Well, it looks like you are asking a question similar to my question on your last video. I would assume most people, who believe in creationism, have a problem with modern science and their lack of answers because modern science is basically telling the world to just take their word for it and they have it all covered. Ar believers in God doing the same thing? They sure are! There's no way to prove or disprove God. Go find something more productive to do with your time.
Ben Stein is a lying ignorant fool. And to think I actually thought he was smartish cuz he looked nerdy. I don't get how he could have made a film demeaning evolutionary theory and the scientific process without actually having the slightest idea of what they really are.
@elborrador I don't think Stein is more ignorant or arrogant than themrsmcarthur here! Mind you, that leaves pretty much a black hole of ignorance from which no rationality is allowed to escape...
As a Christian, not knowing isn't an issue. Basically, a theist is responding to an atheists objections. The atheist leans on science and uses scientific arguments to make his point. The theist must then respond using science. The problem lies in that the scientist is not open to a supernatural hypothesis while the theist is for a variety of reasons, some valid, some not. The atheist becomes frustrated because he perceives the theist as using God as a "God of the gaps". I'm out of space..
In answer to your question. I think that Creationists are frustrated at the lack of open conversation about the topic. Atheistic evolution has become the state sponsored religion - that is, the parts that are unprovable are taught to kids as fact for origins. Meanwhile Creation could answer a lot of questions that Evolution falls short on. I don't want to get rid of Evolution, I just want a honest conversation. The movie Expelled is really about having a honest dialogue about the topic.
Agreed. Atheists seem to have replaced God with science. They are abjectly against God in any aspect and science is now golden. The fact that God made heaven and earth in an instant, poof, is rediculous, so we have to beleive that the universe was created from a bang instead. Poof ... Bang. What's the difference? Science has for the last 1000 years been continually correcting itself. Why? Because it will be the mechanism for explaining how God made everything instead of disproving Him.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
buddy... liberal scientist always have and always will have confidence in a theory that they can never observe in the present ... so it ends up becoming faith evolution is a religion
hey michelle here was a RN graduate from a university and practiced for 10years so yea left brained and now have multiple sclerosis i love science for sure. scientist they dont dig threoist so much ok they like logic so mystery is not there gig. To answer your question on a scientific stand point is something i too am studing. i dont believe the bible or rather todays bible full of jibbersih, i do belive in god, my right suppose as your right, not religion to abstract man made respect mcihelle
But those lab experiments were from things that already exsisted. I googled life from inanimate matter and found nothing. Like i said, it has never been done in an enviroment. I don't think anyone doubt's adaptation, that is different than evolution of proteins from primordial soup to writing symphonies.
You should probably google "Abiogenesis", that's what your "life from inanimate matter" is called in the scientific community. Also not to be confused with "Evolution", which dosn't apply to the origin of life, but rather the origin of species.
Dog/cat breeding and other horticulture changes instituted by man are no nearly the same as natural selection. Further, where does all live come from? I think all theories should be on the table until they are scientifically false. To close one door because it's either uncomfortable or seems impossible is foolish, in 1200AD if someone was told that flight will take place by craft made of metal you would have been locked up.
The theory of evolution is not hard science. It cannot be proved via scientific method. You cannot repeat the experiment in a controlled enviroment. I have no issie with "I Don't Know", i have a problem with we don't know, but don't look overthere.
It can and has been studied and repeated in a controlled environment. If you want to make claims like the creationist movement makes claims at least back those claims up. Go to google and search for "observed evolution" and you will find plenty of lab observed evolution and also speciation. How much more scientific do you want to get before people stop making claims to the contrary.
Good arguement. I notice that a lot of creationists also think that science is supposed to prove all the answers. Science is about studying various subjects and making theories based on that. It's not about trying to prove everything we don't understand.
tripe, tripe, tripe....lol you love to use faggy words like tripe. you want to know what is tripe? YOU! If i looked like you, i wouldn't believe in God either.
this guy couldn't find the "origin" of his ass with both hands. You are another loser like Richard Dawkins. Im agnostic, but your pitiful excuse for a video does nothing to influence the arguement or raise new questions. This is a pathetic attempt to try and get views. YOU ARE A LOSER!
listen monke boy- EVOLUTION IS DOES NOT ARGUE HOW LIFE BEGAN?what r u smoking dude- the name of the book that started all this is called THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES- do u know what the word orign means? ur stuck on that because u have no answers- i wonder monkeys had when eyeballs were not around? i could have a pic of me shaking hands with CHRIST and u still wouldn believe in him- thats how irrelevant science is to ur questions of creationism-- peace homo
Did you look up Abiogenesis like I told you to. Continuing to deny known, verifiable facts is a sign of a deranged mind. Even if Darwin thought that way it does not mean that the current state of the theory is thought of that way. However, it is known that Darwin did not think that way. The Origin of which the title refers is the origin of the differing species. Why two populations diverge and become separate species. Not the origin of life.
@themrsmcarthur species =/= life, blind ignorance at its finest. Also monkeys were not around when eyeballs were not around, its more like single celled organisms developed photosensitive eye-spots that gradually over millions of years developed lenses that can refract and focus light into photosensitive rods and cones that detect a small (and I mean SMALL) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Ahh, I don't know why I bother to explain this to idiots who couldn't pass 10th grade science.
You still have nothing good to say!!!! the eyeball cannot evolve! an eyeball has always been an eyeball and will NEVER be anything else- you have the audasity to say i am REGURGITATING information- lets see your masters in biology and YOUR recomendations- you should be a HUGE fan of regurgitation anyway- after all you came from a monkey right? all you can resort to is anger because you have nothing else! your also made because i am polite about providing info and it pisses you off
Really? How do you know this? You have presented no evidence. Yet there are mountains of evidence that biological organisms evolve and that one of the parts that can change over time are eyeballs. Making statements like this is just another way in which you show your complete lack of knowledge and your utter stupidity.
8 minutes and 46 seconds to ask what exactly? Can I get a stronger if not fitter Atheist please?
If you don't know the all the answers, why am I IRRATIONAL for asking you to better explain, in a scientific forum, YOUR theory for the beginning of life on Earth?
Does it have anything to do with your Faith in Atheism hinging solely on Darwin's Theory being true?
LOL, Faith? WTF? I do not have faith in Atheism. In fact, I have always said that if someone could present compelling evidence of God's existence, I would change my position.
If you need a better explanation than you have already gotten, read a book. Don't ask random people on the internet. I suggest you pick up a book written by someone who actually knows something about science. Like Richard Dawkins. If you want to understand how we came about, read "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins.
Do I have faith in RD? I believe that his representation of the current state of the biological sciences is accurate to the best of his ability and knowledge. Does that amount to faith? Not in the sense that you have faith in your God. If I were presented with evidence that RD was not reliable, my little faith would dissipate.
I have read dozens of books on Evolution alone. Dozens again on Physics. You are the one questioning the science, why can't you present a cogent argument against it?
how do you explain the evolution of the human eyeball? if life were not designed then how did it begin? on the backs of crystals? in the ocean? in space? i have heard them all- why are there still monkeys around if they should have evolved into humans? how does something come from nothing? how do you explain the evolution of a single cell?
The eyeball has been explained numerous times. Do some reading. It is evolved over and over and over. You throw around apologist tripe like you are wallowing in it. Again another indication of your lack of knowledge.
I am not a biologist and I do not pretend to understand this process in it's minutest detail. I suggest you educate yourself and not rely on random people on the internet to give you a 500 character synopsis of such a complex subject as the evolution of the eye.
In other words, READ A FUCKING BOOK!
I suggest "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins or "Climbing Mount Improbable" also by Dawkins.
that DNA explains who you are genetically and what i explained was just one segment- thats like saying that you can take the letters from the game SCRABBLE - and drop them onto a table and the letters land so that they create the sentence "I Love Lima Beans" 250 times! which would create one protein- congratulations- we all know this is impossible- i have answered alot of questions but how bout i throw you a few-
Again you show your ignorance. The genetic code evolved over a 3-4 billion year timespan. Bacteria divide very frequently. The number of opportunities for mutation and natural selection to act on them is larger then you can possibly imagine.
not only this- but you keep repeating yourself- and the bacteria argument does not explain how life began - it only explains bacteria- and again i can promise you that scientists are always finding out how much more complex the cell is and you also admitted AGAIN that it is complex when you said "scientists have known for quite some time how comlex the cell is..." and i realize how DISHONEST many evolutionary biologists are because if they suggest ID they become blacklisted and lose tenure
Evolution does not attempt to explain how life began. Again you show you completely inadequate to the the task your understanding of science really is. Look up abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life became so diverse from such simple beginnings.
haha- i love how you bring yourself to level of calling me stupid- its hilarious, i seriously doubt you were ever a creationist, and i have done quite a bit of research myself on the subject from both sides also and take into consideration your piont of veiw, however i have heard the argument about bacteria and it is filled with many holes- bacteria can in fact evolve as you say and exchange proteins- the thing of it is - that bacteria will ALWAYS be a bacteria- it will never go beyond that
Really? Do you have any idea how many people try to bring this tripe to my channel every day? I have had this very same argument no less then 50 times this year. You bring nothing new to it. You are just regurgitating the same tripe from the same apologist websites and books. You make claims that you can never back up and show how limited your understating of science is. Doesn't that fit the definition of stupid?
now- i have given you ALOT of information here- all of which is legit- i am obviously not ignorant- i do my research- you on the other hand are getting all bent out of shape about a video you havent even watched! you sir are being ignorant- look do me a favor and watch the documentary- watch the you tube video about that professor and get back to me on this issue- i love talking about it- and am open to ideas- aka NOT IGNORANT- but if you dont comment again we will all know why- lol IGNORANCE!!
The only ignorance displayed here is yours. Do not think yourself educated because you read some garbage off of an ID website. I have read both. I was once a Creationist like you. I did not believe that we evolved from apes. I believed the story of Adam & Eve. Then I educated my self on the other side. Guess what? I realized how incredibly dishonest the ID and Creationist "scientists" are.
this should feed into your being upset that there is "no mystery" evolutionists actually are the ones eliminating this mystery- have you ever seen the mouse trap analogy? without all the peices the trap does not fulfill its intended funtion- a professor disagreed and said the analogy is incomplete- he said that even without all the pieces it could funtion as... a tie clip - heres the problem- it has no defense mechanism against the preditor- a mouse- it would die out correct? natural selection
Now you are just regurgitating the tripe on some ID website, I am sure. Yes a mouse trap may not be able to perform its purpose without one of its parts but could it not, perhaps, perform another function? The bacterial flagellum, for instance has been shown to be constructed from many of the the same proteins and in much the same way as the Type III Secretory Apparatus. Therefore it is not Irreducibly Complex. A Mouse Trap, being a designed rather than evolved apparatus is not a good anology.
second- scientists have just recently found how complex the cell is- even if what you say about this NOT being ture- you still admit that yes it in fact is correct? even charles darwin himself that if we found that any living creature was a COMPLEX life form his theory would crumble- he said this- read it-know it- understand it- thirdly intelligant design is NOT connected to religion- science only-
I am sorry but you are mistaken. Scientists have known for quite some time how complex the Cell is. They have been working on deciphering the functions of its various parts for quite some time. Charles Darwin did speculate that IF a structure that was too complex to have formed from Evolution were found, then his theory was in trouble. However, we, as yet, have not found any such structure.
this comment is for atheistliberty- you know you serve a good point even i can agree with that- however thats not what the actual ecolutionary theory is based on- the best way to put it is that charles darwin is the founder of evolution correct? it would make sense if the name of his book the changes in life over time- but the book is called the origin of species -
As a Christian for me the mysteries aren't a problem, there's many questions that neither side can know for sure. My question is why is it that anything with beauty, functionability, precision, balance etc. we see and can conclude had a designer(s)but with the universe and all the life in it being more intricate than anything else and some can't even consider the possibility that it had a designer, please answer, thanks!
