and this is just a debate ,not all points r raised n elaborated on. to find the truth ,u need 2 study urself,maybe u could only get pointers from debates not real studies 2 rely on wether 2 become an atheist or a theist
from readin a lot of comments here,i realized certain points which i would like 2 elaborate more on.the thing with God created the universe,its not god of the gaps cuz theists(muslims) arent sayin that "uuhh!we dont know,so God did it" its actually proved n supported by evidence(which is the debate in essence).the cabin analogy is actually misunderstood by many,its sayin that there r conditions for life n these conditions r so "fine-tuned" that we cannot think of it as chance
‘For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.’ 2 Tim. 4:3
To be honest - debates between believers and non-believers are pointless and futile. Non beleivers just think we do not know how the universe was created and believers say God did it. I would much prefer to see debates between Monotheists and Polytheists and those of other divine beliefs. Mulsims vs Buddhists, Hindus vs Taoists, Shinto vs Christians . We can then see arguments for the existence of any divine thing. Atheism vs any belief has been done to death.
Question at the end, "Quran it's mentioned that we are created from clay, this contradicts science". Answer the first man was created from a combination of clay, dirt, dust, etc so this is the ORIGIN, but the future generations where created through liquid substance(water). This is exact scientific findings, that about %70 of human body is made up of liquid(water). All this is Objective and in Quran. Chapter 32 verse 7 & 8.
universe has to be eternal , not fucking begin to exist , universe has always bn here , evev ancient greeks knew this , time cannot hv a begining , univ
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
BS! Muhammad was a violent Evil now dead Murderer! Islam/Quran is corrupt! Jesus/Peace/Healed/Blessed/Salvation/God! All Muslims who became Christians are free of abuse & misery! Islam leaders are killing you! Christians Love You! Please accept Jesus Christ as your Savior! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Rebel & accept Jesus Christ! Be free of Islam lies! Visit cbn.com /radio
@abz2000123 There is an infinite gap between any two points. You can say it's "3 cm apart" but cm is a measurement. Similarly you can split Infinity into three parts as well but that doesn't means it's finite. Think of an ever extending line in three different colours equally spaced. All of them continues and grow but the difference remains the same.
That's what he attempted to explain by having a huge step. Two points, infinitely large expanse between them.
this larvor guy spent a large bulk of his time telling him how the other guy should argue - despite adam arguing from an objective and fair playing field.
When you explain to me why all the other religions, beliefs , god or Gods are not the right one's , i will say then why i do not believe in yours, for religion is all a tool which was used when humans couldnt use science as we do now. the irony that all these Beliefs claim they are the right one and continue to evolve with us in the earth using science which would have been considered pagan & put to death if they lived in the times the bible was being formated, There is vast knowledge out there
The cabin analogy is ridiculous. Our surroundings aren't fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned for our surroundings. The color green isn't the easiest on the eyes because god made it that way, it's the easiest on the eyes because it's the most prevalent color on our earth, and our eyes have adjusted accordingly.
@jonisaok Precisely! What the theists do (as I'm sure you're aware) is take a piece of already-verified information and twist it to fit in with their "goddidit" ideal. Of course you're right about the colour green and our adaptation to it - you just try telling them that :)
I don't think it's impossible to explain that our universe came from nothing. Cause and effect works on a timeline... before the universe existed, there might not have been time. If there was no time, it's not necessary for there to be a "cause" for the cosmos. Even if you were to realize what the "cause" was... you can't make the leap to "Oh, then God must have created the universe". You can't do this because you're creating more questions than you're answering. Where'd your god come from?
@KNOWNMuslim001 its an honor that you have blocked me an honor your the retard for beliving in allah allah does not exist i say it again fuck allah the fake m00n g0d hey go eat pigs shit
21:00 why didn't "Allah" make the baby be quiet? Obviously Allah knew you were trying to make a strong point there, you'd think He would have the foresight (wait, omnipotence?!) to see that you needed to concentrate (@Adam Deen)
Allah does not exist. Neither does Jesus, Thor, Zeus, Santa Claus, Fairies, Pixes, Elves, Tooth fairy, or any other magic wizard your parents brainwashed you to think is real - please people, like a tuber below me said, let's all get a grip and look at the facts and stop this dreaming.
@MrSDSTRIKEBREAKER your welcome to believe what you want but unlike thor, zeus...Jesus (pbuh) was seen by people, he had witnesses.
To say he didnt exist is to say that numerous people imagined that this person was talking to them? Im not saying whether he did miracles or not, im just saying how can you deny he existed?
@5heeshi Well, sure, there are ancient texts where numerous people claim to have seen him, these texts are unverifiable and numerous writings within them have been proven utterly false. Now maybe there was some dude called Jesus on the block ages ago, but he sure wasn't anything special or "divine" - just some regular dude like you or I. Except he was GREAT at bullshitting - and people believed him. Just my thoughts.
@jonisaok Well thats just a matter of opinion, some people would say that a calendar is based on his birth and supposed death and that is enough evidence for them.
I agree with you though hes not the son of God I believe he was a prophet...a normal man with a message
Peace
(also to people who read this notice how we just exchanged views no hate speech or insults?? This is how we should all communicate with one another)
@5heeshi Aside from the bible, which has a vested interest in Jesus existing try finding some corroboration from authors of his day. I'm anxious for you to share with me what you find.
Again a failure of the religious to bring any real facts to the discussion to show that there is any god. It is not for non-muslims to prove that Allah does not exist, it is for muslims to prove their assertions
Listening to the comments from the audience at the end, it seems that the debate was much better live than that shown here on youtube.
I can only hope that some of people in attendance will use this fiasco to take real science classes by bonafide teachers.This same old crap has been discredited by worlds best experts.Stop this tire old bullshit and get on with learning the facts and leave it to real scholars.Allah is not to be held in any moral authority.
Please apologists, stop using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. First, it rests upon a defunct theory of time (the A-theory) and therefore an actual infinity can exist. Second, to say a necessary being created the universe is (1) to use causal relationships which are not meaningful if time and space came into being at the big bang, and (2) to make use of spatial relationships which are not meaningful for the same reason.
Why do they bring up undefined terms, such as "objective morality"?
Why bring up the ancient, annihilated, and dishonest Kalam argument?
Dr Brendan does not address the practical issues, but keeps it philosophical - even though he says he studied Adam's MO.
He's far too theoretical and abstract. His points are valid and applicable, but as Muslims are not normally intellectual, he's perceived as the looser.
@StopSpamming1 'Why do apologists love big numbers so much?' Because it's a easy means by which to obfuscate matters. 'Why do they love quote mining scientists?' Because they rarely understand scientific methodologies and the findings therefrom. 'Why do they bring up undefined terms, such as "objective morality"?' See the first answer. 'Allah' is an undefined term. 'Why bring up the ancient, annihilated, and dishonest Kalam argument?' It appeals to medieval, pre-scientific views of the world.
This guy Brendan is just making opinions ,Islam is a complete system of life .You could theorize all day but remember its only theory,Dr.Brendan seem confused and inconclusive.
@chezpiecedaking He handled the design argument at 40:00. Explain why god can not be a perfect one by giving examples of our pelvis and how badly we are created. Design dictates some sort of plan, it's not good enough.
The man tackled everything thrown at him, it's just his phrasing is covered in Jargon and requires some form of effort from the listener to understand him.
What people fail to realise is that the Islam God Allah is not the same God as the christian God , the creator of heaven and earth. Allah promises his followers two wives and a river of wine of heaven, the God of Christianity does not, but rather he says through the bible that no one will be given in marriage in heaven but will all become like the angels. So Islamic Allah and the God of Christianity are two separate entities.
@theaccousticaddict In Genesis 6:2-4 it says that the angels found the daughters of men to be attractive and took them to be their wives. So if you are going become like the angels in heaven then you will still have sexual feelings and still get married.
First of all, what happened to these angels?? they were thrown out of heaven alongside their master Satan, and as a result of their "sexual feelings" towards women and the whole world was destroyed as a result of that. What does that tell us? that sex is not a heavenly thing, it is a human thing for the purpose of reproduction. These angels were evil, they followed satan that's why and how the spirit of lust had its way in them. God's angels dont have sexual feelings or lust.
Angels dont get married, they are spirits, spirits dont get married. The angels that had sex with the daughters of men in the beginning took the form of man to do so, real angels of God, who worship God in spirit and in truth dont have sexual feelings. An angel who has sexual feelings is not of God. Just like man realised he was naked after sinning against God. Lust and sexual desires among angels is not of God but of the devil and the prices are always disastrous. world destruction.
