something. You say that evidence pushes you towards atheism so I would like to hear of this evidence because you would be the first atheist in the history of the world to provide it.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80Bart "Erhman is not a respected New Testament scholar".
Says who? You? Reference please. He has a bachelor from Moody Bible, a MDiv from Wheaton, PhD from Princeton. Most of his critics are evangelical commentators. Go figure!
BUT that was not my point was it? I was making the point that he was a Christian but left the faith. But you would judge him for not being a real Christian, I guess on the grounds that he doesn't know his bible very well and left Christianity.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 "Ever hear of Antony Flew?"
Not until now.
"This guy was the Alpha Male atheist until he finally accepted the existence of God"
By the same rational that you say a Christian who leaves the faith was not really a Christian, shouldn't you say the same thing about Flew? Maybe he was never a real atheist.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow I am surprised you never heard of him being that you are an atheist. All atheists looked up to this guy until he trashed 50 years of work when he realized, through science, that God is real. That says a lot and is a huge step for a person to take. I think that sort of action, admitting he was wrong, is what keeps many others that hold a similar position from doing the same. Pride and EGO play huge factors.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@burkerow "Maybe he was never a real atheist." There is a difference my friend. Someone can easily fake being a Christian and play the part for a number of reasons. Since you tried to reverse my statement and make a point, I ask, why would a Christian or believer in God in general, pretend to be an atheist? That just does not make sense Im sorry. I can see a person trying to become a Christian but having doubts in God, but not truly believing and lying about it.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 1/2 Furthermore you should not use a capital for god when speaking of Flew's god. He specifically said he was NOT Christian and did not accept the God of the bible. His god was more of an Aristotelian god. While Flew said he is a deist he also does not support the historicity or deity of Jesus. I get that and I don't necessarily quarrel with his acceptance of deism. I can and have made a case for a deistic type god or creator as Aristotle and even Karen Armstrong describes.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow Now I see you are becoming familiar with your atheist predecessors former role model.Yes, I know Flew was not a Christian but I take into consideration that Flew is referring to the creator of the universe, God. Flew came to the conclusion that he was wrong about atheism at the end of his life so why does that all of a sudden make him an expert on God? If Flew only couldve lived another 20 or 30 years he probably would have changed his tuned on that as well.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 2/2 That god is very difficult if not impossible to refute, but like Aristotle's god, that god is irrelevant and I see no reason to worship it. If you want to make a case for the Hebrew God Yahweh or Elohim, I will argue that god does not exist but if he did I would not want to worship him.
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 1/2 "So let me ask. You say that evidence pushes you towards atheism so I would like to hear of this evidence because you would be the first atheist in the history of the world to provide it."
No I wouldn't. But I could just as easily ask the same thing as you. Show me evidence of God, because you would be the first Christian in history to provide it. But these comments get us nowhere.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow "Show me evidence of God." I gave you an example of the fine tuning of the universe and I know there are like 40 or 41 more similar to it. I heard that if you put them all together and calculated the odds of them all happening by chance, you are looking at 1 in 10^41. Those kind of numbers are ridiculous. Apparently I skimmed over your comment about deism so if you are leaning that way, good for you! Its definitely a huge step from atheism.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 2/2 You seem well read and I'm sure anything I can say, you may have already heard. What counts as "evidence" for or against God is different for me than for you. If you want to discuss a specific issue then please feel free to bring it up and I will do my best to have a dialogue with you.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow (1/2)Thanks for the compliment. I can tell you are bright yourself :D. Yes I have heard it all (mostly) concerning this topic. Well I realize Hawking isnt a believer but the evidence he provided shouts Creator and the funny thing is the guy doesnt realize it (or maybe he does realize it but something causes him to reject this idea). His profession involves understanding the universe and he is obviously so consumed by it that it has become his god figuratively speaking.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@burkerow "Where to you get the authority to judge.." I think of it more as an observation than a judgement. I dont judge people by their actions, but when a person makes the transition to atheism, I think its fair to say they were never true believers to begin with.The so-called former Christians were just conditioned to "believe" during childhood and a true belief in God cannot come by force. U can put a kid through Catholic school but they will go their own way @ some point.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 "I dont judge people by their actions......... I think its fair to say they were never true believers to begin with"
Of course you judge people and no it's not fair. The only respectful way to be is to take people at their word when they've had an experience to which you are not a witness. I don't believe any person is in a position to judge the heart and soul of another. Who would do that except a pretentious bigot? I know it wouldn't be a real Christian. Or would it?