There are several good books on Evolution for the popular audience that explain why evolved things appear to be designed. Try "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. It explains the issue quite well.
The process of Natural Selection creates things with apparent design because it favors improvements over deformities. For instance the formation of a rigid transparent tissue over a pinhole camera style eye might have provided slightly better eyesight so the beginnings of a lens would be favored.
now for the evolution question- where has evolution taken place in your lifetime? I would like to see it- because it to is just a theory - the life and nature which surrounds us is far more complex than you give it credit for- there is no possibility of evolution in even a cell- A CELL- the cell is more complex than we thought too- it is like a machine- if one peice is missing, the mechanism does not work- all the peices must be present-if a cell cannot evolve nothing else can
Have you ever heard of the Flu? It mutates every year. It gets better at making us sick and penetrating our defenses every year. Did you know that the Flu shot given out each year really only protects you against last years strains? They still give it in hopes that this year's strains are close enough that the immunity given by the shot will still be effective.
Only ignorant creationists would say that the cell is more complex then we thought. Scientists have known that for decades.
why study science of nature? - why did you learn how to read- creationists are not interested in knowing everything right here and now- its that mystery which makes the philosophy so true- no scientist in the world can give us a measurment for the smallest living being- can you?
Once again, you speak as one who does not know what scientists can do. Scientists have used electron microscopes to actually see atoms. So of course they can measure the smallest living thing and, with the right equipment, so could I.
back to your question about the big bang theory- a theory is all it is- how can you explain that a universe which is a size beyond our comprehension can be explained by a few colliding particles? you have to answer the question of where those particles came from- science cannot fully explain the big bang because you cant make somthing out of nothing- now- you got my mind thinking!
Once again, you demonstrate you utter lack of knowledge about science. Theories are supported by evidence. The Big Bang theory happens to be supported by mountains of evidence. Every time we look for evidence to confirm it, it is confirmed. Look up the cosmic background radiation.
it is very obvious to me that you havn't actually watched the video Expelled, because if you had, many of yous questions would be answered. The documentary itself is not proposal to answer any type of mystery, it is stuggle for those who are being banned to do so. Why focus on answering these unanswered questions? let me ask you why you learned to read or write?
The documentary wrongly puts forward the idea that the "Theory" of Intelligent Design is a viable alternative to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and therefore should be taught in schools. The fact is, it does not even qualify as science because it depends on a unfalsifiable assumption: that there exists an intelligent being capable of directing evolution or creating complex biological life in whole.
There is no right or wrg belife. Just one that makes more sense to people. When we focaus on that then we all can stop this divide and conquer that our government has us thinking.
The more we try to cure the more diseases are conforming to our are savior "Science", in order to mutate it self into a stronger disease. All these so called meds you get when your sick are helping you now. But do we bother to look at the ramifications in the future to what these drugs are really doing for us. We are led to belive that the science is so great. Well I would rather belive in intelligent design over darwinism any day.
The diseases we are tackling today are different then the diseases that we were fighting in the past only because we have either eradicated the older diseases or we have discovered that conditions thought to be the same are actually different.
Life spans have been extended in the past 100 years from around 50 years to nearly 80. This amounts to a nearly 60% increase. Are you seriously saying that we don't understand the long term ramifications of the steps we are taking? Look around.
We are blinded by science. What is really important is the planet and our souls. Not our bodies, they are only temporary. Why do you think we die? YOU THINK THATS IT, YOUR DEAD. If you belive that than why bother moving forward with science. Your body still going to "die" whether you care for your it or not. Science is only evil because we worship it. And only ignorant people are closed minded and I am far from that. I was an atheist once but I grew up.
Science is evil, we were never ment as humans to know that knowleged we have because we are not perfact. Yes, we use science for good lol."since are commericals and tv shows like to brain wash us to belive that." But hasn't any one figured out that the more we know the more problems we have. Who cares that we have chemo to help destroy cancer. You think cancer has been around since the begining of man. No! We as humans created it just like Aids.
You go ahead and live in ignorance but you have no right to ask others to come with you.
Let me get this strait, you would rather go back to living in filth, living 30 - 50 year life spans, astronomical infant death rates, and all the other ills that have been helped by science?
The computer you are using to type these disturbing thoughts was created because of scientific discoveries.
Who did I ask to come? I was born in this world alone and i will die alone. You belive in whatever you want. Why do you feel so threaten by my comments? I never said I was right I said I belive in what i belive because it makes sense."Opinion" havn't you ever heard of that word? And just because you have a longer life doesn't mean it will be great! It would be hard to go back i understand "without science" but we are lazy humans and always want the easy way out. Now look at us.
Proof/ Evidence, that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Theory, contemplation or speculation. So what evidence or proof do we really have that supports intelligent design is false? What evidence or proof that we have that darwins theory of evolution is fasle? We don't! We are human beings who love to question everything. And we should because in America we are brain washed everyday by our government.
Your definition of theory is not even close to what is meant by scientists when they use the word. The common usage of the word is, as you say, a speculation. However, scientists define a theory as a body of predictive statements for which significant evidence is offered. The strength of the theory is dependent on the predictive power of the statements and the quality/quantity of the evidence.
As for ID, it is for the proponents of ID to present evidence. They have presented none.
so then we dont live in a country of equality, a country in which you are discriminated by your color by what you can say. oh and just because i cant see oxygen with the naked eye, microscopes. we SEE THE ATOMS and dude the invisible and the non existant look very much alike. god has never made his presence known. just a book make up by a bunch of people who put a spin on the egyptian religion, look up their religion SOOOO many parallels
oh and buddy, retard is not a degrating word. it is a term used to describe people with an IQ of 70 and below. moron is 40 and below. forest gump was mentally retarded
oh so wait, any black person(not african in any way but 200-300 years of ancestory, hardly still conected) can walk around with that word ozing from their lips, but all of a sudden if i say it we have a serious problem? hmm...i see a problem in here somewhere
lol anyone with a little sense of self control, damn you must hate the ENTIRE rap comunity and a big vast majority of america, because im not the only one who says words like that. oh and a word is just a word. it means whatever you want it to mean. it can mean the world to you or it can just be a bunch of letters placed together to form something meaningless. and im an athiest for a reason, i have my own strength i dont look for an invisible being for strength
hmmm and your not implying anything about me since i play WoW, oh and just because i say the word, doesnt mean i have no regard to people that are "mentally handicapped" stop trying to make a personal attack on me to prove something. just because i call someone who is truthfully a retard doesnt mean i all of a sudden have a personal vendetta against all people who are very slow. please get a life. please go to school. please stop being an emotional wreck in your own life. leave me be.
you prove the point i posted to this guy. when we argue a point that we get across well enough to convince. you argue that its boring and useless, but then some guy comes around who cant get the point across and you make fun of them claiming all athiests are like that, you my friend are a retard
gaps darwinism has gaps theirs too many flaws in this theroy oh but point those out your wrong and you cant say what you belive with out geting trouble in school thanks a lot lebrals thanks for ruining this country by saying its okay to belive this but not that they want this to be a socalistic socity and you contrubuit to it not by being athist but by not allowing ID taught in school when our ideals have just as much valid points to it
Do some reading, it has been decades since there were significant gaps in the evidence for Evolution. We have transitional forms galore. We have biochemical evidence, genetic evidence, phylogenetic evidence!
Here's a recommendation. Read "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. It details the current understanding for the evolution of man.
yeah gaps that little map with the monkey thing becoming the human thing what ever it is all those things in the middle their is no proof of them no fossles no nothing so yeah theirs your gap thier
LOL, you can keep repeating it but it doesn't make it true. Read Richard Dawkins' "The Bind Watchmaker" or "The Ancestor's Tale". Both have great information on the fallacy of the gaps argument.
On the flip-side, why would you want to worship this ever shrinking God of the Gaps? Every time we find a transitional form the ID types say "but how did it get from here to here?" pointing at another "gap". And then they say "See, this is where the Intelligent Agent must have worked!" Silliness!
joeu, there actually is fossil evidence, many many fossils now what proof is there of your god? i see no proof, nothing to see, nothing to hear, nothing to smell, nothing to touch, nothing...hmm sounds like it doesnt exist, so why do you believe in that which doesnt exist?
Just thought I'd add to this a little, though I don't know if this has been said elsewhere... but Fossil Evidence, isn't exactly the ONLY evidence for Evolution. Once it was big but Evolution is so strong today, that if 100% of the Fossils were to vanish over night, the theory (fact) would not really be harmed. ^_^ There really is a lot of evidence.
i love with atheists like you and i try and argue the truth creationists block and/or deliberately ignore us but then when a radical atheist comes by they immediately jump all over them claiming atheists are all wild animals incapable of intelligent debate, its people like you who i look up to. don't give up, maybe one day we will find a creationist who is competent enough to debate.
In my opinion, it would be best to say that the creationist attitude towards mystery is an extension of a childish mindset. A child becomes aware of its own vast ignorance at some point, but mitigates any ill feelings through the idea that its parents know everything they don't. This authoritative view then extends to teachers, all adults, priests, and then their god. The idea that some intelligence out there knows all the secrets of the world and is on "their side" offers comfort (cont.)
It isn't childish to believe in an all knowing God, it is childish, however to limit God in saying He can't know everything. If you're an engineer who's just made a car, wouldn't you know that car inside-out? Since God made the universe, is it not reasonable that He knows it that well too? It doesn't make any sense to compare my belief to a child's mindset, although Jesus did say to be like a child, but in the sense that we should be easy to teach and thirst for knowledge and wisdom.
Again you come stating as fact things you cannot possibly know to be true. This is the essence of childishness. My 10 year old daughter keeps telling me that Santa Claus is real even though she should know that he isn't. Oops, I hope I didn't burst another of your fairy tales.
I don't believe in Santa Claus. It's a myth made after a Catholic "saint" in an attempt to make kids behave. This is the kind of discernment that a christian has to make for his/her faith. It's not OK to lie to your children, it sets a bad example. Also, you cannot possibly know that the Big Bang theory is true, but you put your faith in that! How is that not childish? I don't discard that theory, but I do give God credit in that this is how he could've made the universe. Hey word: "could've".