@theaccousticaddict Firstly it does not say they incarnated and became men. It just says they took them to be their wives and produced giant children of them. Secondly Paul also interpreted this passage as referring to angels lusting after women and having intimate relations with them because this is one of the reasons that he gives for the head covering for a woman. (1 Cor.11:10)
But that does not imply in anyway that after death, we will be given two wives in heaven. Secondly, these angels where of satan and where cast out of heaven, as a result of their actions the world was destroyed in flood. That shows that God is not pleased with angelic bodies engaging in any form of sexual activities. Sex is for reproduction and angels dont reproduce. Angels of God dont lust after women, well the God i worship, i dont know about yours.
@theaccousticaddict I agree it does not apply that but you are still reading into the text. Firstly it doesn't say they were of Satan but it reads that they were the sons of God. Secondly, mankind was not destroyed as a result of the angels actions but for becoming corrupt.
@Nazam44 What does "reading into the text" mean? God is not the author of confusion and his words are made understandable to all. Even satan was a close one to God, a cherubim, closer to God than most of the angels. God threw these angels out of heaven for what they did, this clearly indicates that what they did was not of God but of the devil. The main reason God destroyed the world was bcos of what the angels did. Are we not even more corrupt now? why has God not destroyed us??
@theaccousticaddict Reading into the text means your committing Eisegesis as suppose to Exegeting the texts. Look these terms up on Google. No where does it say that these angels were thrown out of heaven but that they themselves choose to come down on earth and have initiate relations. No where are they reprimanded by God. Also, I don't know why you are so hung up on sex when you should be pleased that Biblically it's allowed. But if you don't want too than no one is going to force you.
Read Revelation 12:9. You still dont understand why God destroyed the whole world, it was because the bloodlines of men was tarnished by these bad angels. God did not just destroy the whole world cos man was "corrupt". Man was corrupt since when Adam sinned, why did God wait till the time of Noah to destroy the human race for this corruption, even after he placed a curse on man? it makes no sense.
Yes biblically sex is allowed, but only on earth, to reproduce and fill the earth, not in heaven, God is a spirit, so are the angels in heaven, spirits dont have sex, only humans do mainly for reproductive purposes. The God i worship and the heaven i know of for sure is not a place where i will be given two wives for sex and marriage and where i will be provided with rivers of alcohol. That's why i say that Islam and Christianity share nothing in common, two opposing religions.
@theaccousticaddict That's not what the Bible teaches that but what you teach. It does not follow that because you will be like the angels you will not have no intimate relations with your spouse. Again you are interpreting more than what the text says. Also Paul says you will not be spirit at the resurrection but you will be given a new physical body (1 Cor 15). Jesus himself had a physical body according to Luke (24:37-43) that eat.
Jesus himself said that after death, we will become like the angels (spirit beings), he also said that when we are angels in heaven we will not be married neither will we be given into marriage in heaven. If you believe otherwise then you do not worship the same God i do. Jesus had a physical body while he was on earth, but after his death and ressurection, he turned back into a spiritual being he always was and ascended into heaven.
Paul did not say "a new physical body". We only need physical bodies to dwell on earth not in heaven. God is a spirit and so are his angels and all those who will dwell with him. As Jesus said, after death we will become like the angels, that alone is enough for me to believe.
The Gospels does not say that Jesus was in flesh after he ressurected, it only mentions that a whole crown so Jesus ascend into heaven, that does not mean that Jesus was in flesh, he was still in spirit form and he allowed himself to be seen so that it can be testified to the world what was seen, why do you think Christianity spread from a small community to the ends of the earth??? Jesus was not in flesh when he ascended but in spirit, just as he appeared to his disciples in spirit.
@theaccousticaddict Jesus was in the flesh when he appeared to the disciples. According to Luke he said, "For a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have" (Lk 24).
Dont tell me what you dont know, Jesus did not ascend in flesh, he ascended in spirit. He only appeared to his disciples in flesh so that they would believe that he actually ressurected from the death, why did he do this? so that situations like that of the Muslim's who claim that Jesus never ressurected would never happen. It was prophesied by Moses that a messiah would come to pay the price for our salvation and Jesus was and still is that messiah, not a prophet.
@theaccousticaddict None of the Gospels or Book of Acts say that he ascended into heaven in spirit only. You are trying to make them say something which the do not. If he did ascend into heaven in spirit they could have said that but we are told that he ascended in heaven in both body and spirit.
@Nazam44 And none says that he ascended into heaven in flesh form. After ressurection, he was no more human but a spirit, he finished his task on earth and ascended back to his father in heaven, in spirit form. God is a spirit and so is all that dwell in his dwelling place including his angels. There is no flesh in heaven, just spiritual bodies, that is why sex, alcohol and marriage is impossible in heaven as this is not necessities for spiritual beings, just for humans.
@theaccousticaddict Where do you get from the contexts of the Bible that Jesus turn into spirit before he was taken up into heaven? (Lk 24:51) It says that he appeared to the disciples in flesh and then was taken up, it doesn't say he turn into spirit and then was taken up.
@Nazam44 Something in flesh form cant appear and disappear, these are all supernatural attributes. If you think that we will still be humans with flesh and blood in heaven, then you re wrong. It says that he appeared to his disciples in flesh, it does not say that he ascended in flesh, that's an assumption. The human version of Jesus was crucified and he died, the ressurected was no more the human, but the spirit ready to ascend into heaven.
@theaccousticaddict well if what you say is true that why is it that after alledged resuruction Jesus ate food with his disciples and aksed them to feel his flesh and bone and confirm that he is not infact spirit? resurected bodies are spirits now are they not? They have no flesh or bones and thus they need no food.
@MatrixOfDynamism Are you trying to compare yourself to Jesus? Jesus was without sin, he was holy, that is why he ascended in human form cos he was pure and holy. We are of flesh, we have sinned and have been corrupted by things of the flesh, so this sinful flesh cannot dwell in God's holy place. The flesh will return to the dusts from where they came and the spiritual being will ascend to God or end up in hell. The bible has told u that the flesh shall perish, but the spirit shall be forever.
@theaccousticaddict you have totally evaded my message here. Read again what I am asking. For your information Islam tells us that all prophets are sinless, that includes Abraham to who we trace our spirtual ancestory and also Moses and David and Solomon and Jesus and also the final prophet Muhammad may Allah have mercy on all of them.
@MatrixOfDynamism Jesus was not and still is not a prophet, but the messiah, the only son of God sent to deliver mankind from sin, that's the simple fact you Muslims fail to understand. Moses was not sinless, God stopped him for entering the promise land for a reason, Abraham had intercourse with a woman he was not married to, that's a sin. Solomon turned to pagan gods and David slept with the wife of Uriah, killed the husband and God Uriah's wife pregnant, that's not sinless, its sinFUL.
@theaccousticaddict There's plenty of verse in the NT that show Jesus was a prophet of God (Mk 6:4, Luke 13:33, Luke 24:19). Abraham was married to Hagar since Sarah gave Hagar to be Abraham's wife (Gen 16:3) Both Hagar and Sarah were married to Abraham since the Bible makes no distinction but uses the same root word for wife for both of them.
@Nazam44 Mk 6:4, Jesus never said he was a prophet, he talked about a prophet, that does not mean he's one. I can talk about a king, that doe not mean i am king. Luke 13:33 Does not say that Jesus is or was a prophet. I need you to give me a verse were Jesus proclaimed he was a prophet. Jesus has clearly specified his position in the bible, he says he is the intercessor between man and God and that no one can go to the father except through him, no prophet bears such responsibility.
@Nazam44 Abraham was married to Sarah first, he married Hagar later for reproductive purposes. Still, God does not support polygamy, that is why he made Eve and Eve alone to be Adam's partner and companion. Abraham was loved by God cos he passed God's test of faith when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac and he also believed God when God told him that he would be a father of many nations.
@theaccousticaddict All these things that you attribute to Prophets here, we reject. Prophets are the ROLE MODEL for the entire mankind. They cannot be invovled in such filth. Besides that, when you christians are calling on a man as God all the time, and worship him as such. You forget that he was here delivering a message, the new testament talks of a Gospel that Jesus preached but in Christondom it is nowhere to be found. Thus Christ was a prophet Anyway, we muslms are not saying anything new
@MatrixOfDynamism Well it depends on the type of prophet you are talking about, there are prophets out there who are prophets of Satan, they are those who deceive us to think that they are of God when they are of the devil. So i better look up to Jesus Christ (who is not a prophet but the Son of God), rather than look up to men who were of sin. Yes some prophets prophesied the word of God, but they are dead and gone now and a true believer follows in the footsteps of Jesus Christ,.
@MatrixOfDynamism You are so very lame, i never called a man God, i never called Jesus God, i call him the son of God, there's a difference between God and the son of God, i dont know why Muslims cant understand the simple difference. Jesus is the only one that came from heaven to earth to die for a course, for the salvation of men. Even God in John 3:16 confirmed Jesus as his beloved son whom whosoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life. Christ was and is the messiah.
