I wish there were more videos that explained things about evolution as well as this one. It's so difficult to find any information on it that is descriptive enough to make decisions off that isn't aimed at degree level biologists. I wish I could find something to read that will take my understanding from the most basic levels to a proper understanding of evolution.
They think with time a non-living thing can start to live, a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,
social behaviour and techniques of animals and insects are in the genes ! an the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did? evolved wings ! and the ability to fly !
throug random mutations and naturel selection, needless to speak about the evolution of plantes ...
Excuse me? Any rational person dedicated to honest and objective inquiry would be compelled to reject, not accept, evolution (i.e. the Darwinian prediction).
@Madpolis7 Yes I did. It is very humurous to see youtube users attempting to showcase transitional forms and a gradualistic evolutionary process when the fossil record is invariably incompatible with gradualism, and while scientists introduce theories such as "punctuated eqilibrium" which does not even allow for transitional forms to begin with. Evolutionary theory is a convoluted mess and is compromised largely of bad science. Which is why I made my inital statement.
Lying about the fossil record isn't an argument. Forming straw man of evolutionary theory isn't an argument either. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
@TheZooCrew "Lying about the fossil record isn't an argument."
If you think I am lying, then you just do not know much of the fossil record. I do not feel inclined to engage with those who cling to misinformation and who misrepresent the evidence.
"You clearly don't know what you're talking about."
Know how to do anything but blow hot air? I do not make use of straw men whatsoever. You being uninformed does not equate with me being dishonest.
A few gaps in the fossil record disproves evolution? For which animal, sir? Human evolution hasn't been 100% mapped, but there are plenty of other animals with a completed (to some degree) evolutionary tree. Are you seriously saying that creationism has more empirical evidence?
@RaizeMusic There isn't much else you can believe in if you reject evolution... You could believe in an alternate process of evolution but you also reject the fossil record for some reason.
"Just by you saying "a few" proves you have not a clue of what the fossil record really consists of."
Okay you Still haven't answered my question. You could be talking about any animal right now, there are animals with nearly completed records.
@RaizeMusic Good point! There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record or any record. If evolution based on gradualism was true, then we should observe transitional features not only in fossils, but also in living organisms. This would lead to everything being in transition. However, this is not what is observed. What is observed are typological forms where biological variation takes place, but change is always circumscribed by the boundaries of the type (or kind).
The Theory of evolution as in (How have we got here and how it started?) is exactly what it is (A Religion) . It starts with a prophet (Darwin) and all his followers now look for (evidence) to support his PROFECY. Real science makes a conclusion after the evidence has been establish. These are some of evolutionary gods: Billions year’s ego (long time ego). Big bang. Everything evolves from one cell. Perhaps. One could conclude. would suggest etc....Darwin is a saint Just like Buda, Jesus...
Just to say, at 4:21, with the comparative anatomy, you have a man's arm, a horse's leg, a correction from bird wing to bat wing, and a cow leg. Except it's not a cow limb, it's clearly from a digitigrade animal, some sort of canine or feline I would assume. Just saying :)
Why do evolutionists even bother trying to prove evolution if it is considered "proven" by all the scientists? Why keep beating us over the head with "proofs" if it is already supposedly proven? For example, how many mathematicians try to prove 2 + 2 = 4? None, since it is an axiom. Evolution is far from proven and is not an axiom. In fact, evolution is the biggest lie in the history of science, which is why everyone is trying so desperately to defend it and prove it.
@BachScholar 'Evolutionists' would stop trying to prove evolution the moment creationists would stop trying to disprove it and implement creationism in schools. The reason scientists still try to beat people over the head with evidence for evolution is because people (like you I suppose) still don't get it.
@kurayamisidekick I don't diagree with the sentiment of your post, but actually "evolutionists" (biologists, geneticists, palaeontologists, etc.) come up with new ways (hypotheses) to disprove evolution everyday. And then they test these hypotheses. And fail to disprove evolution. This is how we know evolution is true, because despite all the efforts to disprove it, by people much more competent at this than creationists, all we find is evidence that supports evolution.
@Turgor I'm sorry, I completely agree, of course. I'm just not sure BachScholar would see it in that light. I meant proving as in showing to the general public. I also dislike the term 'evolutionists', but that was his choice of vocab, not mine.
BTW I'm studying in biochemistry, so don't worry, I know how science works ;)
we don't often refer to them as religionists, or people who accept the existence of stars as astronomists. It's part of how they keep telling themselves that we accept things dogmatically too
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I completely agree. For some reason, many theists are unable or unwilling that some people don't take things (like science) on blind faith. They try to equate science with religion (atheism also for some reason), and then try to propose their religion as better.