burkerow 1 year ago
@mvayne80 " scientific discoveries were deemed heretical by uninformed Christians who misinterpretted the bible?"
name one thing scientific in the bible that's at the level above the technology of the time it was written. If you say "washing your hands" You fail because of pagan bath houses.
"There is nothing that backs up atheism"
So nothing backs up my personal lack of belief in your cult that refuses to provide evidence for its claims?
That sounds like your fault not mine.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Atheists don't write science textbooks, scientists do. It just so happens that most scientists are atheist. You have just used a form of inductive reasoning which has led you into a logical fallacy.
burkerow 1 year ago
@burkerow (2/2) Did you know that Dawkins said everything seems to be intelligently designed? Dawkins clearly wanted special attention on the word SEEMS, but how ridiculous it that? Total D.E.N.I.A.L. (Dont Even Know I Am Lying).
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 "I like how atheists are the ones that write the science textbooks used in universities."
Don't be so glum chum christians are still writing coloring books for children. and ghost stories for adults. And why not they are really good at fiction =D
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago 2
@mvayne80 "When people take a science course they should learn about science, not some bullshit atheist propaganda. "
What you really mean is, you think the science is atheism, and you want your religious fiction preached in its place.Your cult can offer no proof for itself, but your fervent want /desire for it to be preached in classrooms as fact. Obviously your religion has no facts. Thus your violent inability to to view the evident lack of evidence in favor of your cults claims.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Come on man, why did you delete the comments i left on your videos??? you know it was funny. take a joke.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I blocked/deleted you for cut and paste spamming. Now I'm going to interject a conversation into your cut and paste spam, since you were obviously bored.
Care to address any of my other comments or can't you offer anything to rebut my statements?
Maybe your whole argument was copied and pasted?
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
informed common sense,
russpaxman 1 year ago
nope. all we say is evolution didn't happen. Who created us is the next step. All body plans appeared suddenly. The other side would hypothesize what we think millions of years may be wrong if all sedimentary rock were formed by hydrological sorting. A documentary called experiments in stratification show just that. Where a fossil found above may acyually be older then a fossil found lower. It would also explain all the out-of-place artifacts we keep finding. The earth may be old not fossils.
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever "hydrological sorting" does not explain what you think it does. When I hear that as an explanation I always picture all of the earth put into a giant bowl and mixed up and the left to settle. Even if there was some magical rainstorm on the surface, it would not stir up all the layers of the earth down to the core. The smallest grain of truth can be used to justify the most inane Hovind-esque ramblings. Sorry if I misrepresented you, but I trust the current science a bit more.
rrpostalagain 1 year ago
@rrpostalagain Yes, fair enough. You could be right. You could be wrong. And I appreciate your open minded tone. I don't trust the scientists anymore. But I don't hate science. I really think we'll find sedimentary rocks are mud piles of a great flood. biblical or not. Either way, I hope we find the real truth. I hate not knowing. I just read the lost tablets of Enki. If you haven't read the translations, do so. Some mind bending explanations for a brain to gobble up. :) it's on youtube now
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever You shouldn't trust scientists, i say being on my way to becoming one, instead you should trust the science, or at leasts the benefits we have from it :)
Scientists after all, are just humans, like carpenters they can make mistakes.. the science however is arrived at through very rigorous metahuman processes.. Of course there can be hoaxes, but these are always exposed in due time, and well a hoax will never produce implementable science anyway ^^
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
@GronTheMighty Yes, I suspect it is hard for every man to leave his learned biases behind. For whenever I think I know something, truth smacks it down. lol The older I get the more open minded I become. Seems backwards logically thinking. But it's just evidence of our true ignorance to the realities of our existence. Do we desire that which cannot be known? I hope not. But we should make the best of the ride ahead. good luck brother.