You keep missing the point. I do not have "Faith" in the Big Bang Theory. Right now all the evidence that we have supports the Big Bang Theory. If evidence were to be presented that contradicted it and it was strong enough and repeatable, I along with all the scientists and rationalists would adjust their "belief". It is not Faith. It is Knowledge.
Belief in Santa Claus and Belief in God are the same. The only difference is that you didn't give up the latter.
That's like saying belief in Ptolemy's planets-on-a-stick theory is like belief in rogue waves. The Ptolemy's theory was proven wrong like Santa, and was stupid in the first place, but rogue waves can neither be proven nor discredited (like God), yet many sailors (Christians) swear that they're real by their own personal experiences. Evidence has been given for against the existence of such a wave, but it's still not known. You ask one of those sailors, and he/she'll tell you they're real.
Rouge waves are a known oceanographic phenomena and have been "proven" by using radar and other measurement techniques. So I am sorry that Ptolemy's theory and rouge waves hold no similarity given that one is a primitive man's attempt to explain observed facts and rouge waves are real world observed phenomena.
Given your propensity to confuse reality with fantasy why should anyone trust your selection of invisible friend?
rogue waves haven't been genuinely proven, that's why they're called phenomena, so fantasy isn't the word. The "fantasy" of God as an unseen entity isn't a fantasy at all. Other religions worship idols because they want to see their gods. This is all in attempt to see God, but making idols and the like is also an attempt to limit God. He's the creator of the UNIVERSE. We still don't know even 1% of the acquirable knowledge in that universe. Why would you exclude a superior Creator?
Just google it, will you? Rouge waves are known to occur.
I have not ruled out a creator god. I just don't see any evidence for him/her/it and therefore have come to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely. But as I have said before, if it turns out that your god exists I will be his most fervent enemy.
There are very few religions that actually worship idols. In a way, the Christians' constant depiction of the dying Christ is a form of idolatry.
That's something Catholics do. Again, please don't confuse their rituals with what's supposed to be done. Jesus said "Do not bow to me, only to my Father." I don't worship any images of any kind. Also, there are MANY religions that worship idols, whether or not they build them. Some worship an animal or form of an animal, some worship money (that's popular nowadays), etc. BTW, I googled rogue waves and you're right about that. My bad. I was trying to find a good analogy and that popped up.
Do not believe everything your simpleminded preachers tell you. What they call Idolatry usually is referring to religions that use representations of their gods in their religious ceremonies. They don't actually believe that the statues or icons ARE their Gods.
Besides, what is inherently evil about Idolatry? How is worshiping a Cow different from worshiping your invisible friend?
Idolatry: extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone.
This is evil because when you worship something other than God, you can make you own rules as to how you worship and serve it. You can say what you wan about your values and say it is valid because your "god" said so. People justify murders and suicide with idols, among other huge crimes.
Have you ever even looke dup phenomena? I just did
1.a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.
2.something that is impressive or extraordinary.
3.a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder.
You fail. It's not called phenomena because it hasn't been proven. The first part of the definition calls it a FACT by definition. you just bolstered his argument. Now go and research Gnostic religion before you come back to us preaching Jesus!
going far beyond the ordinary degree, measure, limit, etc.;very unusual, exceptional, remarkable
That means it exists, but can't necessarily be explained. don't even bother bringing up dictionary terms with me, I've been studying languages and origins for years.
"I've been studying languages and origins for years." Really, I never would have guessed! OK, mak, you and I need to stop explaining to this "expert" that he does not understand the English language.
Please, do not argue from authority. It is the weakest form of argument there is and it makes you appear foolish.
I know that people don't necessarily believe their statues are their gods, but they do worship those made-up gods nevertheless. this doesn't mean that all results from idol-worshipping appear to be bad, as some idolaters do have good moral character, but they still have values that can be twisted within the confines of their own mind, which can be stretched a lot. As a Christian, you have to live a certain way and in times of uncertainty, read what you're supposed to do according to God.
"but they do worship those made-up gods nevertheless"
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? What evidence do you have that your God is the correct God and theirs is not?
Answer: None.
All you have is your mommy's, daddy's, or preacher's word for it that the book you hold in your hand is the one true word of God. That is just not good enough for me or anyone who choses a rational world view.
god had personally smited me. it stung kinda like a bee but not that bad. you see god is not perfect, he just claims to be. he tricked the people who wrote the bible, had em fooled just as good as kent hovind has these idiots fooled. don't beleive me? i wrote a book and put it in there, just as valid as the bible.
You don't know everything, but He does! As soon as you accept that there at least could be a superior being, you'll realize that. If one God made the universe, he'd be everywhere. It's not so hard to grasp. When you make something, can't you see it and what's happening to it? So why is it so hard to believe that there is a God? Your Indian friends believe there's more than one god, and you called their culture beautiful! so why is mine all-of-a-suddenly evil? Science has good and evil too!
Claiming that your god is all powerful does not make it so. Give me some evidence that he is and I will consider it.
The culture created by Christians is also, in many ways, beautiful just as the culture created by Indians is. Hinduism and Islam, the predominant religions in India, are also evil religions in the same way Christianity is. The evil comes from the kind of simple minded black and white thinking that you exhibit in your discussion of the victims of you fictitious flood.
What's evil about having faith? Really, think about it. If I'm wrong, I won't lose anything for being wrong, but if I'm right, you'll lose your gift of eternal life that is our birthright. Instead you let the devil deceive you and accept his "reasons" for why God "doesn't exist." Oh and, I could ask God to show you how He's all powerful, but for Him to use me I'd have to be there with you. He's answered all of my prayers and that doesn't change because He's the same yesterday, today, and forever
'I could ask God to show you how He's all powerful, but for Him to use me I'd have to be there with you.' Why? Didn't you say he was all powerful,so why does he need you present?
Yes He's all-powerful, but if He were to use me, I'd have to be there with him. I said that because this guy wants physical evidence and I can't be God's tool for a "viable demonstration" unless I'm there. He'd probably be able to use me while I'm here, but I was thinking of a personal one-on-one thing. God doesn't NEED me present, but if He were to use ME, I think I'd have to be there. But, He doesn't NEED me at all to show this guy His power.
Dude, you don't need to be God's tool. If he really wanted to prove himself to me he could just do it. The problem is, either he does not want to prove his existence and actually wants to hide it OR he does not exist. Which seems more likely? Which explanation of the observed fact of God's absence meets the criteria of Occam's Razor?
I said I know I don't need to be His tool. I said if He wanted to use me to physically prove His existence by demonstration I'd probably have to be there. I know He can prove He is real. Like I said, I've seen it, but as you've pointed out before, that's "not acceptable." I can only research as much as I can, and make quick rebuttals for each of your comments, but There's only so much I can do. You're being too close minded and instead of considering my words, you trying to disprove them.
Ah the old stand by "Pascal's Wager". If God is all powerful and all knowing then he will know if I just pretend to believe just as a hedge.
So many of the faithful have asked their Gods to prove their existence to the unbelievers and we still don't have any physical evidence that he/she/it exists.
BTW, I never said that faith is evil. It is evil to subjugate people to the abusive teachings of you religion. The problem is that you do not even see how abusive your religion is.
No, you said that my religion was evil, and I referred to my belief as a faith, not a religion. If you pretend to believe in God's Word, then that would make you religious, but if you do believe, that makes you faithful. BTW, there is evidence that He exists, and I provided some for you. The problem is that you, like most other atheists, dismiss it as "hypothetical," and we're back to square one. Try explaining, then, why most psychologists see the Bible as the best advice for any situation.
Yes your religion is evil if believe what is in the Bible. Now, maybe, you don't believe what is literally in the Bible, in which case, I reserve judgment on your religion until I know its precepts more thoroughly, or since I probably will not take the effort to find out about your own personal brand of Christianity, indefinitely. As for faith, read Sam Harris's "The End of Faith". It is shows why Faith is bad. You are free to have it but I can still think you are stupid for it.
"most psychologists see the Bible as the best advice for any situation." You are going to need to back this up with a citation. What study did you read this in?
However, I find it hard to believe that most psychologists believe that it is best that when a virgin is raped that she be forced to marry her attacker ( see Duet 22:28-29 ).
Get a dictionary and look up the definition for evidence. Then maybe you can understand why what you present as "evidence" is rejected by rationalists.
You keep insulting my intelligence as if I'm an idiot! Look, the Bible doesn't contradict science. It's never said that the Earth is flat or the center of the universe. It doesn't say that today's creation is perfect, but that it's a fallen creation, because of Adam and Eve's decision to disobey God. We all have a chance to be saved and put in a new paradise. You have to stop thinking of yourself as superior and start humbling yourself as an inferior creation, that God could've gotten rid of!
It took me all of 3 seconds to find this: Genisis 1:16: "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
This passage is talking about the Sun and Moon. The Moon is not a light. We know this because we have been there. It is also not made of Green Cheese.
Yes Science does contradict the bible and does so on numerous occasions. Wake up and understand that fact.
I KNOW that the moon isn't a light, but it's referred to as the lesser light because it's not as bright as the sun (the greater light). And I've already said that the Bible was written by men, in this case Moses, who had their own way of perceiving things, so the moon would've looked like a lesser light! Also, you can't say that there's not light coming off of the moon, because it's coming from the sun, and Hebrews used the moon for their lunar calendar, using the new and full moon for seasons.
Then how can you say that the Bible is not contradicted by Science?
Let me guess, I am interpreting it incorrectly? How do I know what the correct interpretation is? How do I know that you have it right? If the Bible is infallible but I need other men to tell me how to interpret it so that it can be infallible and those men use twisted and circular logic to do so, how the heck am I to know which man's circular and twisted logic is the correct one?
You can't know if I have it right, but the fact remains that God won't hold us accountable for someone else's wrong translation, whether on purpose or on accident. He will hold us accountable for what we know and our attempts to find the truth. I take the Bible at face value, but to make it sound "scientifically plausible" for people like you, I research it. BTW, you don't need other men to tell you, that's your job. "God is Love" is what's written, so if I worship love, how is God evil?
So then why would he, if he exists, hold my unbelief against me. It is the only logical conclusion from the known facts. You seem to think that just because you or some other christian, like my mother, has told me what they believe that that constitutes knowledge of God's Word on my part. How is it that a man's word suddenly translates to God's word? The Bible was written and even altered by men over centuries. So I have no logical obligation to take it's words "at face value".
God will hold what truth you do know for/against you in the end, depending on how you've acted upon it. Also a man's word isn't his own if he's repeating God's word. If you want to see how His word can affect your life, take into consideration the things the Bible teaches. Don't just dismiss the events that are mentioned as they couldn't have happened, because much of the Bible is first-hand accounts. Instead, think about what the moral is, and think how it could help a person who'd need it.
You keep skipping over the fundamental questions. Like how do I tell the difference between a man's words and God's?
They come from the same mouth.
They are delivered with the same passion.
They invariably claim to be the words of God.