@theaccousticaddict Bro the question is, why God need to sacrifice His "son" just to forgive our sins? Why cant He just forgive us when we ask for His forgiveness? Didnt God has power over all things and do anything? Jesus is similar to Moses, Abraham, Noah. Jesus is a Prophet of Allah for the children of Israel. He never claim to be sent just to die for our sins.
@syazwankhan But a price had to be paid for Adam's disobedience, and for God's cause to be lifted a price had to be paid as well. Yes God can just forgive us, but that would make him an unjust God, how would the angels and hosts of heaven feel if they realised that God allowed earthlings to disobey him and get away with it? Man had to pay the price for disobeying God. Jesus is not similiar to Moses, Jesus was perfect, he never sinned, Moses sinned.
@syazwankhan I just have to make it clear that my God is not your Allah, you guys should seriously figure out who you Allah is and stop confusing him with the Christian God. Jesus is not similiar to Moses. Jesus is the only intercessor between man and God and only through him can humanity be saved. Jesus is not a prophet but the son of God, Moses was a prophet, not Jesus. Read John 3:16 - 17, Jesus was sent to offer us salvation and only through him can eternal life be attained.
@syazwankhan You see, we are of sin, Adam sinned against God and the cause of God upon him passed down to future generations, we are subject to sin and all its affiliates like sickness and death. The bible has said in John 3:16 - 17 that Jesus is God's beloved son whom through him the world can be saved and rewarded with eternal life. I know the Koran disagrees with this, but am not surprised because koran talks of Allah and the bible talks of God, two seperate entities with 2 different books.
Why didn`t Adam Deen invite a REAL THINKER to debate ? There are numerous intellectuals and thinkers compared to whom Adam Deen is NOTHING and has NOTHING TO DECLARE !
by John Sutherland University of Manchester ( the man and the team who string together to make the fist steps of RNA.
As you can see they did not create LIFE, they are just building the building? blocks for life. h t t p : / / w w w . b i o e d o n l i n e . o r g / n e w s / n e w s . c f m ? a r t = 5 2 7 7
Allah created the big bang and then orded life spring out of the big bang eventually and orded them in there right places and to say it is chance: goes against the ratio. And chance has never been proven, for the model of re-creating this universe, in a model
Adam deen wipe the floow with these guys, i also think Adam deen would be a nightmare to Richard dawrkins.
By the way: that Egyptian analogy was crap humans could not comprehend Rocks put together so they imaged divine intervention right? the pyramids date back 4 thousand years, and hinduism about 5 years, so why did hindues believe in a God who knew nothing about pyramids? Same goes for ADAM aleyselam
@pamuk7 You have to understand, Dawkins and evolution has "evidence" supporting the argument and abiogenesis is a concept based on known science but still inconclusive. Allah/God is a concept which has no evidential basis. Allah/God is put in the informational gaps of science to try and explain what is unknown but still an assumption and a convenient cop out. Using God to explain the unknown is very common in history and proven wrong with science.
missing link- if intelligence is not responsible for a single cell: then create it(never been done before under all intelligence humans.
missing link- millions of specieces that have not changed there forms in fossil record.
missing link- trying to explain:of the probability of a single functional protein, the building blocks of life, emerging by chance is just 1 in 10-950, and that in mathematical terms this means zero possibility
@pamuk7 Are you joking? Evolution has stacks of evidence, mutations have been proven and observed. the best examples are in viruses and bacterium. Actually you don't even need fossilized evidence, the DNA alone shows the mutations if you explore the genetic markers. Fossils are an added bonus that work perfectly with all other area's of science for evolution. Also, "missing link" is a term no longer used showing your scientific ignorance.
@chrisinsocalif There is not a single evidence that MUTATION causes NEW information in the GENOME in fact it destroys information in the genome. This has never been proven, and again assumptions
missing link-not a single cell has formed in its own, by mixing ingredients
missing link- Ape to MAN.
missing link- to explain, OZONE LAYER by natural selection, or chance. Same Goes for EYES, BRAIN.
missing link- natural selection does not create new species never PROVEN.
missing link- nature and big bang does not plan ahead: so if nature did not order planets, suns cell into Bactria and apes into humans then what did, saying chance doesnt work the odds against you.
@pamuk7 Ape to man? again an ignorant concept which didnt happen shows your lack of knowledge in science. Natural selection is proven. Great examples of new species being forms, isolated area's like the galapagos islands where new species were formed due to the environment being isolated. Another example is Australia. Diatom fossils in yellowstone lake has an exceptional record of evolution. Education helps understanding, you should try it someday.
@chrisinsocalif BULL CRAP. You said we found new species form? in isolated areas? this is assumption as you claim? where did those new species come from? are you suggesting that adaptation is NEW SPECIES..lol
There has never been single proof of nature selecting and making a NEW SPECIE if so: i challenge YOU to show us a example and NOT ADAPTATION
@chrisinsocalif survive. But the survival of the fastest zebra does not mean that these zebra will subsequently turn into a different species, cheetahs for instance. Natural selection merely weeds out sickly, weak or crippled individuals, or those in the group that have failed to adapt to their surroundings. It cannot create new species, new genetic information or new organs.
@chrisinsocalif even if new species were discovered in isolated areas why you you assumes that Natural section was the cause?Natural selection means the survival of those individuals best suited to the natural conditions around them. In a herd of zebra menaced by lions, for instance, the fastest running zebra will
@chrisinsocalif missing links: show us a example that: from gas the first matter the universe many other elements were created and then LIFE its self, such as cell, bacteria and fish..can we see a single demonstration from the first element and then from the single cell, exactly the way the universe did it.
after all Darwinian evolution is fact or Richard dawrkins evolution is fact
@pamuk7 Look, its obvious you lack the scientific knowledge and concepts you are trying to dismiss. You keep confusing abiogenesis with evolution, they are both different. Stop comparing the two. Some concepts are based on ignorant points of view that were never valid in science. Again, all you need is energy to create matter, Einsteins formula's is best known for this. As for going back further its still unknown. You could explain energy being created by imaginary beings but that is just lazy.
@chrisinsocalif No muslim dismisses the concept of evolution. We know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution and understand that one deals with creation, and the other deals with how creation came about so to speak. What theists believe in, whether jewish, christian or muslim is that we believe that their was a 'guiding head', a creator that gave rise to creation. We believe that the inception of the universe was guided. Even Eistein, i think believed in the prime mover. Salaam,Peace.
@chrisinsocalif No muslim dismisses the concept of evolution. We know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution and understand that one deals with creation, and the other deals with how creation came about so to speak. What theists believe in, whether jewish, christian or muslim is that we believe that their was a 'guiding head', a creator that gave rise to creation. Ameobas show such state of 'evolution'. Salaam,Peace.
@Yeppox that is good to know, but the "guiding head" is an assumption without any evidence, but nice to see you have a better outlook than many without dismissing science.
, and not merely my nature it self, and no you been reading to many fiction books: Einstein never created matter, like you said he needed energy? right? could matter be created without energy? and who created energy?
@chrisinsocalif hehe.sont you dare claim i dont understand your crap, this i call trying to character assassinate ones knowledge, christians often do this when they cant explain trinity: they say you muslims dont understand same story with you: Im sorry but RNA is created by machine cells
@pamuk7 You obviously dont understand science fully based on what you have stated, so its obvious. Missing links, ape to man are not scientific concepts. Religion is based on faith not evidence so muslims and christians both assume stories of creation. And to create RNA you need a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases, not always a cell. Science has a proven track record.
@chrisinsocalif i really dont see the point of getting excited about: creating a chemical? i can create a chemical in my back yard as well. Show me a functional protein created
@chrisinsocalif by the way: life did not start with RNA process according to evolution experts, such as: Gerald Joyce: on his book: Joyce, G. F., 1989. RNA evolution and the origins of life. Nature, 338:217–224
@chrisinsocalif also keep in mind: that they are only the elements of building block for life: And they only made 2 strands which means: its not even functional it pretty much does nothing, it cant even function in a cell.. so what is your point?
keep in mind that if you claim RNA was built for the begging of life need to exlpain: Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all.
-order does not come from disorder. Only order comes from order. The model of this universe such as sun, being in the right place, and the moon, earth having ozone layer, stars, rain clouds right spot etc etc.. has never been re-created as a model example to show that it was nature that did this. Nature does not have the intelligent compacity to order these things in there right places. all happened after the big bang. Nature only creates patterns and not order
@pamuk7 missing link- information must come from information. If you dont have information you cant get information. yet this universe first elements did not have information.
@pamuk7 Since you do not understand science and the "order" of the universe, you presume a higher being did it. That is not uncommon for people who do not understand concepts of science. As for RNA you are completely wrong, we understand how its made through chemistry and can absolutely happen naturally. Please stop making stuff up, you really show your lack of knowledge.