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever Well my perspective, for now, is that the difficult thing is reminding oneself every step of the way that what we know we only know to varying degrees of certainty, but never to the 100% we strive for.
Yet, we have to strive for the 100%, because that is one of the key things that motivate us and gives us the option of continuing or giving up - setting an unreachable goal, in my view, is thusly not a bad thing, but a nescessary evil in a way :))
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever '' I really think we'll find sedimentary rocks are mud piles of a great flood''
Hey bro, they already looked, about 200 years ago. They didn't find a mud layer with all the dead bodies in it. No evidence for a flood at all. Just distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossils in them. Floods don't do that. Floods don't sort fossils. Floods don't make limestone reefs. Floods don't make ash layers.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever Geology proves there was never a global flood. Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossils in them. Dinosaure ruled the earth for 160 million years, fossils ARE old. All sedimentary rock is not water borne, some are ash layer. The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is wind blown sand. It has desert fossils in it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No man. When looked at carefully, It is all just educated speculations. You should know you form your conclusions on information you trust, but may be misleading you. Those things you claim may turn out to be other than what you think you know. Same with my assumptions. But for you to try to elevate what you think to universal truth is not wise if you are truly pursuing truth. All we really know is that we are all ignorant, and we should all focus on our agreement. The alternative? War
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever educated speculations?!? You don't know anything about science, do you. It is a fact that dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160,000,000 years, no a guess or assumption. It is a fact the stars are millions of light years away. It is a fact the the Grand Canyon took millions of years to lay down all those sediments. What is your trusted TRUTH? a 2000 year old book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Stop acting like if a person believes in the bible it will hinder his ability to learn. All science is founded by the believers you feel will hurt knowledge. You are the only one between us saying you know that which you could not. You don't have to insult the truth by putting forth your opinion as fact. Then imply me ignorant? You throw those ever changing numbers around like the guy in the shell game.
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever You can't learn Geology, it does not fit with your bible stories. Science is not founded by believers, others need to see the date too. Or there would be the science of Jesus and the science of budda and the science of allah.
Evolution is not my opinion, it has been accepted as a fact. About 150 years ago. There is even a theory to show how it happens.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever all sedimentary rock were formed by hydrological sorting'' Not all sedimentary rock is water borne. The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is wind blown sand. It has desert fossils in it. Some layers are ash from volcanos. Some layers are slow growing coral reefs. Flood don't do that, there was no flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Facts? assumptions.
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
listen GOD is an energy intelligence all things need and subsists on energy scientific fact. creationist and scientists need to stop causing all this ideoligical gridlock its unecessary as well as infantile. evolution is a fact but, scientists must accept the fact that the process is guided by an outside force its not a random process.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 Evolution is not random, it is guided by the Law of Nature.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz law of nature? that is a vague concept
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 Do we have gravity? Does it change every day or is it set by nature.
Do the other 3 forces of nature exist?
Can you jump to the moon or are the laws of nature holding you back.
Try living in the real world.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz you still have not defined what nature is, you see people always use the word nature when they are uncomfortable using the word GOD and thats only becuase most people have a distaste for religion with good reason but, people have the wrong thoughts and ideas of GOD
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 I have meet some dumb creationists, but you are the first one who does not know what 'nature' is. No wonder you don't understand the scientists who study it. There is mass and energy but they are really one, kind of like god and jesus. Some people study nature so we can go to the moon and email. You should read a science book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz listen i am a scientist myself but, im not afraid to use the G word when it comes to understanding how these laws came to be and no i am not a christian,muslim or jew i do not subscribe to any religious belief but, i do know it takes intelligence to make laws and especialy to concieve them. nothing works on its own impetus and no matter how many may say something to the contrary in the light of logic and reason their arguments hold no validity.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@doctorw2 So God made the forces and matter and it all evolved from there, OK.