I find it tiresome and annoying to have to deal with the same thing again and again.
@kurayamisidekick I debated with myself about reacting to this, because we (most likely) don't disagree about modern evolutionary theory. But I think the "dumbing down" of how science works by saying something has been proven is working actively against a goal I assume we have in common: greater understanding and acceptance of this modern theory that is a synthesis of Darwin's original ideas and all the work done in the 150 years after that, with genetics as arguably the greatest influencer.
@kurayamisidekick I think a lot of people reading comments here on youtube are not only capable of understanding roughly how scientists go about research, but are greatly appreciative of it when expressed in a clear way. I myself can be obtuse at some times, but I hope I can help others be more clear about their message and hope others will do the same for me. That's why I think it's important to not dumb down too much how it is that we know, provisionally, the ToE to be correct.
@kurayamisidekick ETA: I think using language like "to prove evolution" is working against understanding of what scientist do by implying there's some absolute truth to be accepted or denied. This is simply not what science is about, it is about constantly modifying what we think is true to align as closely as possible to what we observe. It is a great strength that I think is undervalued and needs more attention from the general public.
@Turgor I agree with you again. I was thinking mostly of the original poster when I wrote the reply, not of the people who could possibly be reading my comments. I doubt the OP will change his mind now no matter what I say or do, and I acted as such.
However, in the interest of propagating better understanding of science, I should have made an 'example' of him, shown how science works, etc etc. The truth is I was too lazy to be bothered doing it for someone who doesn't want to get it.
@kurayamisidekick Yeah fair enough, you're not going to sway the OP with carefully worded statements. That's why I either jump on the ridiculing train or write longwinded replies for the benefit of people that might appreciate it ;)
Just because we know something happens doesn't mean we fully understand everything about it. If you finished middle school, you would be aware of this.
@BachScholar "Why do evolutionists even bother trying to prove evolution if it is considered "proven" by all the scientists?"
Because there are still millions of retarded people running around who think that evolution is not proven. Millions of retarded people who are allowed to vote.
@1sl4mSh1t "Since evolution is true, there must be human races that are inferior." Aaand another godbotherer who has no idea what evolution actually *is*. Go away and educate yourself.
I don't waste my time or energy debating creationists for the same reason I don't debate someone who thinks the Moon is made of cheese. It's like a Monkey fucking a football. It's kinda funny at first but after a while it's just sad that the Monkey has no idea what he's doing. In the end, nothing is going to come of it and your football is covered in Monkey jizz.
he makes a flaw, carbon dating only says how long ago a living thing died, with a max of 100'000 years. it can't say when it was planted, only when it died. but both methods can be used to together to determine how old the remains are and how old the tree was before it died.
Evolution is obvious and no surprise to anybody--things change...no shit!!! My favorite is when pitiful, biased, wishful, cocky, scientists spout out how things look the same so that disproves creation. Creation and evolution are 2 different things. All the proof for evolution is also proof that the force that is responsible for the beginning and end of all other forces implemented the rules of the universe in a way that is designed for things to evolve.
" My favorite is when pitiful, biased, wishful, cocky, scientists spout out how things look the same so that disproves creation."
No scientist does this. Why do you need to build such terrible straw men? Also, why are you deliberately using a much different definition of creationism than what scientists talk about?
"All the proof for evolution...designed for things to evolve."
watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=related List of scientists who reject evolution.
Now can we get back to working together to find the answer, or will attacks continue to prevent progress. There are brilliant minds on both sides of this argument.
It might also be useful for you to ask your PhD creation scientist friend what percentage of scientists disagree with the notion of man's descent by common ancestory to the great apes? I think you will find that (outside of churches and mosks), there is NO debate.
Every scientist? I have a friend who is a PHD in genetics working on intelligent mutation of DNA to prevent mosquitoes from carrying malaria. This PHD (Allysa Jimenez) would say that DNA's digital quadrinary error correcting code could not have evolved by undirected natural causes. That the "designer" is intrinsic. She extends that to dozens of "machines" in the cell she works with in the lab. Plenty of Creationist scientists in mainstream.
great little video. i hope a lot of children get to see it in school.
see you two dumbasses arguing about that insane Turkish lunatic. He was PROVEN guilty in a court of law , he sends his evil full of lies book to the '100 most dangerous evolutionary geneticists on the planet' , and yes i have seen the dirty disgraceful lies spouted in that book, evil to me is teaching children lies............ goodnight vienna
evolutionist make up the supposed course of human evolution itself. Such fictitious concepts as the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age are an important part of the evolutionist chronology. Since this imaginary picture is presented in schools and in television and newspaper stories, most people accept this imaginary picture without question and imagine that human beings once lived in an era when only primitive stone tools were used and technology was unknown.