@chrisinsocalif you stated: that RNA can happen naturally, can you show a example of all the ingredients to create RNA laid out in close proximity: and i want to see the elements join by nature creating RNA. Since im ignorant and that this can actually happen by nature it self i would like to see a example of this.
@chrisinsocalif read this: "My ultimate goal is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first."
by John Sutherland University of Manchester ( the man and the team who string together to make the fist steps of RNA.
As you can see they did not create LIFE, they are just building the building blocks for life.
@chrisinsocalif again proves our point, but nature its self is not responsible but a higher intelligence taht assembles all the pieces and building blocks for life, this is WHAT YOUR SCIENTIST CAN NOT DO, you can only build amino acid or one of the building blocks for life such as RNA but you are enable to make it function to create PROTIENS and LIFE which proves our POINT ALLAHU AKBAR!
@chrisinsocalif errr.. about nature creating life? .what you are merely showing is that: Allah all-mighty controlled and springs out from cells, which form proteins etc etc... you claim nature caused it? we say: the elements of nature did indeed be used in? the principal of life: Allah even says: he created man from the substance of the earth, which
@pamuk7 Bold claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Problem with your claims is its not backed by any evidence. None whatsoever. We now understand how RNA is created, duplicates and mutates. We understand a lot about nature. You sure ask for a lot of "evidence" for science but present nothing for "allah" except the "koran said so." You dismiss all other "gods" out there which all share the same amount of evidence of existence. Now you know why i dismiss yours.
@chrisinsocalif Again? you creating RNA is not creating LIFE, its only 2 strands that have been innovated from existing material, which are only the building blocks to start life. Thats not LIFE? seriously are you insane or what i brought you the confessions with proof from evolutionists. its far from life: these RNA do not even function to produce: functional proteins how can you call it life?
My ultimate goal is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first."
@chrisinsocalif As should be clear, to expect these two complex and extremely essential processes from a molecule like RNA is only possible by an evolutionist's power of imagination and viewpoint. Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, make it explicit that the thesis of the "RNA World", which is a new model proposed for the chance formation of life, is an equally implausible fable.
@chrisinsocalif This scenario could have occured, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.
@chrisinsocalif Dr. Leslie Orgel, one of the associates of Stanley Miller and Francis Crick from the University of San Diego California, uses the term "scenario" for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA world". Orgel described what kind of features this RNA had to have and how impossible this was in her article titled "The Origin of Life" published in American Scientist in October 1994:
@chrisinsocalif and RNAmolecules), originate? For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.3
Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78
2 John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119
3 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York, Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.2 How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes
@chrisinsocalif It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.1
The same fact is also admitted by other scientists:
@chrisinsocalif have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says:
@chrisinsocalif read im bringing u more proof Evolution confession:
CONFESSIONS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS
Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules
“The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA ...The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.
Joyce, G., RNA evolution and the origins of life, Nature 338:217–224, 16 March 1989.
If you read the Article: there is not even a single mention that the so called: RNA created can not even replicate: all they did was join the strands together thats it, Not even the building blocks, nucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA.
@chrisinsocalif Also keep in mind that even if building block are put together by scientists it doesnt mean they can build anything: as shown the Joyce experiment it does not function . So again how can u claim that this is LIVING? when it does not replicate does not functional and build anything, nor does it create proteins you are very deluded to claim this building block for life, is actual life it self with the overwhelming evidence brought forth.
@pamuk7 They have created RNA strands that do replicate and mutate, it was published in the Journal of Science. The creation of life is still inconclusive but has more evidence than an imaginary being magically creating life. You keep on dissing science, but it has a proven track record. Where is your evidence? Your allah makes the same claims as Zeus, Atlas, Ceres, and any other god out there but with nothing to show its validity. Nothing at all.
IF THE EVOLTIONIST has not called it LIFE? Who supposed created LIFE according to you? Why are you lying in Gerald Joce name? He never claimed it was LIFE why are you? He very well knows that: his RNA can not create functional LIFE such as Proteins. Can you please respond, why you lie and call it life when the evolutionist himself who formed the RNA does not call it life waiting:
@chrisinsocalif The RNA does not create LIFE, so its not living matter which may replicate do you mind commenting in this? This is professor Gerald Joyce who made the discovery.
@chrisinsocalif Further more we read again Gerald joyce confession:
Lincoln's advisor, professor Gerald Joyce, reiterated that while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not life as we know it.
Joyce insists he and Lincoln have not created life: "We're knocking on that door," he says, "but of course we haven't achieved that."
@chrisinsocalif prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.
Can you see what she said? That its not possible for the RNA to do all this by itself if it wasn’t FOR GERAL JOYCE to locate the raw materials!! For the RNA!
@chrisinsocalif This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man:the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of
@chrisinsocalif 2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA made up of simply a nucleotide chain have "decided" to self-replicate and with what kind of a mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating? Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperateness of the situation in their book titled "In the RNA World":
@chrisinsocalif really? so another group of scientist created a RNA that functions as a life form? ok lets pin point the article which i should have requested much earlier: send me the link to my private PM mail via youtube, and lets see what they claim: about creating LIFE. then i will send you the refutation then we shall get to Allah-All-mighty. waiting...lets see how much more you can dance around...send me the article of these evolutionist that claim they created life.
@pamuk7 Yes, more than one study on RNA has been done after the one you referred to based on their findings. But you are stalling and splitting hairs here. Science already has tons of evidence behind them. So i ask you, shows me real evidence where i can observe, test, measure, and so on...of your Allah. There is no evidence of God or Allah, at all, just blind speculation. So instead of asking science for evidence, why not provide some of your own? Maybe its because we both know you cant.
I tend to simply withhold debating with anyone who calls me an "evolutionist". If someone can not understand that evolution is a fact and a theory. It's time to move on to someone who can.
Any other religions invited to contend? Such as maybe Christianity or Judiaism?
brassoadam 2 weeks ago
and this is just a debate ,not all points r raised n elaborated on. to find the truth ,u need 2 study urself,maybe u could only get pointers from debates not real studies 2 rely on wether 2 become an atheist or a theist
HIMAZZZ1991 2 weeks ago
from readin a lot of comments here,i realized certain points which i would like 2 elaborate more on.the thing with God created the universe,its not god of the gaps cuz theists(muslims) arent sayin that "uuhh!we dont know,so God did it" its actually proved n supported by evidence(which is the debate in essence).the cabin analogy is actually misunderstood by many,its sayin that there r conditions for life n these conditions r so "fine-tuned" that we cannot think of it as chance
HIMAZZZ1991 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.’ 2 Tim. 4:3
KingdomSeeker2012 3 weeks ago
To be honest - debates between believers and non-believers are pointless and futile. Non beleivers just think we do not know how the universe was created and believers say God did it. I would much prefer to see debates between Monotheists and Polytheists and those of other divine beliefs. Mulsims vs Buddhists, Hindus vs Taoists, Shinto vs Christians . We can then see arguments for the existence of any divine thing. Atheism vs any belief has been done to death.
Judipops13 1 month ago
Question at the end, "Quran it's mentioned that we are created from clay, this contradicts science". Answer the first man was created from a combination of clay, dirt, dust, etc so this is the ORIGIN, but the future generations where created through liquid substance(water). This is exact scientific findings, that about %70 of human body is made up of liquid(water). All this is Objective and in Quran. Chapter 32 verse 7 & 8.
supremesign1 1 month ago
universe has to be eternal , not fucking begin to exist , universe has always bn here , evev ancient greeks knew this , time cannot hv a begining , univ
loly1969 1 month ago
@loly1969
yea and they were proven wrong with science.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@loly1969
yea and they were proven wrong with science.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loly1969
yea and they were proven wrong with science.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
god is an emotional attitude , faith is a sickness
loly1969 1 month ago
i cover my hair , i am spiritual hee hee
loly1969 1 month ago
@loly1969 I can only value myself if I show off my body parts, I'm so liberated. Hee Hee
Nazam44 1 month ago 6
No i just saved you more wasted lifes.
BahamutDKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BS! Muhammad was a violent Evil now dead Murderer! Islam/Quran is corrupt! Jesus/Peace/Healed/Blessed/Salvation/God! All Muslims who became Christians are free of abuse & misery! Islam leaders are killing you! Christians Love You! Please accept Jesus Christ as your Savior! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Rebel & accept Jesus Christ! Be free of Islam lies! Visit cbn.com /radio
tigersforchrist 2 months ago
he tried to explain infinity and walked less than a meter and said it continues to divide,
this guy's meant to be a mathematician and philosopher?
when adam spoke of infinity, he was talking about an infinite multiplication,
not a division of a known total.
the man needs to go back to learn the difference between multiplication and division!
abz2000123 2 months ago 6
@abz2000123 There is an infinite gap between any two points. You can say it's "3 cm apart" but cm is a measurement. Similarly you can split Infinity into three parts as well but that doesn't means it's finite. Think of an ever extending line in three different colours equally spaced. All of them continues and grow but the difference remains the same.