But one is evil and one is not. How do I tell the difference?
The only way I can: by applying my reason and logic to the words and coming to my own conclusion. As such, I conclude your interpretation of God is evil.
The only way to know the difference between God's word and man's word is to READ HIS WORD. That's the only way you can tell the difference. When you know enough about God, you'll know the fakes. Banks don't teach their tellers about fake bills, but real ones, so when a fake one comes along, it's easier to spot! Same with God. You can tell the real Christians from the fakes by studying what God wants in each one of His children.
I have READ it and found it lacking in morality, logical consistency, and even literary quality. Not the expected output of an all powerful God.
So the trillions that never believed in your God, they were all wrong but the thousands, possibly millions, that believe as you do are right? So many christians want to tell me that some other christians are not "real christians". It just makes my point. There is no way to tell the difference between "real christians" and "fake christians".
OK you know what, I've read over your responses and have found one thing that is consistent throughout: you keep insulting me, my intelligence, and true Christians who have faith in God. I'm going through a very rough time right now, but unlike you, I I'm turning to Him more instead of blaming Him. I've been praying on this for months, actually some of it for years, and God has answered them. I don't need an egomaniac telling me that God doesn't exist, especially a former "Christian."
It is hard to tell a person that they are a fool for believing in fairy tales without insulting them. I don't like being called a fool but when I am I make every attempt to show that my opponent is the fool. You seem to be doing the same here. You are attempting to defend your faith. The problem is that I get the impression that you just might be too smart to have bought it completely. That uneasy feeling you are getting is the realization that your religion is not rational.
"It is hard to tell a person that they are a fool for believing in fairy tales without insulting them"
The ends don't justify the means
"I don't like being called a fool but when I am I make every attempt to show that my opponent is the fool"
People who do this try to get the attention off of themselves when they can't accept they're wrong, so they change the subject (what you've done) or relentlessly argue.
BTW, I'm not uneasy about my faith. It may seem irrational, but that's the best part.
Faith in God is literally the trust and hope in things not yet seen, felt, perceived, etc. Don't worry about my being smart, I'm still learning, so I'll get smarter. I know what it means to have faith in something that may seem completely off the wall, but when I realize that NOTHING is impossible for God, it isn't unlikely at all anymore. Faith in God, not myself, is what's gotten me through my parents' divorce, my season where I strayed for a long time, and putting up with atheists.
On the other hand, if you know Him and His commandments, and sin regardless, you'll be accountable. You're accountable for what you know. The people in Noah's time had NO excuse for being evil because they were close in generation to Adam and Eve, two people who SAW God, and taught to do right by Him because they knew what living without Him does to people. My definition of evil is the total absence of God (by choice) in one's life, like darkness: the absence of light, or cold: absence of heat.
This too is ridiculous! The first humans walked this earth over 250,000 years ago. How can you call that "close" to the first humans? Again the bible contradicts fact and you will fail to see it because you are blinded by you evil religion.
How evil is my faith? The people in past and recent ears have totally misrepresented God and His commandments. They're false Christians, or hypocrites, and in no way are true followers of God. They twisted the words in the Bible to their liking instead of trying to mold their lives to obey the Bible. My faith isn't evil, the people that have disgraced it and misrepresented God were/are evil. By the way, 250,000 years ago was close enough to the last ice age ended after that point!
Duet 22:28-29: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
A rape victim must marry her attacker? And her attacker need only pay 50 pieces of silver to get away with it?
Furthermore, back then, people were either entirely good, or entirely evil. They couldn't be forgiven because Jesus wasn't sacrificed. People could repent and turn from their ways, but When all men and women of God's creation except just 7 were evil, God did what he had to do, otherwise the world would be more evil than it is now.
"back then, people were either entirely good, or entirely evil."
This is just silly. I work in IT and therefore work with a ton of Indians. They are terrific people with a rich and beautiful culture. They are good people who love their families and work hard for their livings. However, according to your definition of evil they are damned.
Any God that would kill off all but 7 of the species because they did not kiss his ass enough, is EVIL and I am his most fervent ENEMY.
That's not what I said. Thanks again for twisting my words. People in Noah's day were entirely good or evil, the evil didn't repent at all. After that, Noah taught his sons and daughters to be righteous. Then they could choose between being good or evil, and some went back and forth between the two. Indians can be good or evil, whether or not they know God, along with any other ethnicity. I've met an Indian Hindu family, and they were wonderful people. God doesn't judge you if you don't know Him
But you are saying that out of the millions of people that lived around the time of this supposed flood that only 7 were worthy of being saved. That is ridiculous and grounds for my undying hatred of your god. Good thing he doesn't exist, huh?
The way I see it, is that science can not prove or disprove God, so what's the point? I happen to believe in God, but I also believe in an old earth. I don't think science can contradict faith and I don't find my beliefs on the topic contradictory either. I can appreciate and agree with the findings of science in all matter of things, but it does not impede me from believing that there is an intelligent design behind it all.
That's what I've been trying to say this whole time, but atheists believe in tangible facts and evidence, and I try to look for and provide that. I just don't want anyone to end up suffering for eternity because they didn't want to believe. Above all, a Christian's only asset is faith, especially blind faith, but God said to crave knowledge, and find it. Thanks again for your comment, you have simplicity as your gift. God's blessed people like you with this gift - I have a hard time with that.
ehukai2003 your the first well not the first but one of the few ppl I can get along with. even with you believing and me not you sound like you know what your talkin about and not just coming up with crack pot things like ben. Anyway may you have a nice day though we may noy see eye to eye on some things.
Science does contradict faith when faith makes claims that are contrary to the findings of Science. For instance, when people use their faith to claim that an intelligent designer guided evolution or created life as it exists today. The book "Of Pandas and People" makes this claim. As this was just a rewrite of a creationist book, it was obviously written from someone's faith and Science has shown this claim to be false.
I just believe there are no limits to God's power, but that's MY belief. I have no doubt that many things may have happened on a smaller scale, but you have to remember that even though the Bible was written by God's influence, each author had his/her own set of eyes, and wrote according to how they saw the world. If they saw airplanes, they may've been called steel birds. Also, I didn't say there's evidence of a world-wide flood, I just believe it happen but there is evidence of a mideast flood
But what if one's faith is that all things are possible with God? There is nothing that is provable by science that can ever disprove my faith in that belief. You leave things up to mystery, while I attribute them to a higher power. But that doesn't mean that I would stop searching for material/physical answers to big questions or stop pondering the eternal "why." I believe that such a search would only make me more aware of the greatness of this Creator.
That's what I said....I believe in God's power, and try to find answers to some of the biggest questions that non-believers have. That's all I'm trying to do. I've done this since I was in Kindergarten, because at that early age I understood the severity of not having faith. I'm eighteen years old and about to graduate high school, but I'm not stupid nor ignorant, and I got accepted into college, and plan to teach history and music later. I don't believe that what I learn contradicts the Bible.
I really enjoyed your video atheistliberty. Some thoughts spring to mind:
You say: "If god fills the gaps in our knowledge, what good is he?...A creationist cannot accept the mystery"
Contemporary Theists typically have no problem with science as it pertains to our discoveries WITHIN "God's creation".
The thing that must be wrapped in mystery for the Theist is the notion of Afterlife. The Afterlife (Eternity VS Finitude) is the crux of the conversation, not mystery in general.
Miracles are impossible. We live in a universe governed by natural laws; if anything happens in the natural world, it HAS to be, by nature, observable and testable, therefore within the scope of science. By extension I would say this is why a god is impossible, as the supernatural is beyond our comprehension and could not possibly manifest itself naturally, as to do so it would have to be of the natural order. There are things we don't know, but they can not ever be supernatural.
Lastly, I would just point out from my perspective the "gap," is a gap in probability, not a gap in knowledge. Theoretically, more knowledge can actually produce more of a gap in what can't be naturalistically achieved. So this "gap" doesn't necessarily "shrink" with more discoveries and learning. It may turn out that life is far more incredibly complex than we can even imagine.
So have you watched the movie by now(since you posted this video)?
histguy101 1 month ago
Well, it looks like you are asking a question similar to my question on your last video. I would assume most people, who believe in creationism, have a problem with modern science and their lack of answers because modern science is basically telling the world to just take their word for it and they have it all covered. Ar believers in God doing the same thing? They sure are! There's no way to prove or disprove God. Go find something more productive to do with your time.
7danyul7 1 year ago
google astroacheology and jesus
sagitarian000028 1 year ago
Ben Stein is a lying ignorant fool. And to think I actually thought he was smartish cuz he looked nerdy. I don't get how he could have made a film demeaning evolutionary theory and the scientific process without actually having the slightest idea of what they really are.
elborrador 1 year ago
@elborrador I don't think Stein is more ignorant or arrogant than themrsmcarthur here! Mind you, that leaves pretty much a black hole of ignorance from which no rationality is allowed to escape...
pontecanis 1 year ago
As a Christian, not knowing isn't an issue. Basically, a theist is responding to an atheists objections. The atheist leans on science and uses scientific arguments to make his point. The theist must then respond using science. The problem lies in that the scientist is not open to a supernatural hypothesis while the theist is for a variety of reasons, some valid, some not. The atheist becomes frustrated because he perceives the theist as using God as a "God of the gaps". I'm out of space..
penilicious 2 years ago
In answer to your question. I think that Creationists are frustrated at the lack of open conversation about the topic. Atheistic evolution has become the state sponsored religion - that is, the parts that are unprovable are taught to kids as fact for origins. Meanwhile Creation could answer a lot of questions that Evolution falls short on. I don't want to get rid of Evolution, I just want a honest conversation. The movie Expelled is really about having a honest dialogue about the topic.
johnm1108 2 years ago
Agreed. Atheists seem to have replaced God with science. They are abjectly against God in any aspect and science is now golden. The fact that God made heaven and earth in an instant, poof, is rediculous, so we have to beleive that the universe was created from a bang instead. Poof ... Bang. What's the difference? Science has for the last 1000 years been continually correcting itself. Why? Because it will be the mechanism for explaining how God made everything instead of disproving Him.
Sentry353 2 years ago
you are an absolute moron, and you don't even realize it.
I can easily debunk any atheist, but all in good time.
I am Richard Dawkin's worst nightmare.
twombonu 2 years ago
Do you really think Richard Dawkin's stays up at night worrying about you?
kevindunbar 2 years ago
He will when I take action! And that sooner than you think.
twombonu 2 years ago
@twombonu Then challenge him to a real debate. Dawkins would overwhelmingly defeat you.
TheKilgoretrout 1 year ago
@TheKilgoretrout I have much better than that coming to a bookstore near you. I am to atheists what the satanic verses were to Muslims.
twombonu 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
buddy... liberal scientist always have and always will have confidence in a theory that they can never observe in the present ... so it ends up becoming faith evolution is a religion
aaronL83 2 years ago
hey michelle here was a RN graduate from a university and practiced for 10years so yea left brained and now have multiple sclerosis i love science for sure. scientist they dont dig threoist so much ok they like logic so mystery is not there gig. To answer your question on a scientific stand point is something i too am studing. i dont believe the bible or rather todays bible full of jibbersih, i do belive in god, my right suppose as your right, not religion to abstract man made respect mcihelle
cujojila01 2 years ago
You claim to be an animal. Why is it that you ware clothing? It doesn't make sense.
lavokis 2 years ago
lol you really nailed him with that one!