So, what exactly were you thinking when you became a Christian? Following Jesus is not for the faint of heart. Following Jesus is a journey filled with hardship and challenge, but the rewards. O the rewards are so worth it. Just as Jesus endured the cross because of the joy set before Him, so too can we run the race with our eyes on the prize knowing that in the end our trials will seem small in comparison to the rewards we receive.
Jesus said that before we become Christians we’d better give it some serious thought because “Anyone who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit to be called my disciple.”
No, God doesn’t promise some kind of supernatural protection from tragedy. What He does offer however is a supernatural ability to use tragedy for good. With eyes wide open and our chest bared to the blast Jesus makes us the kind of people who take hold of His hand and step boldly into the storms of life.
“No, God doesn’t promise some kind of supernatural protection from tragedy. What He does offer however” Etc.
“So, what exactly were you thinking when you became a Christian? Following Jesus is not for the faint of heart” Etc
I see you’re back to cutting and pasting from one of your old favorites Makarios’s blog. You dishonest prick. Why are you creationists such a bunch of liars? Doesn’t your stupid book have something to say about bearing false witness?
The only reason you are a Christian is by accident of where and when you were born. If you’d been born in the Middle East you’d be bleating on about Islam. So given your belief is based on the serendipity of your birthplace how do you know you’re backing the right horse.
You didn't answer mine. My question was: why Jesus over any other deity? Your "answer" doesn't answer that question.
Most creationists are not Christian. There are many more Hindu and Muslim creationists. In the US, Christian creationists merely have the most influence.
In the US, the number of non-religious people has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001.
This was the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms among all religious groups. So if people grew up in american as I did why are they not Christians?
Most atheists grew up in Christian homes like you did.
"So if people grew up in american as I did why are they not Christians?"
Most are. We're just entering another Age of Enlightenment. Our education focuses on logic, reason and empiricism, just as it should. Young people are growing up much more aware of the Constitution and the influence that religion has worldwide, which is usually negative.
I would say that most educated Christians are not creationists. They realize that their faith doesn't have to conflict with reality. What creationists have in common is that they can't separate doctrine from deity...as in, they worship their holy books AS their gods even if they don't realize it.
Darwinism is the only theory we have which claims to explain the origin of life and its diversity without involving God or the supernatural, and so is seen by many scientists as the only scientific theory of origins. Many scientists also believe that science is the only way we have of knowing anything, and finding truth. Therefore the only scientific theory of origins must be true, even if there is strong evidence against it. For atheists evolution is the only show in town.They have total faith
Are you going to transfer the entire truth in science web-site to this comment section? Do you have to pay them royalties?
“Hi smelly cat what are they feeding you LOL”
Ohh pithy put down. What are you six years old or something? Surely you can find a site of insults to cut and paste from. Don’t try and come up with your own insults. You don’t have the mental dexterity to pull it off. If brains were dynamite you’d barely have enough to part your hair.
“I find that only those who were abused by some religious person become such militant atheists like you and your ilk”
I’m not against religion. I’m against fundamentalist fuckwits like you. I’m against people like you who spread lies. You know people claiming to have an IQ 0f 135.. I’m against dishonest people like you who pass off stuff they cut and paste from web-sites as their own words. Creationists like you that want to drag education back to the dark age
“You seem to be against Jesus Christ and those that follow Him
Why do you reject Jesus Christ?”
I see we can add reading comprehension to your long list of failings. As I said I’m not against religion just fundamentalist / creationist liars like you. Most Christians I have met are affable friendly sorts. Not ignorant, dishonest, tantrum juveniles like you. Pricks like you recruiting sergeants for atheism.
So passing another person’s words off as your own isn’t being dishonest. Cutting and pasting from web-sites and posting them as your own words isn’t lying? Repeating crap about Micro and Macro evolution after you have been corrected on it isn’t lying?
“Were your parent atheists or did they take you to a christian church
Do your parent know you reject the teaching of your youth
Are they praying for you now to return to faith in Jesus?”
So you ask a question in the first line (Christian has a capital letter and a questions require a question mark). Then in the next two lines you carry on as though you know the answer
There is nothing that we can do or not do to merit salvation. Our bad actions will not cancel out our faith and our good actions will not add a single point to our faith. Our salvation is by God’s grace and that alone. All you have to do is accept it. It requires too much honesty and humility for an atheist, but it might not be too hard for you.