That's what he attempted to explain by having a huge step. Two points, infinitely large expanse between them.
Muslims are still stuck in addition
TheEpicion 1 month ago
this larvor guy spent a large bulk of his time telling him how the other guy should argue - despite adam arguing from an objective and fair playing field.
abz2000123 2 months ago
When you explain to me why all the other religions, beliefs , god or Gods are not the right one's , i will say then why i do not believe in yours, for religion is all a tool which was used when humans couldnt use science as we do now. the irony that all these Beliefs claim they are the right one and continue to evolve with us in the earth using science which would have been considered pagan & put to death if they lived in the times the bible was being formated, There is vast knowledge out there
geminis183rd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
really well hosted.............also 9/11 was an inside job - ae911truth.or g
dxvxvx 4 months ago
Comment removed
dxvxvx 4 months ago
Adams knowledge of phisics is not just bad, its worrying.
Aguijon1982 4 months ago
Oh, and by "fine-tuned" I don't mean fine-tuned by god's hands.
jonisaok 4 months ago
The cabin analogy is ridiculous. Our surroundings aren't fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned for our surroundings. The color green isn't the easiest on the eyes because god made it that way, it's the easiest on the eyes because it's the most prevalent color on our earth, and our eyes have adjusted accordingly.
jonisaok 4 months ago 2
@jonisaok Precisely! What the theists do (as I'm sure you're aware) is take a piece of already-verified information and twist it to fit in with their "goddidit" ideal. Of course you're right about the colour green and our adaptation to it - you just try telling them that :)
MrSDSTRIKEBREAKER 4 months ago
I don't think it's impossible to explain that our universe came from nothing. Cause and effect works on a timeline... before the universe existed, there might not have been time. If there was no time, it's not necessary for there to be a "cause" for the cosmos. Even if you were to realize what the "cause" was... you can't make the leap to "Oh, then God must have created the universe". You can't do this because you're creating more questions than you're answering. Where'd your god come from?
jonisaok 4 months ago 2
@jonisaok "Where'd your god come from?"
Allah is eternal. That is my answer.
KNOWNMuslim001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KNOWNMuslim001 its an honor that you have blocked me an honor your the retard for beliving in allah allah does not exist i say it again fuck allah the fake m00n g0d hey go eat pigs shit
gayboysbutt 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gayboysbutt Retarded comment is retarded. (And I didn't received your comment in my inbox. Maybe because your comment has been flagged as spam)
KNOWNMuslim001 3 months ago
@KNOWNMuslim001 "Allah is eternal" cannot be an answer. You are just saying something. You don't KNOW this!???
GeoCoppens 1 month ago
21:00 why didn't "Allah" make the baby be quiet? Obviously Allah knew you were trying to make a strong point there, you'd think He would have the foresight (wait, omnipotence?!) to see that you needed to concentrate (@Adam Deen)
MrSDSTRIKEBREAKER 4 months ago
Allah does not exist. Neither does Jesus, Thor, Zeus, Santa Claus, Fairies, Pixes, Elves, Tooth fairy, or any other magic wizard your parents brainwashed you to think is real - please people, like a tuber below me said, let's all get a grip and look at the facts and stop this dreaming.
MrSDSTRIKEBREAKER 4 months ago
@MrSDSTRIKEBREAKER your welcome to believe what you want but unlike thor, zeus...Jesus (pbuh) was seen by people, he had witnesses.
To say he didnt exist is to say that numerous people imagined that this person was talking to them? Im not saying whether he did miracles or not, im just saying how can you deny he existed?
5heeshi 4 months ago
@5heeshi Well, sure, there are ancient texts where numerous people claim to have seen him, these texts are unverifiable and numerous writings within them have been proven utterly false. Now maybe there was some dude called Jesus on the block ages ago, but he sure wasn't anything special or "divine" - just some regular dude like you or I. Except he was GREAT at bullshitting - and people believed him. Just my thoughts.
MrSDSTRIKEBREAKER 4 months ago
@5heeshi It's actually not hard to say that he probably didn't exist... as there isn't much evidence for his existence.
Even if he did exist though, that's not evidence that's he's the son of god... not even close.
jonisaok 4 months ago
@jonisaok Well thats just a matter of opinion, some people would say that a calendar is based on his birth and supposed death and that is enough evidence for them.
I agree with you though hes not the son of God I believe he was a prophet...a normal man with a message
Peace
(also to people who read this notice how we just exchanged views no hate speech or insults?? This is how we should all communicate with one another)
5heeshi 4 months ago
@5heeshi Aside from the bible, which has a vested interest in Jesus existing try finding some corroboration from authors of his day. I'm anxious for you to share with me what you find.
xwarmangle 1 month ago
@Theaccousticaddict proof that Jesus is son of god when he look like humans and he dosent look like his father ?
Modizs1 5 months ago
Comment removed
kaaaatex0 5 months ago
what was the song in the beginning of this? it was cute!
kaaaatex0 5 months ago
Again a failure of the religious to bring any real facts to the discussion to show that there is any god. It is not for non-muslims to prove that Allah does not exist, it is for muslims to prove their assertions
Listening to the comments from the audience at the end, it seems that the debate was much better live than that shown here on youtube.
Aydosh1991 7 months ago
I can only hope that some of people in attendance will use this fiasco to take real science classes by bonafide teachers.This same old crap has been discredited by worlds best experts.Stop this tire old bullshit and get on with learning the facts and leave it to real scholars.Allah is not to be held in any moral authority.
mrdalerod1 7 months ago
@mrdalerod1
samdigan87 4 months ago
Please apologists, stop using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. First, it rests upon a defunct theory of time (the A-theory) and therefore an actual infinity can exist. Second, to say a necessary being created the universe is (1) to use causal relationships which are not meaningful if time and space came into being at the big bang, and (2) to make use of spatial relationships which are not meaningful for the same reason.
Paraconsistant 7 months ago
Comment removed
Paraconsistant 7 months ago
Why do apologists love big numbers so much?
Why do they love quote mining scientists?
Why do they bring up undefined terms, such as "objective morality"?
Why bring up the ancient, annihilated, and dishonest Kalam argument?
Dr Brendan does not address the practical issues, but keeps it philosophical - even though he says he studied Adam's MO.
He's far too theoretical and abstract. His points are valid and applicable, but as Muslims are not normally intellectual, he's perceived as the looser.
StopSpamming1 7 months ago
@StopSpamming1 'Why do apologists love big numbers so much?' Because it's a easy means by which to obfuscate matters. 'Why do they love quote mining scientists?' Because they rarely understand scientific methodologies and the findings therefrom. 'Why do they bring up undefined terms, such as "objective morality"?' See the first answer. 'Allah' is an undefined term. 'Why bring up the ancient, annihilated, and dishonest Kalam argument?' It appeals to medieval, pre-scientific views of the world.
Paraconsistant 7 months ago
Nice lecture
peace4universe 7 months ago
Salam
Can this video of yours be reuploaded??
4evertruthful 7 months ago
I am an atheist and I think Brendan was horrible
87Philips 8 months ago
Everyone, every communauty has a concept of God.
But the concept of god is perfected in islam.
Logia1978 8 months ago
I personally like Dr Brandon...at least he's not a militant, closed minded atheist like Richard Dawkins...
manzar9121 8 months ago
This guy Brendan is just making opinions ,Islam is a complete system of life .You could theorize all day but remember its only theory,Dr.Brendan seem confused and inconclusive.
chezpiecedaking 9 months ago 2
@chezpiecedaking He handled the design argument at 40:00. Explain why god can not be a perfect one by giving examples of our pelvis and how badly we are created. Design dictates some sort of plan, it's not good enough.
The man tackled everything thrown at him, it's just his phrasing is covered in Jargon and requires some form of effort from the listener to understand him.
TheEpicion 1 month ago
oh god there are sooo many things wrong with Adams arguments i don't even know where to begin.
dvarblo 9 months ago
What people fail to realise is that the Islam God Allah is not the same God as the christian God , the creator of heaven and earth. Allah promises his followers two wives and a river of wine of heaven, the God of Christianity does not, but rather he says through the bible that no one will be given in marriage in heaven but will all become like the angels. So Islamic Allah and the God of Christianity are two separate entities.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict In Genesis 6:2-4 it says that the angels found the daughters of men to be attractive and took them to be their wives. So if you are going become like the angels in heaven then you will still have sexual feelings and still get married.