Setzer 2 years ago
Being an animal is based upon the biological
similarities among all animals rather than
their differences. Wearing clothing is
something that one particular animal does. If you wish you could say that
monkeys are not animals because they
climb trees. A better point is that you
define animal as all animals except
homo sapiens.
gnosisoneness 2 years ago
Please don't forget--not all Christians (or people of any faith) are creationists or fundamentalists.
jamesjeffreypaul 2 years ago
But those lab experiments were from things that already exsisted. I googled life from inanimate matter and found nothing. Like i said, it has never been done in an enviroment. I don't think anyone doubt's adaptation, that is different than evolution of proteins from primordial soup to writing symphonies.
stickletterhere 2 years ago
You should probably google "Abiogenesis", that's what your "life from inanimate matter" is called in the scientific community. Also not to be confused with "Evolution", which dosn't apply to the origin of life, but rather the origin of species.
MichaelTannock 2 years ago 2
Dog/cat breeding and other horticulture changes instituted by man are no nearly the same as natural selection. Further, where does all live come from? I think all theories should be on the table until they are scientifically false. To close one door because it's either uncomfortable or seems impossible is foolish, in 1200AD if someone was told that flight will take place by craft made of metal you would have been locked up.
stickletterhere 2 years ago
The theory of evolution is not hard science. It cannot be proved via scientific method. You cannot repeat the experiment in a controlled enviroment. I have no issie with "I Don't Know", i have a problem with we don't know, but don't look overthere.
stickletterhere 3 years ago
But...evolution by natural selection has been simulated in many cases. IE Dog-breeding, Cat-Breeding, Larger tomatoes, fungus-resistant corn, etc...
So, it's not a matter of "we don't know" it's a matter of "hold off judgment while we figure it out"
soedblackchaos 3 years ago
It can and has been studied and repeated in a controlled environment. If you want to make claims like the creationist movement makes claims at least back those claims up. Go to google and search for "observed evolution" and you will find plenty of lab observed evolution and also speciation. How much more scientific do you want to get before people stop making claims to the contrary.
mattyabsley 3 years ago
Good arguement. I notice that a lot of creationists also think that science is supposed to prove all the answers. Science is about studying various subjects and making theories based on that. It's not about trying to prove everything we don't understand.
BryanEKS89 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your a big penis loving homo
moh22111 3 years ago
Nuthin' wrong with that! XD
soedblackchaos 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Watch the movie before you go naming a piss poor video about it
pencil dick
nocrappyvidsplease 3 years ago
word
Makeveli1989 3 years ago
tripe, tripe, tripe....lol you love to use faggy words like tripe. you want to know what is tripe? YOU! If i looked like you, i wouldn't believe in God either.
every1bitesevery1 3 years ago
this guy couldn't find the "origin" of his ass with both hands. You are another loser like Richard Dawkins. Im agnostic, but your pitiful excuse for a video does nothing to influence the arguement or raise new questions. This is a pathetic attempt to try and get views. YOU ARE A LOSER!
Makeveli1989 3 years ago
listen monke boy- EVOLUTION IS DOES NOT ARGUE HOW LIFE BEGAN?what r u smoking dude- the name of the book that started all this is called THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES- do u know what the word orign means? ur stuck on that because u have no answers- i wonder monkeys had when eyeballs were not around? i could have a pic of me shaking hands with CHRIST and u still wouldn believe in him- thats how irrelevant science is to ur questions of creationism-- peace homo
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
Did you look up Abiogenesis like I told you to. Continuing to deny known, verifiable facts is a sign of a deranged mind. Even if Darwin thought that way it does not mean that the current state of the theory is thought of that way. However, it is known that Darwin did not think that way. The Origin of which the title refers is the origin of the differing species. Why two populations diverge and become separate species. Not the origin of life.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
@themrsmcarthur species =/= life, blind ignorance at its finest. Also monkeys were not around when eyeballs were not around, its more like single celled organisms developed photosensitive eye-spots that gradually over millions of years developed lenses that can refract and focus light into photosensitive rods and cones that detect a small (and I mean SMALL) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Ahh, I don't know why I bother to explain this to idiots who couldn't pass 10th grade science.
afromansfriend 1 year ago
@themrsmcarthur man! someone has a thorny rod up their ass calm down
MrWAZZAPDUDE 7 months ago
You still have nothing good to say!!!! the eyeball cannot evolve! an eyeball has always been an eyeball and will NEVER be anything else- you have the audasity to say i am REGURGITATING information- lets see your masters in biology and YOUR recomendations- you should be a HUGE fan of regurgitation anyway- after all you came from a monkey right? all you can resort to is anger because you have nothing else! your also made because i am polite about providing info and it pisses you off
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
Really? How do you know this? You have presented no evidence. Yet there are mountains of evidence that biological organisms evolve and that one of the parts that can change over time are eyeballs. Making statements like this is just another way in which you show your complete lack of knowledge and your utter stupidity.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
8 minutes and 46 seconds to ask what exactly? Can I get a stronger if not fitter Atheist please?
If you don't know the all the answers, why am I IRRATIONAL for asking you to better explain, in a scientific forum, YOUR theory for the beginning of life on Earth?
Does it have anything to do with your Faith in Atheism hinging solely on Darwin's Theory being true?
Bornagain61207 3 years ago
LOL, Faith? WTF? I do not have faith in Atheism. In fact, I have always said that if someone could present compelling evidence of God's existence, I would change my position.
If you need a better explanation than you have already gotten, read a book. Don't ask random people on the internet. I suggest you pick up a book written by someone who actually knows something about science. Like Richard Dawkins. If you want to understand how we came about, read "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
"I do not have faith in Atheism."
-Then you have faith in scientists "like Richard Dawkins".
"If you need a better explanation than you have already gotten, read a book. Don't ask random people on the internet"
-I suggest you take your own advice on this one.
Bornagain61207 3 years ago
Do I have faith in RD? I believe that his representation of the current state of the biological sciences is accurate to the best of his ability and knowledge. Does that amount to faith? Not in the sense that you have faith in your God. If I were presented with evidence that RD was not reliable, my little faith would dissipate.
I have read dozens of books on Evolution alone. Dozens again on Physics. You are the one questioning the science, why can't you present a cogent argument against it?
atheistliberty 3 years ago
how do you explain the evolution of the human eyeball? if life were not designed then how did it begin? on the backs of crystals? in the ocean? in space? i have heard them all- why are there still monkeys around if they should have evolved into humans? how does something come from nothing? how do you explain the evolution of a single cell?
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
The eyeball has been explained numerous times. Do some reading. It is evolved over and over and over. You throw around apologist tripe like you are wallowing in it. Again another indication of your lack of knowledge.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
EXPLAIN THE PROCESS
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
I am not a biologist and I do not pretend to understand this process in it's minutest detail. I suggest you educate yourself and not rely on random people on the internet to give you a 500 character synopsis of such a complex subject as the evolution of the eye.
In other words, READ A FUCKING BOOK!
I suggest "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins or "Climbing Mount Improbable" also by Dawkins.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
that DNA explains who you are genetically and what i explained was just one segment- thats like saying that you can take the letters from the game SCRABBLE - and drop them onto a table and the letters land so that they create the sentence "I Love Lima Beans" 250 times! which would create one protein- congratulations- we all know this is impossible- i have answered alot of questions but how bout i throw you a few-
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
Again you show your ignorance. The genetic code evolved over a 3-4 billion year timespan. Bacteria divide very frequently. The number of opportunities for mutation and natural selection to act on them is larger then you can possibly imagine.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
not only this- but you keep repeating yourself- and the bacteria argument does not explain how life began - it only explains bacteria- and again i can promise you that scientists are always finding out how much more complex the cell is and you also admitted AGAIN that it is complex when you said "scientists have known for quite some time how comlex the cell is..." and i realize how DISHONEST many evolutionary biologists are because if they suggest ID they become blacklisted and lose tenure
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
Evolution does not attempt to explain how life began. Again you show you completely inadequate to the the task your understanding of science really is. Look up abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life became so diverse from such simple beginnings.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
haha- i love how you bring yourself to level of calling me stupid- its hilarious, i seriously doubt you were ever a creationist, and i have done quite a bit of research myself on the subject from both sides also and take into consideration your piont of veiw, however i have heard the argument about bacteria and it is filled with many holes- bacteria can in fact evolve as you say and exchange proteins- the thing of it is - that bacteria will ALWAYS be a bacteria- it will never go beyond that
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
Really? Do you have any idea how many people try to bring this tripe to my channel every day? I have had this very same argument no less then 50 times this year. You bring nothing new to it. You are just regurgitating the same tripe from the same apologist websites and books. You make claims that you can never back up and show how limited your understating of science is. Doesn't that fit the definition of stupid?
atheistliberty 3 years ago
now- i have given you ALOT of information here- all of which is legit- i am obviously not ignorant- i do my research- you on the other hand are getting all bent out of shape about a video you havent even watched! you sir are being ignorant- look do me a favor and watch the documentary- watch the you tube video about that professor and get back to me on this issue- i love talking about it- and am open to ideas- aka NOT IGNORANT- but if you dont comment again we will all know why- lol IGNORANCE!!
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
The only ignorance displayed here is yours. Do not think yourself educated because you read some garbage off of an ID website. I have read both. I was once a Creationist like you. I did not believe that we evolved from apes. I believed the story of Adam & Eve. Then I educated my self on the other side. Guess what? I realized how incredibly dishonest the ID and Creationist "scientists" are.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
this should feed into your being upset that there is "no mystery" evolutionists actually are the ones eliminating this mystery- have you ever seen the mouse trap analogy? without all the peices the trap does not fulfill its intended funtion- a professor disagreed and said the analogy is incomplete- he said that even without all the pieces it could funtion as... a tie clip - heres the problem- it has no defense mechanism against the preditor- a mouse- it would die out correct? natural selection
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
Now you are just regurgitating the tripe on some ID website, I am sure. Yes a mouse trap may not be able to perform its purpose without one of its parts but could it not, perhaps, perform another function? The bacterial flagellum, for instance has been shown to be constructed from many of the the same proteins and in much the same way as the Type III Secretory Apparatus. Therefore it is not Irreducibly Complex. A Mouse Trap, being a designed rather than evolved apparatus is not a good anology.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
second- scientists have just recently found how complex the cell is- even if what you say about this NOT being ture- you still admit that yes it in fact is correct? even charles darwin himself that if we found that any living creature was a COMPLEX life form his theory would crumble- he said this- read it-know it- understand it- thirdly intelligant design is NOT connected to religion- science only-
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
I am sorry but you are mistaken. Scientists have known for quite some time how complex the Cell is. They have been working on deciphering the functions of its various parts for quite some time. Charles Darwin did speculate that IF a structure that was too complex to have formed from Evolution were found, then his theory was in trouble. However, we, as yet, have not found any such structure.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
this comment is for atheistliberty- you know you serve a good point even i can agree with that- however thats not what the actual ecolutionary theory is based on- the best way to put it is that charles darwin is the founder of evolution correct? it would make sense if the name of his book the changes in life over time- but the book is called the origin of species -
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
As a Christian for me the mysteries aren't a problem, there's many questions that neither side can know for sure. My question is why is it that anything with beauty, functionability, precision, balance etc. we see and can conclude had a designer(s)but with the universe and all the life in it being more intricate than anything else and some can't even consider the possibility that it had a designer, please answer, thanks!