That faith you have in jesus, is actually faith for the imagination of a group of people
vvv,jesusneverexisted,com
He was a reverberation of previous mythical characters and his character developed over about a 400 year period. He wasn't even written about until a few hundred years after he supposedly lived, which is suspicious coming from a region where documentation of actual events was thorough and common
The Old Testament was written before Jesus was ever born. The New Testament was written by the men who knew Jesus, who walked with Him, ate with Him, and learned from Him. In the O.T. there are prophecies concerning His birthplace, that He would be born of a virgin, that He would be rejected by His own people, that He would be betrayed by a close friend (Psalm 41:9), that He would die by having His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16-18), and that He would rise from the dead
"In the O.T. there are prophecies concerning His birthplace, that He would be born of a virgin, that He would be rejected by His own people, that He would be betrayed by a close friend (Psalm 41:9), that He would die by having His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16-18), and that He would rise from the dead"
All of these attributes exist in several other mythical figures that existed long before Jesus did.
In the N.T. all these prophecies, and many more, are fulfilled by Jesus. Now, this is the question you must answer: "If the Bible is not inspired from God, then why does it have so many fulfilled prophecies?" How is that possible if the Bible were not from God?
Seeing as how I can't disprove supernatural entities, no. Nor can I prove them, nor do I think there's any evidence for them besides the fact "shit exists." That would make me an agnostic leaning highly towards one side.
I can however look at religion and see how it's evolved from previous ideologies and anthropomorphic notions (such as christian bible saying God looks like a man) and conclude it's bullshit
"In the N.T. all these prophecies, and many more, are fulfilled by Jesus"
Those prophecies are vague, ambiguous prophecies. Like, "In the future, people will stop believing in this, thus rendering it true!" <which is seriously a prophecy in the bible. It's an infallible prophecy
The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove the bible is inspired So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.
First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exist in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses
there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be true that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the OT
Think about it... the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah.
Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions
No, not Jesus, GOD/YAHWEH/Whatever you call him. In the bible it says he looks like man. Since the first homo sapiens walking/"created" on earth were black, this means God looks like a black male human.
Do you agree with this, or do you deny what the bible says?
I'm not black, nor do I bring this up because of racism. I bring it up to show you how the bible has origins in human imagination. Everywhere you look in these times, humans have thought of ourselves as God-like, and so most deities are made to look humanoid. This anthropomorphic view is shown in the bible when genesis says man (adam in hebrew) was made in God's appearance (image in hebrew, unambiguous terminology), and jesus/angels/disciples also look human
"In the image of God does not mean physical form since God is spirit and not flesh"
In English, you're right. In hebrew, the "image" word is used to describe only physical appearance. Whenever its used it is to say something looks like another thing. It is very unambiguous and not open to interpretation. The bible writers thought ourselves as Godly, so they could only imagine a God like ourselves. God was thought of as a human-like entity and with a personality
we are not created in the physical image of God, because Judaism always maintains that God is incorporeal and has no physical appearance. Rambam points out that the Hebrew words translated as "image" and "likeness" in Gen. 1:27 do not refer to the physical form . The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Psalm 73:20, "you will despise their image ." You despise a person's nature and not a person's physical appearance
"No one knows what Jesus looks like but we do know he was Jewish"
Since God personally impregnated Mary, and since God is evidently a black man, this shows us that Jesus was a mulatto. Half black, half middle eastern
All artist depictions of God have, until recently, always shown God as an elderly white man. Now Christians don't think of him as anything because they realized how stupid it is to think humans require a creator because of our complexity, yet a God who looks like his own creations does not require one himself. This was not always the case, as I've already pointed out anthropomorphism in the bible.
"This is not evidence of what God looks like as these artist did not see God "
No, but it shows us that most everyone at the time thought of ourselves as God like, and so they made God look like us. They not only depicted him as humanoid, but they also wrote of him as a humanoid in the bible (along with all the other supernatural figures)
"The holy spirit entered mary and not the seed of a man according to scripture my frend"
Anyone who understands biology knows it takes a Y chromosome to make a male human. What, you think Jesus was walking around with half a genome? Don't be irrational
you know that Mary never had sex and was filled with the holy spirit
do you believe in the supernatural?
back the you error with God
What is it in our nature that is God-like? Rashi explains that we are like G-d in that we have the ability to understand and discern. Rambam elaborates that by using our intellect, we are able to perceive things without the use of our physical senses, an ability that makes us like God, who perceives without having physical senses.