Nazam44 9 months ago
@Nazam44
First of all, what happened to these angels?? they were thrown out of heaven alongside their master Satan, and as a result of their "sexual feelings" towards women and the whole world was destroyed as a result of that. What does that tell us? that sex is not a heavenly thing, it is a human thing for the purpose of reproduction. These angels were evil, they followed satan that's why and how the spirit of lust had its way in them. God's angels dont have sexual feelings or lust.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@Nazam44
Angels dont get married, they are spirits, spirits dont get married. The angels that had sex with the daughters of men in the beginning took the form of man to do so, real angels of God, who worship God in spirit and in truth dont have sexual feelings. An angel who has sexual feelings is not of God. Just like man realised he was naked after sinning against God. Lust and sexual desires among angels is not of God but of the devil and the prices are always disastrous. world destruction.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict Firstly it does not say they incarnated and became men. It just says they took them to be their wives and produced giant children of them. Secondly Paul also interpreted this passage as referring to angels lusting after women and having intimate relations with them because this is one of the reasons that he gives for the head covering for a woman. (1 Cor.11:10)
Nazam44 9 months ago
@Nazam44
But that does not imply in anyway that after death, we will be given two wives in heaven. Secondly, these angels where of satan and where cast out of heaven, as a result of their actions the world was destroyed in flood. That shows that God is not pleased with angelic bodies engaging in any form of sexual activities. Sex is for reproduction and angels dont reproduce. Angels of God dont lust after women, well the God i worship, i dont know about yours.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict I agree it does not apply that but you are still reading into the text. Firstly it doesn't say they were of Satan but it reads that they were the sons of God. Secondly, mankind was not destroyed as a result of the angels actions but for becoming corrupt.
Nazam44 9 months ago
@Nazam44 What does "reading into the text" mean? God is not the author of confusion and his words are made understandable to all. Even satan was a close one to God, a cherubim, closer to God than most of the angels. God threw these angels out of heaven for what they did, this clearly indicates that what they did was not of God but of the devil. The main reason God destroyed the world was bcos of what the angels did. Are we not even more corrupt now? why has God not destroyed us??
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict Reading into the text means your committing Eisegesis as suppose to Exegeting the texts. Look these terms up on Google. No where does it say that these angels were thrown out of heaven but that they themselves choose to come down on earth and have initiate relations. No where are they reprimanded by God. Also, I don't know why you are so hung up on sex when you should be pleased that Biblically it's allowed. But if you don't want too than no one is going to force you.
Nazam44 9 months ago
@Nazam44
Read Revelation 12:9. You still dont understand why God destroyed the whole world, it was because the bloodlines of men was tarnished by these bad angels. God did not just destroy the whole world cos man was "corrupt". Man was corrupt since when Adam sinned, why did God wait till the time of Noah to destroy the human race for this corruption, even after he placed a curse on man? it makes no sense.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@Nazam44
Yes biblically sex is allowed, but only on earth, to reproduce and fill the earth, not in heaven, God is a spirit, so are the angels in heaven, spirits dont have sex, only humans do mainly for reproductive purposes. The God i worship and the heaven i know of for sure is not a place where i will be given two wives for sex and marriage and where i will be provided with rivers of alcohol. That's why i say that Islam and Christianity share nothing in common, two opposing religions.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict That's not what the Bible teaches that but what you teach. It does not follow that because you will be like the angels you will not have no intimate relations with your spouse. Again you are interpreting more than what the text says. Also Paul says you will not be spirit at the resurrection but you will be given a new physical body (1 Cor 15). Jesus himself had a physical body according to Luke (24:37-43) that eat.
Nazam44 9 months ago
@Nazam44
Jesus himself said that after death, we will become like the angels (spirit beings), he also said that when we are angels in heaven we will not be married neither will we be given into marriage in heaven. If you believe otherwise then you do not worship the same God i do. Jesus had a physical body while he was on earth, but after his death and ressurection, he turned back into a spiritual being he always was and ascended into heaven.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@Nazam44
Paul did not say "a new physical body". We only need physical bodies to dwell on earth not in heaven. God is a spirit and so are his angels and all those who will dwell with him. As Jesus said, after death we will become like the angels, that alone is enough for me to believe.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict The Gospels show when Jesus resurrected and was assumed into heaven he was in both flesh and spirit and not in spirit alone.
Nazam44 9 months ago
@Nazam44
The Gospels does not say that Jesus was in flesh after he ressurected, it only mentions that a whole crown so Jesus ascend into heaven, that does not mean that Jesus was in flesh, he was still in spirit form and he allowed himself to be seen so that it can be testified to the world what was seen, why do you think Christianity spread from a small community to the ends of the earth??? Jesus was not in flesh when he ascended but in spirit, just as he appeared to his disciples in spirit.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict Jesus was in the flesh when he appeared to the disciples. According to Luke he said, "For a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have" (Lk 24).
Nazam44 9 months ago
@Nazam44
Dont tell me what you dont know, Jesus did not ascend in flesh, he ascended in spirit. He only appeared to his disciples in flesh so that they would believe that he actually ressurected from the death, why did he do this? so that situations like that of the Muslim's who claim that Jesus never ressurected would never happen. It was prophesied by Moses that a messiah would come to pay the price for our salvation and Jesus was and still is that messiah, not a prophet.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict None of the Gospels or Book of Acts say that he ascended into heaven in spirit only. You are trying to make them say something which the do not. If he did ascend into heaven in spirit they could have said that but we are told that he ascended in heaven in both body and spirit.
Nazam44 9 months ago
@Nazam44 And none says that he ascended into heaven in flesh form. After ressurection, he was no more human but a spirit, he finished his task on earth and ascended back to his father in heaven, in spirit form. God is a spirit and so is all that dwell in his dwelling place including his angels. There is no flesh in heaven, just spiritual bodies, that is why sex, alcohol and marriage is impossible in heaven as this is not necessities for spiritual beings, just for humans.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict Where do you get from the contexts of the Bible that Jesus turn into spirit before he was taken up into heaven? (Lk 24:51) It says that he appeared to the disciples in flesh and then was taken up, it doesn't say he turn into spirit and then was taken up.
Nazam44 9 months ago
@Nazam44 Something in flesh form cant appear and disappear, these are all supernatural attributes. If you think that we will still be humans with flesh and blood in heaven, then you re wrong. It says that he appeared to his disciples in flesh, it does not say that he ascended in flesh, that's an assumption. The human version of Jesus was crucified and he died, the ressurected was no more the human, but the spirit ready to ascend into heaven.
theaccousticaddict 9 months ago
@theaccousticaddict well if what you say is true that why is it that after alledged resuruction Jesus ate food with his disciples and aksed them to feel his flesh and bone and confirm that he is not infact spirit? resurected bodies are spirits now are they not? They have no flesh or bones and thus they need no food.
MatrixOfDynamism 7 months ago
@MatrixOfDynamism Are you trying to compare yourself to Jesus? Jesus was without sin, he was holy, that is why he ascended in human form cos he was pure and holy. We are of flesh, we have sinned and have been corrupted by things of the flesh, so this sinful flesh cannot dwell in God's holy place. The flesh will return to the dusts from where they came and the spiritual being will ascend to God or end up in hell. The bible has told u that the flesh shall perish, but the spirit shall be forever.
theaccousticaddict 7 months ago
@theaccousticaddict you have totally evaded my message here. Read again what I am asking. For your information Islam tells us that all prophets are sinless, that includes Abraham to who we trace our spirtual ancestory and also Moses and David and Solomon and Jesus and also the final prophet Muhammad may Allah have mercy on all of them.
MatrixOfDynamism 7 months ago
@MatrixOfDynamism Jesus was not and still is not a prophet, but the messiah, the only son of God sent to deliver mankind from sin, that's the simple fact you Muslims fail to understand. Moses was not sinless, God stopped him for entering the promise land for a reason, Abraham had intercourse with a woman he was not married to, that's a sin. Solomon turned to pagan gods and David slept with the wife of Uriah, killed the husband and God Uriah's wife pregnant, that's not sinless, its sinFUL.
theaccousticaddict 7 months ago
@theaccousticaddict There's plenty of verse in the NT that show Jesus was a prophet of God (Mk 6:4, Luke 13:33, Luke 24:19). Abraham was married to Hagar since Sarah gave Hagar to be Abraham's wife (Gen 16:3) Both Hagar and Sarah were married to Abraham since the Bible makes no distinction but uses the same root word for wife for both of them.