SolidWordTruth 3 years ago
There are several good books on Evolution for the popular audience that explain why evolved things appear to be designed. Try "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. It explains the issue quite well.
The process of Natural Selection creates things with apparent design because it favors improvements over deformities. For instance the formation of a rigid transparent tissue over a pinhole camera style eye might have provided slightly better eyesight so the beginnings of a lens would be favored.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
now for the evolution question- where has evolution taken place in your lifetime? I would like to see it- because it to is just a theory - the life and nature which surrounds us is far more complex than you give it credit for- there is no possibility of evolution in even a cell- A CELL- the cell is more complex than we thought too- it is like a machine- if one peice is missing, the mechanism does not work- all the peices must be present-if a cell cannot evolve nothing else can
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
Have you ever heard of the Flu? It mutates every year. It gets better at making us sick and penetrating our defenses every year. Did you know that the Flu shot given out each year really only protects you against last years strains? They still give it in hopes that this year's strains are close enough that the immunity given by the shot will still be effective.
Only ignorant creationists would say that the cell is more complex then we thought. Scientists have known that for decades.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
why study science of nature? - why did you learn how to read- creationists are not interested in knowing everything right here and now- its that mystery which makes the philosophy so true- no scientist in the world can give us a measurment for the smallest living being- can you?
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
Once again, you speak as one who does not know what scientists can do. Scientists have used electron microscopes to actually see atoms. So of course they can measure the smallest living thing and, with the right equipment, so could I.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
back to your question about the big bang theory- a theory is all it is- how can you explain that a universe which is a size beyond our comprehension can be explained by a few colliding particles? you have to answer the question of where those particles came from- science cannot fully explain the big bang because you cant make somthing out of nothing- now- you got my mind thinking!
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
Once again, you demonstrate you utter lack of knowledge about science. Theories are supported by evidence. The Big Bang theory happens to be supported by mountains of evidence. Every time we look for evidence to confirm it, it is confirmed. Look up the cosmic background radiation.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
it is very obvious to me that you havn't actually watched the video Expelled, because if you had, many of yous questions would be answered. The documentary itself is not proposal to answer any type of mystery, it is stuggle for those who are being banned to do so. Why focus on answering these unanswered questions? let me ask you why you learned to read or write?
themrsmcarthur 3 years ago
The documentary wrongly puts forward the idea that the "Theory" of Intelligent Design is a viable alternative to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and therefore should be taught in schools. The fact is, it does not even qualify as science because it depends on a unfalsifiable assumption: that there exists an intelligent being capable of directing evolution or creating complex biological life in whole.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
Wow you have a nice face good potential there:)
wwwFamilyPrideOrg 3 years ago
There is no right or wrg belife. Just one that makes more sense to people. When we focaus on that then we all can stop this divide and conquer that our government has us thinking.
jubilee602 3 years ago
The more we try to cure the more diseases are conforming to our are savior "Science", in order to mutate it self into a stronger disease. All these so called meds you get when your sick are helping you now. But do we bother to look at the ramifications in the future to what these drugs are really doing for us. We are led to belive that the science is so great. Well I would rather belive in intelligent design over darwinism any day.
jubilee602 3 years ago
The diseases we are tackling today are different then the diseases that we were fighting in the past only because we have either eradicated the older diseases or we have discovered that conditions thought to be the same are actually different.
Life spans have been extended in the past 100 years from around 50 years to nearly 80. This amounts to a nearly 60% increase. Are you seriously saying that we don't understand the long term ramifications of the steps we are taking? Look around.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
We are blinded by science. What is really important is the planet and our souls. Not our bodies, they are only temporary. Why do you think we die? YOU THINK THATS IT, YOUR DEAD. If you belive that than why bother moving forward with science. Your body still going to "die" whether you care for your it or not. Science is only evil because we worship it. And only ignorant people are closed minded and I am far from that. I was an atheist once but I grew up.
jubilee602 3 years ago
Science is evil, we were never ment as humans to know that knowleged we have because we are not perfact. Yes, we use science for good lol."since are commericals and tv shows like to brain wash us to belive that." But hasn't any one figured out that the more we know the more problems we have. Who cares that we have chemo to help destroy cancer. You think cancer has been around since the begining of man. No! We as humans created it just like Aids.
jubilee602 3 years ago
You go ahead and live in ignorance but you have no right to ask others to come with you.
Let me get this strait, you would rather go back to living in filth, living 30 - 50 year life spans, astronomical infant death rates, and all the other ills that have been helped by science?
The computer you are using to type these disturbing thoughts was created because of scientific discoveries.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
Who did I ask to come? I was born in this world alone and i will die alone. You belive in whatever you want. Why do you feel so threaten by my comments? I never said I was right I said I belive in what i belive because it makes sense."Opinion" havn't you ever heard of that word? And just because you have a longer life doesn't mean it will be great! It would be hard to go back i understand "without science" but we are lazy humans and always want the easy way out. Now look at us.
jubilee602 3 years ago
Proof/ Evidence, that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Theory, contemplation or speculation. So what evidence or proof do we really have that supports intelligent design is false? What evidence or proof that we have that darwins theory of evolution is fasle? We don't! We are human beings who love to question everything. And we should because in America we are brain washed everyday by our government.
jubilee602 3 years ago
Your definition of theory is not even close to what is meant by scientists when they use the word. The common usage of the word is, as you say, a speculation. However, scientists define a theory as a body of predictive statements for which significant evidence is offered. The strength of the theory is dependent on the predictive power of the statements and the quality/quantity of the evidence.
As for ID, it is for the proponents of ID to present evidence. They have presented none.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
so then we dont live in a country of equality, a country in which you are discriminated by your color by what you can say. oh and just because i cant see oxygen with the naked eye, microscopes. we SEE THE ATOMS and dude the invisible and the non existant look very much alike. god has never made his presence known. just a book make up by a bunch of people who put a spin on the egyptian religion, look up their religion SOOOO many parallels
cptmiche 3 years ago
oh and buddy, retard is not a degrating word. it is a term used to describe people with an IQ of 70 and below. moron is 40 and below. forest gump was mentally retarded
cptmiche 3 years ago
oh so wait, any black person(not african in any way but 200-300 years of ancestory, hardly still conected) can walk around with that word ozing from their lips, but all of a sudden if i say it we have a serious problem? hmm...i see a problem in here somewhere
cptmiche 3 years ago
lol anyone with a little sense of self control, damn you must hate the ENTIRE rap comunity and a big vast majority of america, because im not the only one who says words like that. oh and a word is just a word. it means whatever you want it to mean. it can mean the world to you or it can just be a bunch of letters placed together to form something meaningless. and im an athiest for a reason, i have my own strength i dont look for an invisible being for strength
cptmiche 3 years ago
hmmm and your not implying anything about me since i play WoW, oh and just because i say the word, doesnt mean i have no regard to people that are "mentally handicapped" stop trying to make a personal attack on me to prove something. just because i call someone who is truthfully a retard doesnt mean i all of a sudden have a personal vendetta against all people who are very slow. please get a life. please go to school. please stop being an emotional wreck in your own life. leave me be.
cptmiche 3 years ago
you prove the point i posted to this guy. when we argue a point that we get across well enough to convince. you argue that its boring and useless, but then some guy comes around who cant get the point across and you make fun of them claiming all athiests are like that, you my friend are a retard
cptmiche 3 years ago
gaps darwinism has gaps theirs too many flaws in this theroy oh but point those out your wrong and you cant say what you belive with out geting trouble in school thanks a lot lebrals thanks for ruining this country by saying its okay to belive this but not that they want this to be a socalistic socity and you contrubuit to it not by being athist but by not allowing ID taught in school when our ideals have just as much valid points to it
joeu87 3 years ago
GAPS!?! WTF?!?
Do some reading, it has been decades since there were significant gaps in the evidence for Evolution. We have transitional forms galore. We have biochemical evidence, genetic evidence, phylogenetic evidence!
Here's a recommendation. Read "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. It details the current understanding for the evolution of man.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
yeah gaps that little map with the monkey thing becoming the human thing what ever it is all those things in the middle their is no proof of them no fossles no nothing so yeah theirs your gap thier
joeu87 3 years ago
LOL, you can keep repeating it but it doesn't make it true. Read Richard Dawkins' "The Bind Watchmaker" or "The Ancestor's Tale". Both have great information on the fallacy of the gaps argument.
On the flip-side, why would you want to worship this ever shrinking God of the Gaps? Every time we find a transitional form the ID types say "but how did it get from here to here?" pointing at another "gap". And then they say "See, this is where the Intelligent Agent must have worked!" Silliness!
atheistliberty 3 years ago
joeu, there actually is fossil evidence, many many fossils now what proof is there of your god? i see no proof, nothing to see, nothing to hear, nothing to smell, nothing to touch, nothing...hmm sounds like it doesnt exist, so why do you believe in that which doesnt exist?
cptmiche 3 years ago
Just thought I'd add to this a little, though I don't know if this has been said elsewhere... but Fossil Evidence, isn't exactly the ONLY evidence for Evolution. Once it was big but Evolution is so strong today, that if 100% of the Fossils were to vanish over night, the theory (fact) would not really be harmed. ^_^ There really is a lot of evidence.
Molandria 3 years ago
I have been saying this, in faltering steps, to anyone that will listen but you have summed it up quite nicely.
Thanks
atheistliberty 3 years ago
i love with atheists like you and i try and argue the truth creationists block and/or deliberately ignore us but then when a radical atheist comes by they immediately jump all over them claiming atheists are all wild animals incapable of intelligent debate, its people like you who i look up to. don't give up, maybe one day we will find a creationist who is competent enough to debate.
cptmiche 3 years ago 4
Rock on, Man!
atheistliberty 3 years ago
You're spot-on, dude. They can't stand the notion they God hasn't already unloaded all the big questions for them.
ExaltedLeader 3 years ago 2
In my opinion, it would be best to say that the creationist attitude towards mystery is an extension of a childish mindset. A child becomes aware of its own vast ignorance at some point, but mitigates any ill feelings through the idea that its parents know everything they don't. This authoritative view then extends to teachers, all adults, priests, and then their god. The idea that some intelligence out there knows all the secrets of the world and is on "their side" offers comfort (cont.)