Intellect and perception was not the likeness people had in mind.
b'Tzelem Elohim means in physical appearance of God. Humans, unequivocally, thought humans were divine and appeared like God. Nearly every religion has divine/God figures with human features.
In Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that God formed (vayyitzer) man. The spelling of this word is unusual: it uses two consecutive Yods instead of the one you would expect. The rabbis inferred that these Yods stand for the word "yetzer," which means impulse, and the existence of two Yods here indicates that humanity was formed with two impulses: a good impulse (the yetzer tov) and an evil impulse (the yetzer ra).
The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of God's law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. According to some views, it does not enter a person until his 13th birthday, when he becomes responsible for following the commandments.
The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires
What God had in mind is stated in His word and the people have nothing to do with it
The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by God, and all things created by God are good. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, but it can lead you to steal food. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion
So, now that you understand b'Tzelem (unambiguously) means image/appearance, and that b'Tzelem Elohim means in the image of God, and since the first humans were african/black, do you now agree that God's IMAGE is like a black man?
scholars have speculated on the origin of the Jewish faith, the first monotheistic world religion. Where did the Jewish faith come from? Secular historians Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson say, the cultural and ethnic origin of the Israelites are difficult because the archaeological and biblical evidence have not been reconciled.
But this remains to be answered by the scholars, “Where did the Jews come from?” and “Who created this unique race, religion and language of Jews?”
Can you imagine a few pagans coming up with the idea for circumcision as the ritual to gain membership! How many Canaanites would be standing in line to join this new religion? All male adults and children 8 days and older had to be circumcised. This new found religion would need to become a race of people and they would establish their own particular language in only a few centuries! The idea that Judaism springs from paganism appears insane,
you are attempting to operate out of your field of expertise when discussing the “God question.” Atheists often claim that God is a “crutch” for those that can’t handle life’s difficulties. Some atheists such as Richard Dawkins suggest that God is an immoral myth created by mentally disturbed people. Atheists deny the existence of a metaphysical realm a priori and that assertion results in their inability to rationally discuss the God-subject
When atheists proclaim that science alone is the final arbiter of truth, that science alone is the only methodology of understanding, they are in fact making a declaration of faith. In so doing they have offered a “do as I say and not as I do”approach because while telling people to take nothing on faith but always defer to empirical evidence, i.e. scientific methods, they have themselves succumbed to accepting the scientific method by faith.
"that science alone is the only methodology of understanding"
No. The method used to understand the universe is typically mathematical. I think there are verses beyond our universe and other dimensions, but I think this not on faith but because the mathematics show it to be 100% possible. I also believe Occam's razor is accurate, so the implications surrounding a God is infinite or quite near it, whereas mathematical/scientific models are much more sound
Christopher Hitchens is oblivious to his predicament and says, “If one must have faith in order to believe something, then the likelihood of that something having any truth or value is considerably diminished.”Of course this statement is self-refuting because there is no empirical evidence to prove this statement is true. Hitchens thus becomes victim to the very thing he roundly criticizes in Christian theists, namely presupposition.
A more obvious atheistic presuppositional bias is provided by Lewontin who says,We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment – a commitment to materialism ., for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
I wish there were more videos that explained things about evolution as well as this one. It's so difficult to find any information on it that is descriptive enough to make decisions off that isn't aimed at degree level biologists. I wish I could find something to read that will take my understanding from the most basic levels to a proper understanding of evolution.
aMidnightBreeze 2 days ago
@aMidnightBreeze
/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
This one is pretty good.
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
Comment removed
TheOriginalSomeone 1 day ago
@TheZooCrew Thanks! That was a really useful video.
aMidnightBreeze 1 day ago
This video needs to be liked, favorited, commented on, and shared far and wide!
fegu 2 days ago
it was GOD! or call it aliens or group of no more farting very old scienticst group. But never never this happens self. Dont be stupid.
fatih2506 3 days ago
Evolution is proven by ALL of biology, to dispute evolution is to dispute Biology
Darkfoxx999 5 days ago
Comment removed
1sl4mSh1t 5 days ago
@Darkfoxx999
Has evolution stopped?
What changes is beginning to show in human beings that will turn them into a new and different specie in the future?
Why do humans from the hottest part of Africa can still mate with humans from the coldest part of America?
1sl4mSh1t 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They think with time a non-living thing can start to live, a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,
social behaviour and techniques of animals and insects are in the genes ! an the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did? evolved wings ! and the ability to fly !
throug random mutations and naturel selection, needless to speak about the evolution of plantes ...