Nazam44 7 months ago
@Nazam44 Mk 6:4, Jesus never said he was a prophet, he talked about a prophet, that does not mean he's one. I can talk about a king, that doe not mean i am king. Luke 13:33 Does not say that Jesus is or was a prophet. I need you to give me a verse were Jesus proclaimed he was a prophet. Jesus has clearly specified his position in the bible, he says he is the intercessor between man and God and that no one can go to the father except through him, no prophet bears such responsibility.
theaccousticaddict 7 months ago
@Nazam44 Abraham was married to Sarah first, he married Hagar later for reproductive purposes. Still, God does not support polygamy, that is why he made Eve and Eve alone to be Adam's partner and companion. Abraham was loved by God cos he passed God's test of faith when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac and he also believed God when God told him that he would be a father of many nations.
theaccousticaddict 7 months ago
@theaccousticaddict All these things that you attribute to Prophets here, we reject. Prophets are the ROLE MODEL for the entire mankind. They cannot be invovled in such filth. Besides that, when you christians are calling on a man as God all the time, and worship him as such. You forget that he was here delivering a message, the new testament talks of a Gospel that Jesus preached but in Christondom it is nowhere to be found. Thus Christ was a prophet Anyway, we muslms are not saying anything new
MatrixOfDynamism 7 months ago
@MatrixOfDynamism Well it depends on the type of prophet you are talking about, there are prophets out there who are prophets of Satan, they are those who deceive us to think that they are of God when they are of the devil. So i better look up to Jesus Christ (who is not a prophet but the Son of God), rather than look up to men who were of sin. Yes some prophets prophesied the word of God, but they are dead and gone now and a true believer follows in the footsteps of Jesus Christ,.
theaccousticaddict 7 months ago
@MatrixOfDynamism You are so very lame, i never called a man God, i never called Jesus God, i call him the son of God, there's a difference between God and the son of God, i dont know why Muslims cant understand the simple difference. Jesus is the only one that came from heaven to earth to die for a course, for the salvation of men. Even God in John 3:16 confirmed Jesus as his beloved son whom whosoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life. Christ was and is the messiah.
theaccousticaddict 7 months ago
@theaccousticaddict Bro the question is, why God need to sacrifice His "son" just to forgive our sins? Why cant He just forgive us when we ask for His forgiveness? Didnt God has power over all things and do anything? Jesus is similar to Moses, Abraham, Noah. Jesus is a Prophet of Allah for the children of Israel. He never claim to be sent just to die for our sins.
syazwankhan 5 months ago
@syazwankhan But a price had to be paid for Adam's disobedience, and for God's cause to be lifted a price had to be paid as well. Yes God can just forgive us, but that would make him an unjust God, how would the angels and hosts of heaven feel if they realised that God allowed earthlings to disobey him and get away with it? Man had to pay the price for disobeying God. Jesus is not similiar to Moses, Jesus was perfect, he never sinned, Moses sinned.
theaccousticaddict 5 months ago
@syazwankhan I just have to make it clear that my God is not your Allah, you guys should seriously figure out who you Allah is and stop confusing him with the Christian God. Jesus is not similiar to Moses. Jesus is the only intercessor between man and God and only through him can humanity be saved. Jesus is not a prophet but the son of God, Moses was a prophet, not Jesus. Read John 3:16 - 17, Jesus was sent to offer us salvation and only through him can eternal life be attained.
theaccousticaddict 5 months ago
@syazwankhan You see, we are of sin, Adam sinned against God and the cause of God upon him passed down to future generations, we are subject to sin and all its affiliates like sickness and death. The bible has said in John 3:16 - 17 that Jesus is God's beloved son whom through him the world can be saved and rewarded with eternal life. I know the Koran disagrees with this, but am not surprised because koran talks of Allah and the bible talks of God, two seperate entities with 2 different books.
theaccousticaddict 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
religious gods do not exist
teedonster2 9 months ago
Why didn`t Adam Deen invite a REAL THINKER to debate ? There are numerous intellectuals and thinkers compared to whom Adam Deen is NOTHING and has NOTHING TO DECLARE !
Khosro192 10 months ago
Brendan Larvor definitely lost this debate. Bravo to Adam Deen.
Hikmat503 10 months ago 2
is he really a DR? his arguments are hilarious
sick08 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
False: Gerald Joyce her self had to manipulate the RNA so it can replicate without her interference:
Read what was said by the evolutionist which you keep ignoring:
pamuk7 1 year ago
As you can see below the RNA building block is not even functional to be alive yet.
pamuk7 1 year ago
by John Sutherland University of Manchester ( the man and the team who string together to make the fist steps of RNA.
As you can see they did not create LIFE, they are just building the building? blocks for life. h t t p : / / w w w . b i o e d o n l i n e . o r g / n e w s / n e w s . c f m ? a r t = 5 2 7 7
pamuk7 1 year ago
Comment removed
pamuk7 1 year ago
Allah created the big bang and then orded life spring out of the big bang eventually and orded them in there right places and to say it is chance: goes against the ratio. And chance has never been proven, for the model of re-creating this universe, in a model
pamuk7 1 year ago
more missing links-
how can the universe be eternal if given time frame?
can matter be proven it existed prior to universe?
pamuk7 1 year ago
i am yet to see one evolution book titles FACT OF EVOLUTION RATHER THEORY OF EVOLUTION
pamuk7 1 year ago
Adam deen wipe the floow with these guys, i also think Adam deen would be a nightmare to Richard dawrkins.
By the way: that Egyptian analogy was crap humans could not comprehend Rocks put together so they imaged divine intervention right? the pyramids date back 4 thousand years, and hinduism about 5 years, so why did hindues believe in a God who knew nothing about pyramids? Same goes for ADAM aleyselam
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 You have to understand, Dawkins and evolution has "evidence" supporting the argument and abiogenesis is a concept based on known science but still inconclusive. Allah/God is a concept which has no evidential basis. Allah/God is put in the informational gaps of science to try and explain what is unknown but still an assumption and a convenient cop out. Using God to explain the unknown is very common in history and proven wrong with science.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
missing link- if intelligence is not responsible for a single cell: then create it(never been done before under all intelligence humans.
missing link- millions of specieces that have not changed there forms in fossil record.
missing link- trying to explain:of the probability of a single functional protein, the building blocks of life, emerging by chance is just 1 in 10-950, and that in mathematical terms this means zero possibility
missing link-
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif
crap- evolution has evidence: NO ANSWER
missing link- every cause has a effect, so what was the cause of energy if NOT GOD?
missing link- One specie evolving to another under observation(never seen) takes million years.
missing link- transitional fossil evidence
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 Are you joking? Evolution has stacks of evidence, mutations have been proven and observed. the best examples are in viruses and bacterium. Actually you don't even need fossilized evidence, the DNA alone shows the mutations if you explore the genetic markers. Fossils are an added bonus that work perfectly with all other area's of science for evolution. Also, "missing link" is a term no longer used showing your scientific ignorance.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif There is not a single evidence that MUTATION causes NEW information in the GENOME in fact it destroys information in the genome. This has never been proven, and again assumptions
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif
missing link-not a single cell has formed in its own, by mixing ingredients
missing link- Ape to MAN.
missing link- to explain, OZONE LAYER by natural selection, or chance. Same Goes for EYES, BRAIN.
missing link- natural selection does not create new species never PROVEN.
missing link- nature and big bang does not plan ahead: so if nature did not order planets, suns cell into Bactria and apes into humans then what did, saying chance doesnt work the odds against you.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 Ape to man? again an ignorant concept which didnt happen shows your lack of knowledge in science. Natural selection is proven. Great examples of new species being forms, isolated area's like the galapagos islands where new species were formed due to the environment being isolated. Another example is Australia. Diatom fossils in yellowstone lake has an exceptional record of evolution. Education helps understanding, you should try it someday.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif BULL CRAP. You said we found new species form? in isolated areas? this is assumption as you claim? where did those new species come from? are you suggesting that adaptation is NEW SPECIES..lol
There has never been single proof of nature selecting and making a NEW SPECIE if so: i challenge YOU to show us a example and NOT ADAPTATION
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif survive. But the survival of the fastest zebra does not mean that these zebra will subsequently turn into a different species, cheetahs for instance. Natural selection merely weeds out sickly, weak or crippled individuals, or those in the group that have failed to adapt to their surroundings. It cannot create new species, new genetic information or new organs.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif even if new species were discovered in isolated areas why you you assumes that Natural section was the cause?Natural selection means the survival of those individuals best suited to the natural conditions around them. In a herd of zebra menaced by lions, for instance, the fastest running zebra will
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif missing links: show us a example that: from gas the first matter the universe many other elements were created and then LIFE its self, such as cell, bacteria and fish..can we see a single demonstration from the first element and then from the single cell, exactly the way the universe did it.
after all Darwinian evolution is fact or Richard dawrkins evolution is fact
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 Look, its obvious you lack the scientific knowledge and concepts you are trying to dismiss. You keep confusing abiogenesis with evolution, they are both different. Stop comparing the two. Some concepts are based on ignorant points of view that were never valid in science. Again, all you need is energy to create matter, Einsteins formula's is best known for this. As for going back further its still unknown. You could explain energy being created by imaginary beings but that is just lazy.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif No muslim dismisses the concept of evolution. We know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution and understand that one deals with creation, and the other deals with how creation came about so to speak. What theists believe in, whether jewish, christian or muslim is that we believe that their was a 'guiding head', a creator that gave rise to creation. We believe that the inception of the universe was guided. Even Eistein, i think believed in the prime mover. Salaam,Peace.