Cafeeine 3 years ago 4
That is very well put. Thanks
atheistliberty 3 years ago
It isn't childish to believe in an all knowing God, it is childish, however to limit God in saying He can't know everything. If you're an engineer who's just made a car, wouldn't you know that car inside-out? Since God made the universe, is it not reasonable that He knows it that well too? It doesn't make any sense to compare my belief to a child's mindset, although Jesus did say to be like a child, but in the sense that we should be easy to teach and thirst for knowledge and wisdom.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Again you come stating as fact things you cannot possibly know to be true. This is the essence of childishness. My 10 year old daughter keeps telling me that Santa Claus is real even though she should know that he isn't. Oops, I hope I didn't burst another of your fairy tales.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
I don't believe in Santa Claus. It's a myth made after a Catholic "saint" in an attempt to make kids behave. This is the kind of discernment that a christian has to make for his/her faith. It's not OK to lie to your children, it sets a bad example. Also, you cannot possibly know that the Big Bang theory is true, but you put your faith in that! How is that not childish? I don't discard that theory, but I do give God credit in that this is how he could've made the universe. Hey word: "could've".
ehukai2003 3 years ago
You keep missing the point. I do not have "Faith" in the Big Bang Theory. Right now all the evidence that we have supports the Big Bang Theory. If evidence were to be presented that contradicted it and it was strong enough and repeatable, I along with all the scientists and rationalists would adjust their "belief". It is not Faith. It is Knowledge.
Belief in Santa Claus and Belief in God are the same. The only difference is that you didn't give up the latter.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
That's like saying belief in Ptolemy's planets-on-a-stick theory is like belief in rogue waves. The Ptolemy's theory was proven wrong like Santa, and was stupid in the first place, but rogue waves can neither be proven nor discredited (like God), yet many sailors (Christians) swear that they're real by their own personal experiences. Evidence has been given for against the existence of such a wave, but it's still not known. You ask one of those sailors, and he/she'll tell you they're real.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Rouge waves are a known oceanographic phenomena and have been "proven" by using radar and other measurement techniques. So I am sorry that Ptolemy's theory and rouge waves hold no similarity given that one is a primitive man's attempt to explain observed facts and rouge waves are real world observed phenomena.
Given your propensity to confuse reality with fantasy why should anyone trust your selection of invisible friend?
atheistliberty 3 years ago
rogue waves haven't been genuinely proven, that's why they're called phenomena, so fantasy isn't the word. The "fantasy" of God as an unseen entity isn't a fantasy at all. Other religions worship idols because they want to see their gods. This is all in attempt to see God, but making idols and the like is also an attempt to limit God. He's the creator of the UNIVERSE. We still don't know even 1% of the acquirable knowledge in that universe. Why would you exclude a superior Creator?
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Just google it, will you? Rouge waves are known to occur.
I have not ruled out a creator god. I just don't see any evidence for him/her/it and therefore have come to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely. But as I have said before, if it turns out that your god exists I will be his most fervent enemy.
There are very few religions that actually worship idols. In a way, the Christians' constant depiction of the dying Christ is a form of idolatry.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
That's something Catholics do. Again, please don't confuse their rituals with what's supposed to be done. Jesus said "Do not bow to me, only to my Father." I don't worship any images of any kind. Also, there are MANY religions that worship idols, whether or not they build them. Some worship an animal or form of an animal, some worship money (that's popular nowadays), etc. BTW, I googled rogue waves and you're right about that. My bad. I was trying to find a good analogy and that popped up.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Do not believe everything your simpleminded preachers tell you. What they call Idolatry usually is referring to religions that use representations of their gods in their religious ceremonies. They don't actually believe that the statues or icons ARE their Gods.
Besides, what is inherently evil about Idolatry? How is worshiping a Cow different from worshiping your invisible friend?
atheistliberty 3 years ago
That's not true.
Idolatry: extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone.
This is evil because when you worship something other than God, you can make you own rules as to how you worship and serve it. You can say what you wan about your values and say it is valid because your "god" said so. People justify murders and suicide with idols, among other huge crimes.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Have you ever even looke dup phenomena? I just did
1.a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.
2.something that is impressive or extraordinary.
3.a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder.
You fail. It's not called phenomena because it hasn't been proven. The first part of the definition calls it a FACT by definition. you just bolstered his argument. Now go and research Gnostic religion before you come back to us preaching Jesus!
makaisenki 3 years ago
2.something that is impressive or extraordinary
extraordinary:
going far beyond the ordinary degree, measure, limit, etc.;very unusual, exceptional, remarkable
That means it exists, but can't necessarily be explained. don't even bother bringing up dictionary terms with me, I've been studying languages and origins for years.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
"I've been studying languages and origins for years." Really, I never would have guessed! OK, mak, you and I need to stop explaining to this "expert" that he does not understand the English language.
Please, do not argue from authority. It is the weakest form of argument there is and it makes you appear foolish.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
I know that people don't necessarily believe their statues are their gods, but they do worship those made-up gods nevertheless. this doesn't mean that all results from idol-worshipping appear to be bad, as some idolaters do have good moral character, but they still have values that can be twisted within the confines of their own mind, which can be stretched a lot. As a Christian, you have to live a certain way and in times of uncertainty, read what you're supposed to do according to God.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
"but they do worship those made-up gods nevertheless"
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? What evidence do you have that your God is the correct God and theirs is not?
Answer: None.
All you have is your mommy's, daddy's, or preacher's word for it that the book you hold in your hand is the one true word of God. That is just not good enough for me or anyone who choses a rational world view.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
god had personally smited me. it stung kinda like a bee but not that bad. you see god is not perfect, he just claims to be. he tricked the people who wrote the bible, had em fooled just as good as kent hovind has these idiots fooled. don't beleive me? i wrote a book and put it in there, just as valid as the bible.
greycloud24 3 years ago
You don't know everything, but He does! As soon as you accept that there at least could be a superior being, you'll realize that. If one God made the universe, he'd be everywhere. It's not so hard to grasp. When you make something, can't you see it and what's happening to it? So why is it so hard to believe that there is a God? Your Indian friends believe there's more than one god, and you called their culture beautiful! so why is mine all-of-a-suddenly evil? Science has good and evil too!
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Claiming that your god is all powerful does not make it so. Give me some evidence that he is and I will consider it.
The culture created by Christians is also, in many ways, beautiful just as the culture created by Indians is. Hinduism and Islam, the predominant religions in India, are also evil religions in the same way Christianity is. The evil comes from the kind of simple minded black and white thinking that you exhibit in your discussion of the victims of you fictitious flood.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
What's evil about having faith? Really, think about it. If I'm wrong, I won't lose anything for being wrong, but if I'm right, you'll lose your gift of eternal life that is our birthright. Instead you let the devil deceive you and accept his "reasons" for why God "doesn't exist." Oh and, I could ask God to show you how He's all powerful, but for Him to use me I'd have to be there with you. He's answered all of my prayers and that doesn't change because He's the same yesterday, today, and forever
ehukai2003 3 years ago
'I could ask God to show you how He's all powerful, but for Him to use me I'd have to be there with you.' Why? Didn't you say he was all powerful,so why does he need you present?
jesuslives57 3 years ago
Yes He's all-powerful, but if He were to use me, I'd have to be there with him. I said that because this guy wants physical evidence and I can't be God's tool for a "viable demonstration" unless I'm there. He'd probably be able to use me while I'm here, but I was thinking of a personal one-on-one thing. God doesn't NEED me present, but if He were to use ME, I think I'd have to be there. But, He doesn't NEED me at all to show this guy His power.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Dude, you don't need to be God's tool. If he really wanted to prove himself to me he could just do it. The problem is, either he does not want to prove his existence and actually wants to hide it OR he does not exist. Which seems more likely? Which explanation of the observed fact of God's absence meets the criteria of Occam's Razor?
atheistliberty 3 years ago
I said I know I don't need to be His tool. I said if He wanted to use me to physically prove His existence by demonstration I'd probably have to be there. I know He can prove He is real. Like I said, I've seen it, but as you've pointed out before, that's "not acceptable." I can only research as much as I can, and make quick rebuttals for each of your comments, but There's only so much I can do. You're being too close minded and instead of considering my words, you trying to disprove them.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Ah the old stand by "Pascal's Wager". If God is all powerful and all knowing then he will know if I just pretend to believe just as a hedge.
So many of the faithful have asked their Gods to prove their existence to the unbelievers and we still don't have any physical evidence that he/she/it exists.
BTW, I never said that faith is evil. It is evil to subjugate people to the abusive teachings of you religion. The problem is that you do not even see how abusive your religion is.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
No, you said that my religion was evil, and I referred to my belief as a faith, not a religion. If you pretend to believe in God's Word, then that would make you religious, but if you do believe, that makes you faithful. BTW, there is evidence that He exists, and I provided some for you. The problem is that you, like most other atheists, dismiss it as "hypothetical," and we're back to square one. Try explaining, then, why most psychologists see the Bible as the best advice for any situation.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Yes your religion is evil if believe what is in the Bible. Now, maybe, you don't believe what is literally in the Bible, in which case, I reserve judgment on your religion until I know its precepts more thoroughly, or since I probably will not take the effort to find out about your own personal brand of Christianity, indefinitely. As for faith, read Sam Harris's "The End of Faith". It is shows why Faith is bad. You are free to have it but I can still think you are stupid for it.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
"most psychologists see the Bible as the best advice for any situation." You are going to need to back this up with a citation. What study did you read this in?
However, I find it hard to believe that most psychologists believe that it is best that when a virgin is raped that she be forced to marry her attacker ( see Duet 22:28-29 ).
Get a dictionary and look up the definition for evidence. Then maybe you can understand why what you present as "evidence" is rejected by rationalists.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
You keep insulting my intelligence as if I'm an idiot! Look, the Bible doesn't contradict science. It's never said that the Earth is flat or the center of the universe. It doesn't say that today's creation is perfect, but that it's a fallen creation, because of Adam and Eve's decision to disobey God. We all have a chance to be saved and put in a new paradise. You have to stop thinking of yourself as superior and start humbling yourself as an inferior creation, that God could've gotten rid of!
ehukai2003 3 years ago
It took me all of 3 seconds to find this: Genisis 1:16: "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
This passage is talking about the Sun and Moon. The Moon is not a light. We know this because we have been there. It is also not made of Green Cheese.
Yes Science does contradict the bible and does so on numerous occasions. Wake up and understand that fact.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
I KNOW that the moon isn't a light, but it's referred to as the lesser light because it's not as bright as the sun (the greater light). And I've already said that the Bible was written by men, in this case Moses, who had their own way of perceiving things, so the moon would've looked like a lesser light! Also, you can't say that there's not light coming off of the moon, because it's coming from the sun, and Hebrews used the moon for their lunar calendar, using the new and full moon for seasons.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Then how can you say that the Bible is not contradicted by Science?