YamiYami17 6 days ago
Excuse me? Any rational person dedicated to honest and objective inquiry would be compelled to reject, not accept, evolution (i.e. the Darwinian prediction).
RaizeMusic 1 week ago
@RaizeMusic Did you even look at the video?
Madpolis7 1 week ago
@Madpolis7 Yes I did. It is very humurous to see youtube users attempting to showcase transitional forms and a gradualistic evolutionary process when the fossil record is invariably incompatible with gradualism, and while scientists introduce theories such as "punctuated eqilibrium" which does not even allow for transitional forms to begin with. Evolutionary theory is a convoluted mess and is compromised largely of bad science. Which is why I made my inital statement.
RaizeMusic 1 week ago
@RaizeMusic ...and is *comprised largely of bad science.
RaizeMusic 1 week ago
@RaizeMusic
/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
Lying about the fossil record isn't an argument. Forming straw man of evolutionary theory isn't an argument either. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
TheZooCrew 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheZooCrew "Lying about the fossil record isn't an argument."
If you think I am lying, then you just do not know much of the fossil record. I do not feel inclined to engage with those who cling to misinformation and who misrepresent the evidence.
"You clearly don't know what you're talking about."
Know how to do anything but blow hot air? I do not make use of straw men whatsoever. You being uninformed does not equate with me being dishonest.
RaizeMusic 6 days ago
A few gaps in the fossil record disproves evolution? For which animal, sir? Human evolution hasn't been 100% mapped, but there are plenty of other animals with a completed (to some degree) evolutionary tree. Are you seriously saying that creationism has more empirical evidence?
Madpolis7 6 days ago
@Madpolis7 "Are you seriously saying that creationism has more empirical evidence?"
No, where do you get that idea from? Let me guess, rejecting the Darwinian prediction automatically makes you a Hovind crony?
"A few gaps in the fossil record disproves evolution?"
Just by you saying "a few" proves you have not a clue of what the fossil record really consists of.
RaizeMusic 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RaizeMusic There isn't much else you can believe in if you reject evolution... You could believe in an alternate process of evolution but you also reject the fossil record for some reason.
"Just by you saying "a few" proves you have not a clue of what the fossil record really consists of."
Okay you Still haven't answered my question. You could be talking about any animal right now, there are animals with nearly completed records.
Madpolis7 3 days ago
@RaizeMusic Good point! There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record or any record. If evolution based on gradualism was true, then we should observe transitional features not only in fossils, but also in living organisms. This would lead to everything being in transition. However, this is not what is observed. What is observed are typological forms where biological variation takes place, but change is always circumscribed by the boundaries of the type (or kind).
TheHistoryguy10 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHistoryguy10 "but change is always circumscribed by the boundaries of the type (or kind)."
Meaning nature does not nor did ever intend to produce amphibians from fish, birds from dinosaurs, or whales from pakicetus.
RaizeMusic 5 days ago
@TheHistoryguy10
"There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record or any record. "
ANOTHER blatant lie.
/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
"change is always circumscribed by the boundaries of the type (or kind)."
STILL MORE lies. We've observed single-celled organisms transition into multicellular organisms.
Of course it doesn't matter what resources I post...you'll just pretend they don't exist.
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
The similarity is because they have the same designer >>>??
You are looking at so call evidence with a pre conceive ideal.
aurelama1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Theory of evolution as in (How have we got here and how it started?) is exactly what it is (A Religion) . It starts with a prophet (Darwin) and all his followers now look for (evidence) to support his PROFECY. Real science makes a conclusion after the evidence has been establish. These are some of evolutionary gods: Billions year’s ego (long time ego). Big bang. Everything evolves from one cell. Perhaps. One could conclude. would suggest etc....Darwin is a saint Just like Buda, Jesus...
aurelama1 1 week ago
Just to say, at 4:21, with the comparative anatomy, you have a man's arm, a horse's leg, a correction from bird wing to bat wing, and a cow leg. Except it's not a cow limb, it's clearly from a digitigrade animal, some sort of canine or feline I would assume. Just saying :)
kurayamisidekick 2 weeks ago
Why do evolutionists even bother trying to prove evolution if it is considered "proven" by all the scientists? Why keep beating us over the head with "proofs" if it is already supposedly proven? For example, how many mathematicians try to prove 2 + 2 = 4? None, since it is an axiom. Evolution is far from proven and is not an axiom. In fact, evolution is the biggest lie in the history of science, which is why everyone is trying so desperately to defend it and prove it.