Yeppox 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif No muslim dismisses the concept of evolution. We know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution and understand that one deals with creation, and the other deals with how creation came about so to speak. What theists believe in, whether jewish, christian or muslim is that we believe that their was a 'guiding head', a creator that gave rise to creation. Ameobas show such state of 'evolution'. Salaam,Peace.
Yeppox 1 year ago
@Yeppox that is good to know, but the "guiding head" is an assumption without any evidence, but nice to see you have a better outlook than many without dismissing science.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
, and not merely my nature it self, and no you been reading to many fiction books: Einstein never created matter, like you said he needed energy? right? could matter be created without energy? and who created energy?
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif hehe.sont you dare claim i dont understand your crap, this i call trying to character assassinate ones knowledge, christians often do this when they cant explain trinity: they say you muslims dont understand same story with you: Im sorry but RNA is created by machine cells
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 You obviously dont understand science fully based on what you have stated, so its obvious. Missing links, ape to man are not scientific concepts. Religion is based on faith not evidence so muslims and christians both assume stories of creation. And to create RNA you need a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases, not always a cell. Science has a proven track record.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif i really dont see the point of getting excited about: creating a chemical? i can create a chemical in my back yard as well. Show me a functional protein created
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif by the way: life did not start with RNA process according to evolution experts, such as: Gerald Joyce: on his book: Joyce, G. F., 1989. RNA evolution and the origins of life. Nature, 338:217–224
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif also keep in mind: that they are only the elements of building block for life: And they only made 2 strands which means: its not even functional it pretty much does nothing, it cant even function in a cell.. so what is your point?
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif
keep in mind that if you claim RNA was built for the begging of life need to exlpain: Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 more missing links:
-order does not come from disorder. Only order comes from order. The model of this universe such as sun, being in the right place, and the moon, earth having ozone layer, stars, rain clouds right spot etc etc.. has never been re-created as a model example to show that it was nature that did this. Nature does not have the intelligent compacity to order these things in there right places. all happened after the big bang. Nature only creates patterns and not order
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 missing link- information must come from information. If you dont have information you cant get information. yet this universe first elements did not have information.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 Since you do not understand science and the "order" of the universe, you presume a higher being did it. That is not uncommon for people who do not understand concepts of science. As for RNA you are completely wrong, we understand how its made through chemistry and can absolutely happen naturally. Please stop making stuff up, you really show your lack of knowledge.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif you stated: that RNA can happen naturally, can you show a example of all the ingredients to create RNA laid out in close proximity: and i want to see the elements join by nature creating RNA. Since im ignorant and that this can actually happen by nature it self i would like to see a example of this.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif read this: "My ultimate goal is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first."
by John Sutherland University of Manchester ( the man and the team who string together to make the fist steps of RNA.
As you can see they did not create LIFE, they are just building the building blocks for life.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif again proves our point, but nature its self is not responsible but a higher intelligence taht assembles all the pieces and building blocks for life, this is WHAT YOUR SCIENTIST CAN NOT DO, you can only build amino acid or one of the building blocks for life such as RNA but you are enable to make it function to create PROTIENS and LIFE which proves our POINT ALLAHU AKBAR!
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif errr.. about nature creating life? .what you are merely showing is that: Allah all-mighty controlled and springs out from cells, which form proteins etc etc... you claim nature caused it? we say: the elements of nature did indeed be used in? the principal of life: Allah even says: he created man from the substance of the earth, which
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 Bold claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Problem with your claims is its not backed by any evidence. None whatsoever. We now understand how RNA is created, duplicates and mutates. We understand a lot about nature. You sure ask for a lot of "evidence" for science but present nothing for "allah" except the "koran said so." You dismiss all other "gods" out there which all share the same amount of evidence of existence. Now you know why i dismiss yours.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif Again? you creating RNA is not creating LIFE, its only 2 strands that have been innovated from existing material, which are only the building blocks to start life. Thats not LIFE? seriously are you insane or what i brought you the confessions with proof from evolutionists. its far from life: these RNA do not even function to produce: functional proteins how can you call it life?
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif it is you who is fool of crap, and the only one you can fool is the LAME man read:
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif read his confession:
this is what he said:
My ultimate goal is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first."
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif As should be clear, to expect these two complex and extremely essential processes from a molecule like RNA is only possible by an evolutionist's power of imagination and viewpoint. Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, make it explicit that the thesis of the "RNA World", which is a new model proposed for the chance formation of life, is an equally implausible fable.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif This scenario could have occured, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif Dr. Leslie Orgel, one of the associates of Stanley Miller and Francis Crick from the University of San Diego California, uses the term "scenario" for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA world". Orgel described what kind of features this RNA had to have and how impossible this was in her article titled "The Origin of Life" published in American Scientist in October 1994:
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif and RNAmolecules), originate? For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.3
Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78
2 John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119
3 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York, Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.2 How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.1
The same fact is also admitted by other scientists:
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says:
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif read im bringing u more proof Evolution confession:
CONFESSIONS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS
Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif read:
Much earlier, Joyce admitted:
“The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA ...The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.
Joyce, G., RNA evolution and the origins of life, Nature 338:217–224, 16 March 1989.
pamuk7 1 year ago
If you read the Article: there is not even a single mention that the so called: RNA created can not even replicate: all they did was join the strands together thats it, Not even the building blocks, nucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA.
This is a fact. All from the evo article
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif Also keep in mind that even if building block are put together by scientists it doesnt mean they can build anything: as shown the Joyce experiment it does not function . So again how can u claim that this is LIVING? when it does not replicate does not functional and build anything, nor does it create proteins you are very deluded to claim this building block for life, is actual life it self with the overwhelming evidence brought forth.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 They have created RNA strands that do replicate and mutate, it was published in the Journal of Science. The creation of life is still inconclusive but has more evidence than an imaginary being magically creating life. You keep on dissing science, but it has a proven track record. Where is your evidence? Your allah makes the same claims as Zeus, Atlas, Ceres, and any other god out there but with nothing to show its validity. Nothing at all.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif
IF THE EVOLTIONIST has not called it LIFE? Who supposed created LIFE according to you? Why are you lying in Gerald Joce name? He never claimed it was LIFE why are you? He very well knows that: his RNA can not create functional LIFE such as Proteins. Can you please respond, why you lie and call it life when the evolutionist himself who formed the RNA does not call it life waiting:
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif The RNA does not create LIFE, so its not living matter which may replicate do you mind commenting in this? This is professor Gerald Joyce who made the discovery.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif Further more we read again Gerald joyce confession:
Lincoln's advisor, professor Gerald Joyce, reiterated that while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not life as we know it.
Joyce insists he and Lincoln have not created life: "We're knocking on that door," he says, "but of course we haven't achieved that."
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.
Can you see what she said? That its not possible for the RNA to do all this by itself if it wasn’t FOR GERAL JOYCE to locate the raw materials!! For the RNA!
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man:the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of
pamuk7 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif 2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA made up of simply a nucleotide chain have "decided" to self-replicate and with what kind of a mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating? Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperateness of the situation in their book titled "In the RNA World":
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 That was a different team you are referring to. By the way, show me your evidence on Allah. I would love to see what you have.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif really? so another group of scientist created a RNA that functions as a life form? ok lets pin point the article which i should have requested much earlier: send me the link to my private PM mail via youtube, and lets see what they claim: about creating LIFE. then i will send you the refutation then we shall get to Allah-All-mighty. waiting...lets see how much more you can dance around...send me the article of these evolutionist that claim they created life.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 Yes, more than one study on RNA has been done after the one you referred to based on their findings. But you are stalling and splitting hairs here. Science already has tons of evidence behind them. So i ask you, shows me real evidence where i can observe, test, measure, and so on...of your Allah. There is no evidence of God or Allah, at all, just blind speculation. So instead of asking science for evidence, why not provide some of your own? Maybe its because we both know you cant.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif
I tend to simply withhold debating with anyone who calls me an "evolutionist". If someone can not understand that evolution is a fact and a theory. It's time to move on to someone who can.
TheEpicion 11 months ago
Comment removed
pamuk7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrisinsocalif False: Gerald Joyce her self had to manipulate the RNA so it can replicate without her interference:
Read what was said by the evolutionist which you keep ignoring:
pamuk7 1 year ago