gregrutz 1 year ago
If cientifics have proven Cambrian explosion was made because of molecules, why don't make their own living things instead of cloning them?
almacocoa98 1 year ago
The reason creationists talk about the cambrian explosion is not because they think it shows miraculous creation (if they agree there was a cambrian then they have to accept evolution since then) they think it's a hole in the theory of evolution. Thier twisted logic means that they think any percived fault in evolution supports creationism.
phookadude 1 year ago
@phookadude Cambrian explosion also took about 6 million years to occur which compared to the entire life span of the universe is rather minuscule and a seemingly an instant. Creationist say it was an instant but don't mention the 6 million years part because they want to make it sound like it literally happened in an instant while in reality 6 million years is a lot of time for life to evolve and diversify. Rapid evolution not instant creation lol.
supersmash43 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stupid video, stupid accent
billytistrak 1 year ago
@billytistrak
I have an accent? LOL!
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan you have an african american accent...
supersmash43 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God has nothing to do with evolution, and evolution has nothing to do with atheists.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Thank you, Dhorpatan. This video answered my question about the Cambrian explosion.
oldblubblub 1 year ago
Right i have watched documentaries before about this the first signs of life started to create oxygen the algae i think it was. And soon as there was enough oxygen for more complex life then the life appeared but it never appeared as quick as some religious idiots say i mean 65 million years isn't a couple of weeks. Dinosaurs were still around 65 million years ago so that is how long it is!
I can't believe the lengths the creationist cocks go to to prove they are right!
skagman76 1 year ago
Your accent goes well with your education. I am not being facetious either, I wish I sounded like you!
PickelhauptOfWayne 1 year ago
I agree. Oxygen changed all. Not God.
NexussVI 1 year ago
lets not miss the forest for the trees ... why must life exist at all??? just think how much more amazing it would be for life to form if God doesn't exist!!!!! where did all the new genetic info come from?
sl0j0 1 year ago
not the bible :P
Ethermoo 1 year ago
where are he getting these dates from?
brewercap 1 year ago
Anomalocaris at 2:30 and 2:39! If you see any Anomalocarids I missed, point them out! I loves me some Anomalocaris! :D
TFTPBAG 2 years ago
How true are the billion billion years fairy tale?
Are you not aware that science can speed up the process of decay (an iron for example) to make it look like many many years?
With the highly reactive state of environment at the time... we never knew if the billion years is accurate.
;-)
Again, which came first? The Bacterias or the formation of RNA and DNA ?
;-)
FaithRationale 2 years ago
It is illogical to think that the Earth isn't billions of years old.
Just look into the night sky. Even the stars you can see are millions of light years away. This means that it has taken the light that you see millions of years to even reach Earth.
Now get a telescope. The galaxies you can see are billions of light years away.
Put a high-powered telescope into orbit above the pollution of out atmosphere. You can see galaxies 15-16 billion light years away.
carnemolidazh 2 years ago 2
I like yours better thn the comment below you. I AGREE with both, but people have to rpovide an explanation with their arguments. So bravo :D.
And, er, sorry, below person, no offense meant.
TFTPBAG 2 years ago
It's stupid to think the Earth just poofed into existence 6000 years ago. Earth has been around far longer than that.
carnemolidazh 2 years ago
With a better understanding of the material FaithRationale, you would be asking which came first: DNA or protein.
Just because there is a gap in a current model of understanding doesn't necessitate the insertion of God to fill in that gap. We don't completely understand the particle associated with gravity either, but neither are we going to suppose that "God himself is pulling matter together personally." We're passed the God in gaps each time we come upon something not currently explained.
Nibenay3000 2 years ago
You are basically re-trumping up irreducible complexity arguments (but likely are unaware of it, since you probably just heard the question elsewhere as an 'evolutionist stumping question.'
Nibenay3000 2 years ago
@Nibenay3000 RNA came first. It is autocatalytic and can assemble both DNA and protein.
michalchik 1 year ago
@FaithRationale
The earth is 4,566 million years old.