BachScholar 2 weeks ago
@BachScholar 'Evolutionists' would stop trying to prove evolution the moment creationists would stop trying to disprove it and implement creationism in schools. The reason scientists still try to beat people over the head with evidence for evolution is because people (like you I suppose) still don't get it.
kurayamisidekick 2 weeks ago
@kurayamisidekick I don't diagree with the sentiment of your post, but actually "evolutionists" (biologists, geneticists, palaeontologists, etc.) come up with new ways (hypotheses) to disprove evolution everyday. And then they test these hypotheses. And fail to disprove evolution. This is how we know evolution is true, because despite all the efforts to disprove it, by people much more competent at this than creationists, all we find is evidence that supports evolution.
Turgor 2 weeks ago
@Turgor I'm sorry, I completely agree, of course. I'm just not sure BachScholar would see it in that light. I meant proving as in showing to the general public. I also dislike the term 'evolutionists', but that was his choice of vocab, not mine.
BTW I'm studying in biochemistry, so don't worry, I know how science works ;)
kurayamisidekick 2 weeks ago
@kurayamisidekick ya 'evolutionists' bugs me too!
we don't often refer to them as religionists, or people who accept the existence of stars as astronomists. It's part of how they keep telling themselves that we accept things dogmatically too
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 week ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I completely agree. For some reason, many theists are unable or unwilling that some people don't take things (like science) on blind faith. They try to equate science with religion (atheism also for some reason), and then try to propose their religion as better.
I find it tiresome and annoying to have to deal with the same thing again and again.
kurayamisidekick 1 week ago
@kurayamisidekick I debated with myself about reacting to this, because we (most likely) don't disagree about modern evolutionary theory. But I think the "dumbing down" of how science works by saying something has been proven is working actively against a goal I assume we have in common: greater understanding and acceptance of this modern theory that is a synthesis of Darwin's original ideas and all the work done in the 150 years after that, with genetics as arguably the greatest influencer.
Turgor 1 week ago
@kurayamisidekick I think a lot of people reading comments here on youtube are not only capable of understanding roughly how scientists go about research, but are greatly appreciative of it when expressed in a clear way. I myself can be obtuse at some times, but I hope I can help others be more clear about their message and hope others will do the same for me. That's why I think it's important to not dumb down too much how it is that we know, provisionally, the ToE to be correct.
Turgor 1 week ago
@kurayamisidekick ETA: I think using language like "to prove evolution" is working against understanding of what scientist do by implying there's some absolute truth to be accepted or denied. This is simply not what science is about, it is about constantly modifying what we think is true to align as closely as possible to what we observe. It is a great strength that I think is undervalued and needs more attention from the general public.
Turgor 1 week ago
@Turgor I agree with you again. I was thinking mostly of the original poster when I wrote the reply, not of the people who could possibly be reading my comments. I doubt the OP will change his mind now no matter what I say or do, and I acted as such.
However, in the interest of propagating better understanding of science, I should have made an 'example' of him, shown how science works, etc etc. The truth is I was too lazy to be bothered doing it for someone who doesn't want to get it.
kurayamisidekick 1 week ago
@kurayamisidekick Yeah fair enough, you're not going to sway the OP with carefully worded statements. That's why I either jump on the ridiculing train or write longwinded replies for the benefit of people that might appreciate it ;)
Turgor 1 week ago
@Turgor Why not do both at the same time? :p
kurayamisidekick 1 week ago
@BachScholar
Just because we know something happens doesn't mean we fully understand everything about it. If you finished middle school, you would be aware of this.
Your entire post is a straw man.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@BachScholar "Why do evolutionists even bother trying to prove evolution if it is considered "proven" by all the scientists?"
Because there are still millions of retarded people running around who think that evolution is not proven. Millions of retarded people who are allowed to vote.
TomFynn 1 week ago 2
@TomFynn
Since evolution is true, there must be human races that are inferior.
There must be human races that are fit to be slaves only.
There must be races that are fit to be exterminated because they only cause trouble and destruction of the Earth.
How perfect the world will be if Atheists rule.
I'd rather be called stupid than be ruled by godless people.
1sl4mSh1t 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1sl4mSh1t "Since evolution is true, there must be human races that are inferior." Aaand another godbotherer who has no idea what evolution actually *is*. Go away and educate yourself.
TomFynn 5 days ago
@1sl4mSh1t
"Since evolution is true, there must be human races that are inferior."
Straw man. Just because you're a depraved lunatic doesn't mean all people are.