Let me guess, I am interpreting it incorrectly? How do I know what the correct interpretation is? How do I know that you have it right? If the Bible is infallible but I need other men to tell me how to interpret it so that it can be infallible and those men use twisted and circular logic to do so, how the heck am I to know which man's circular and twisted logic is the correct one?
atheistliberty 3 years ago
You can't know if I have it right, but the fact remains that God won't hold us accountable for someone else's wrong translation, whether on purpose or on accident. He will hold us accountable for what we know and our attempts to find the truth. I take the Bible at face value, but to make it sound "scientifically plausible" for people like you, I research it. BTW, you don't need other men to tell you, that's your job. "God is Love" is what's written, so if I worship love, how is God evil?
ehukai2003 3 years ago
So then why would he, if he exists, hold my unbelief against me. It is the only logical conclusion from the known facts. You seem to think that just because you or some other christian, like my mother, has told me what they believe that that constitutes knowledge of God's Word on my part. How is it that a man's word suddenly translates to God's word? The Bible was written and even altered by men over centuries. So I have no logical obligation to take it's words "at face value".
atheistliberty 3 years ago
God will hold what truth you do know for/against you in the end, depending on how you've acted upon it. Also a man's word isn't his own if he's repeating God's word. If you want to see how His word can affect your life, take into consideration the things the Bible teaches. Don't just dismiss the events that are mentioned as they couldn't have happened, because much of the Bible is first-hand accounts. Instead, think about what the moral is, and think how it could help a person who'd need it.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Are you really that foolish?
You keep skipping over the fundamental questions. Like how do I tell the difference between a man's words and God's?
They come from the same mouth.
They are delivered with the same passion.
They invariably claim to be the words of God.
But one is evil and one is not. How do I tell the difference?
The only way I can: by applying my reason and logic to the words and coming to my own conclusion. As such, I conclude your interpretation of God is evil.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
The only way to know the difference between God's word and man's word is to READ HIS WORD. That's the only way you can tell the difference. When you know enough about God, you'll know the fakes. Banks don't teach their tellers about fake bills, but real ones, so when a fake one comes along, it's easier to spot! Same with God. You can tell the real Christians from the fakes by studying what God wants in each one of His children.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
I have READ it and found it lacking in morality, logical consistency, and even literary quality. Not the expected output of an all powerful God.
So the trillions that never believed in your God, they were all wrong but the thousands, possibly millions, that believe as you do are right? So many christians want to tell me that some other christians are not "real christians". It just makes my point. There is no way to tell the difference between "real christians" and "fake christians".
atheistliberty 3 years ago
OK you know what, I've read over your responses and have found one thing that is consistent throughout: you keep insulting me, my intelligence, and true Christians who have faith in God. I'm going through a very rough time right now, but unlike you, I I'm turning to Him more instead of blaming Him. I've been praying on this for months, actually some of it for years, and God has answered them. I don't need an egomaniac telling me that God doesn't exist, especially a former "Christian."
ehukai2003 3 years ago
It is hard to tell a person that they are a fool for believing in fairy tales without insulting them. I don't like being called a fool but when I am I make every attempt to show that my opponent is the fool. You seem to be doing the same here. You are attempting to defend your faith. The problem is that I get the impression that you just might be too smart to have bought it completely. That uneasy feeling you are getting is the realization that your religion is not rational.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
"It is hard to tell a person that they are a fool for believing in fairy tales without insulting them"
The ends don't justify the means
"I don't like being called a fool but when I am I make every attempt to show that my opponent is the fool"
People who do this try to get the attention off of themselves when they can't accept they're wrong, so they change the subject (what you've done) or relentlessly argue.
BTW, I'm not uneasy about my faith. It may seem irrational, but that's the best part.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Continuing
Faith in God is literally the trust and hope in things not yet seen, felt, perceived, etc. Don't worry about my being smart, I'm still learning, so I'll get smarter. I know what it means to have faith in something that may seem completely off the wall, but when I realize that NOTHING is impossible for God, it isn't unlikely at all anymore. Faith in God, not myself, is what's gotten me through my parents' divorce, my season where I strayed for a long time, and putting up with atheists.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
On the other hand, if you know Him and His commandments, and sin regardless, you'll be accountable. You're accountable for what you know. The people in Noah's time had NO excuse for being evil because they were close in generation to Adam and Eve, two people who SAW God, and taught to do right by Him because they knew what living without Him does to people. My definition of evil is the total absence of God (by choice) in one's life, like darkness: the absence of light, or cold: absence of heat.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
This too is ridiculous! The first humans walked this earth over 250,000 years ago. How can you call that "close" to the first humans? Again the bible contradicts fact and you will fail to see it because you are blinded by you evil religion.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
How evil is my faith? The people in past and recent ears have totally misrepresented God and His commandments. They're false Christians, or hypocrites, and in no way are true followers of God. They twisted the words in the Bible to their liking instead of trying to mold their lives to obey the Bible. My faith isn't evil, the people that have disgraced it and misrepresented God were/are evil. By the way, 250,000 years ago was close enough to the last ice age ended after that point!
ehukai2003 3 years ago
Duet 22:28-29: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
A rape victim must marry her attacker? And her attacker need only pay 50 pieces of silver to get away with it?
If this is not evil then I do not know what is.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
Furthermore, back then, people were either entirely good, or entirely evil. They couldn't be forgiven because Jesus wasn't sacrificed. People could repent and turn from their ways, but When all men and women of God's creation except just 7 were evil, God did what he had to do, otherwise the world would be more evil than it is now.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
"back then, people were either entirely good, or entirely evil."
This is just silly. I work in IT and therefore work with a ton of Indians. They are terrific people with a rich and beautiful culture. They are good people who love their families and work hard for their livings. However, according to your definition of evil they are damned.
Any God that would kill off all but 7 of the species because they did not kiss his ass enough, is EVIL and I am his most fervent ENEMY.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
That's not what I said. Thanks again for twisting my words. People in Noah's day were entirely good or evil, the evil didn't repent at all. After that, Noah taught his sons and daughters to be righteous. Then they could choose between being good or evil, and some went back and forth between the two. Indians can be good or evil, whether or not they know God, along with any other ethnicity. I've met an Indian Hindu family, and they were wonderful people. God doesn't judge you if you don't know Him
ehukai2003 3 years ago
But you are saying that out of the millions of people that lived around the time of this supposed flood that only 7 were worthy of being saved. That is ridiculous and grounds for my undying hatred of your god. Good thing he doesn't exist, huh?
atheistliberty 3 years ago
The way I see it, is that science can not prove or disprove God, so what's the point? I happen to believe in God, but I also believe in an old earth. I don't think science can contradict faith and I don't find my beliefs on the topic contradictory either. I can appreciate and agree with the findings of science in all matter of things, but it does not impede me from believing that there is an intelligent design behind it all.
rainbowfish22 3 years ago
That's what I've been trying to say this whole time, but atheists believe in tangible facts and evidence, and I try to look for and provide that. I just don't want anyone to end up suffering for eternity because they didn't want to believe. Above all, a Christian's only asset is faith, especially blind faith, but God said to crave knowledge, and find it. Thanks again for your comment, you have simplicity as your gift. God's blessed people like you with this gift - I have a hard time with that.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
ehukai2003 your the first well not the first but one of the few ppl I can get along with. even with you believing and me not you sound like you know what your talkin about and not just coming up with crack pot things like ben. Anyway may you have a nice day though we may noy see eye to eye on some things.
Krensharpaw 3 years ago
Science does contradict faith when faith makes claims that are contrary to the findings of Science. For instance, when people use their faith to claim that an intelligent designer guided evolution or created life as it exists today. The book "Of Pandas and People" makes this claim. As this was just a rewrite of a creationist book, it was obviously written from someone's faith and Science has shown this claim to be false.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
I just believe there are no limits to God's power, but that's MY belief. I have no doubt that many things may have happened on a smaller scale, but you have to remember that even though the Bible was written by God's influence, each author had his/her own set of eyes, and wrote according to how they saw the world. If they saw airplanes, they may've been called steel birds. Also, I didn't say there's evidence of a world-wide flood, I just believe it happen but there is evidence of a mideast flood
ehukai2003 3 years ago
But what if one's faith is that all things are possible with God? There is nothing that is provable by science that can ever disprove my faith in that belief. You leave things up to mystery, while I attribute them to a higher power. But that doesn't mean that I would stop searching for material/physical answers to big questions or stop pondering the eternal "why." I believe that such a search would only make me more aware of the greatness of this Creator.
rainbowfish22 3 years ago
That's what I said....I believe in God's power, and try to find answers to some of the biggest questions that non-believers have. That's all I'm trying to do. I've done this since I was in Kindergarten, because at that early age I understood the severity of not having faith. I'm eighteen years old and about to graduate high school, but I'm not stupid nor ignorant, and I got accepted into college, and plan to teach history and music later. I don't believe that what I learn contradicts the Bible.
ehukai2003 3 years ago
I really enjoyed your video atheistliberty. Some thoughts spring to mind:
You say: "If god fills the gaps in our knowledge, what good is he?...A creationist cannot accept the mystery"
Contemporary Theists typically have no problem with science as it pertains to our discoveries WITHIN "God's creation".
The thing that must be wrapped in mystery for the Theist is the notion of Afterlife. The Afterlife (Eternity VS Finitude) is the crux of the conversation, not mystery in general.
...
usernamesarehard 3 years ago
...
The fact that Evolution bothers Theists is only relivant in so far as it attacks the same mythology that supports their notion of Afterlife.
Why is this?
The Afterlife provides where Human Reality (Camus' Absurdist notion of Bare Fact VS Transcendent Reality, Sartre's Nausea) falls short.
Where does human reality fall short?
Justice. Explanation. Finitude despite the promise of Eternity.
Thus the Theist rejects human reality towards a comforting, yet delusional Eternity.
usernamesarehard 3 years ago
...
Lastly: Why than is a Theist willing to go to such extraordinary lengths to delude himself toward the Eternal?
The answer lies in our relationship with our unconscious creator, the universe itself.
If the universe is eternal, and we come from the universe, why would we not want to be precisely like the thing from which we came?
The goal of Evolution is survival (transcendant reality), yet we die (bare fact) all in the same being (irony).
There you have it. Life is a joke ;)
usernamesarehard 3 years ago
Long, comment but I am glad I stuck with it. You make some good points. Thanks.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
Miracles are impossible. We live in a universe governed by natural laws; if anything happens in the natural world, it HAS to be, by nature, observable and testable, therefore within the scope of science. By extension I would say this is why a god is impossible, as the supernatural is beyond our comprehension and could not possibly manifest itself naturally, as to do so it would have to be of the natural order. There are things we don't know, but they can not ever be supernatural.
PPartisan 3 years ago
MY OWN ANSWER PART 4:
Lastly, I would just point out from my perspective the "gap," is a gap in probability, not a gap in knowledge. Theoretically, more knowledge can actually produce more of a gap in what can't be naturalistically achieved. So this "gap" doesn't necessarily "shrink" with more discoveries and learning. It may turn out that life is far more incredibly complex than we can even imagine.
-- END --
chipNdaleRR 3 years ago