+ or - 2 million years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@FaithRationale
that's right the RNA is transcribed from DNA with enzyme RNA polymerase and further processed by other enzymes. all of these components must present in the same place at the same time. the reason why we believe god because there's intelligence, or an aim in the creation for example the symbiotic relationship between flowers and pollinators. just look at the shapes of male and female genitals they match together perfectly like nut and bolt. all these are purposeful designs.
Berrymore84 2 years ago
RNA. But complex carbon strings and macromolecules are a natural formation. So they came before those even.
TFTPBAG 2 years ago
How does that deny somebody was responsible in the process? ;-)
You see resemblance. Resemblance does not make it proof it had to evolve from a single ancestor.
Which came first the bacteria or the formation of RNA and DNA?
FaithRationale 2 years ago
Simple single cell organisms came first from non-living organic material (Look up Abiogenisis). These produced RNA which led to the production of DNA. DNA led to multicellular organisms.
carnemolidazh 2 years ago
@carnemolidazh I like how "Abiogenisis" replaced the old "Spontaneous Generation." Louis Pasteur proved that flies do not spontaneously spawn from meat and rats from rags, but now its called abiogenesis and we rely on it for the origin of life. The practice of medicine depends on testable theories like, if I autoclave my instruments, they will not spontaneously spawn new microorganisms, but evolutionary biology is not so restricted as that.
kjgeorgiegirl 1 year ago
@kjgeorgiegirl I like how "Abiogenisis" replaced the old "Spontaneous Generation."
NO YOU DON'T !
.
And they are two different things. And it is not evolution either.
Read a science book so you don't look so silly.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@carnemolidazh Interestingly, back in the day, the supposed day of the primordial soup, when no biological molecules were currently present, life just sort of sprang forth. But now, now with biological molecules just lying around (microbiology 301: life is ubiquitous), this nifty abiogenesis thing doesn't happen any more. I don't think so.
kjgeorgiegirl 1 year ago
@kjgeorgiegirl ''the primordial soup, when no biological molecules were currently present''
What do you think the soup was, pure water, that's not soup. The ''soup'' is a mixture of biological molecules. lots of them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@carnemolidazh We should go back to the good old days of testable science, like they do in medical schools, to solve a specific problem. And as to questions of origins or in cases where some new and interesting fossil is found, we should all try out phrases like "I don't know," or "that's interesting, I wonder what it means." Refreshing.
kjgeorgiegirl 1 year ago
@carnemolidazh Unfortunately this is not testable science, it is conjecture. We have no fossil record of the process you describe.
kjgeorgiegirl 1 year ago
@kjgeorgiegirl test and repeat it then, go dig up some fossils and explain where they came from. Sequence some chimp and human DNA and find the 1% difference and explain it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Desertprairie is absolutely correct. This video ignores an infinite amount of biological complexity, statistical improbability, and makes such great leaps of dare I say it, FAITH, that one has to conclude that it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. In fact, it does more to highlight the failure of Darwinism and the theory of Evolution in the midst of critical thinking.
pkvidbox 2 years ago
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny !
gregrutz 2 years ago
By evolution I assume you mean Neo-Darwinian evolution. It is quite possible that sudden appearance in the fossil record and numerous "living fossils" falsify the theory and not be recognized as doing so by the scientific community. The explanations of "rarity of fossils," and "perfectly suited for their niche," with regard to these two occurances, are only supported by evidence of common descent. You end up going right back to the strawman argument.
Desertprairie 2 years ago
How can ''living fossils'' go against evolution, they fit the theory.
Sudden appearance is 50 million years, after several billion years to get started.
gregrutz 2 years ago
That's entirely untrue. Dissenting researchers and scientists are marginalized and black-balled. I recommend viewing Ben Stein's movie "Expelled". The research of very intelligent and highly accredited scientists who challenge the theory of evolution are deliberately kept from the public discussion.
pkjunkbox 2 years ago
try searching Ben Stein debunked
Science does not use the supernatural, if someone turns in a research paper and it says, ''god dun it that way' I think he might get fired.
gregrutz 2 years ago