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
I don't waste my time or energy debating creationists for the same reason I don't debate someone who thinks the Moon is made of cheese. It's like a Monkey fucking a football. It's kinda funny at first but after a while it's just sad that the Monkey has no idea what he's doing. In the end, nothing is going to come of it and your football is covered in Monkey jizz.
paramattic70 2 weeks ago
But the commodore 64 and the compaq presario CQ57 doesn't have transitional fossils
therefore: aliens
OppositionDept 3 weeks ago
he makes a flaw, carbon dating only says how long ago a living thing died, with a max of 100'000 years. it can't say when it was planted, only when it died. but both methods can be used to together to determine how old the remains are and how old the tree was before it died.
AtheistScientific 3 weeks ago
Evolution is obvious and no surprise to anybody--things change...no shit!!! My favorite is when pitiful, biased, wishful, cocky, scientists spout out how things look the same so that disproves creation. Creation and evolution are 2 different things. All the proof for evolution is also proof that the force that is responsible for the beginning and end of all other forces implemented the rules of the universe in a way that is designed for things to evolve.
McGavel 3 weeks ago
@McGavel
" My favorite is when pitiful, biased, wishful, cocky, scientists spout out how things look the same so that disproves creation."
No scientist does this. Why do you need to build such terrible straw men? Also, why are you deliberately using a much different definition of creationism than what scientists talk about?
"All the proof for evolution...designed for things to evolve."
No, it is not.
TheZooCrew 3 weeks ago
@McGavel No
OppositionDept 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if evolution exists...creationists must be a part of it.
motionapplied 3 weeks ago
watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=related List of scientists who reject evolution.
Now can we get back to working together to find the answer, or will attacks continue to prevent progress. There are brilliant minds on both sides of this argument.
clubadv 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheZooCrew 3 weeks ago
@clubadv
It might also be useful for you to ask your PhD creation scientist friend what percentage of scientists disagree with the notion of man's descent by common ancestory to the great apes? I think you will find that (outside of churches and mosks), there is NO debate.
Roj0307 3 weeks ago
Every scientist? I have a friend who is a PHD in genetics working on intelligent mutation of DNA to prevent mosquitoes from carrying malaria. This PHD (Allysa Jimenez) would say that DNA's digital quadrinary error correcting code could not have evolved by undirected natural causes. That the "designer" is intrinsic. She extends that to dozens of "machines" in the cell she works with in the lab. Plenty of Creationist scientists in mainstream.
clubadv 3 weeks ago
@clubadv
please cite a peer reviewed paper on ID
pinball1970 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@clubadv
I call bullshit.
/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
" This PHD (Allysa Jimenez) would say that DNA's digital quadrinary error correcting code could not have evolved by undirected natural causes."
She would be lying. Your argument from authority is nothing more than that. Evolution is undirected, but it is IS deterministic.
TheZooCrew 3 weeks ago
@clubadv
Hi.
As your scientist friend herself doesn't believe in evolution, ask her what alternative scientific theory she supports?
Does, by chance, it invoke magic and the supernatural?
Roj0307 3 weeks ago
Phenomenal video. Thanks for uploading!
tcozz12 4 weeks ago
great little video. i hope a lot of children get to see it in school.
see you two dumbasses arguing about that insane Turkish lunatic. He was PROVEN guilty in a court of law , he sends his evil full of lies book to the '100 most dangerous evolutionary geneticists on the planet' , and yes i have seen the dirty disgraceful lies spouted in that book, evil to me is teaching children lies............ goodnight vienna
iwasgozz 4 weeks ago
evolutionist make up the supposed course of human evolution itself. Such fictitious concepts as the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age are an important part of the evolutionist chronology. Since this imaginary picture is presented in schools and in television and newspaper stories, most people accept this imaginary picture without question and imagine that human beings once lived in an era when only primitive stone tools were used and technology was unknown.
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
I have a feeling many of the theists here didn't actually watch the video
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
So, what exactly were you thinking when you became a Christian? Following Jesus is not for the faint of heart. Following Jesus is a journey filled with hardship and challenge, but the rewards. O the rewards are so worth it. Just as Jesus endured the cross because of the joy set before Him, so too can we run the race with our eyes on the prize knowing that in the end our trials will seem small in comparison to the rewards we receive.
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
Jesus said that before we become Christians we’d better give it some serious thought because “Anyone who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit to be called my disciple.”
No, God doesn’t promise some kind of supernatural protection from tragedy. What He does offer however is a supernatural ability to use tragedy for good. With eyes wide open and our chest bared to the blast Jesus makes us the kind of people who take hold of His hand and step boldly into the storms of life.
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
“No, God doesn’t promise some kind of supernatural protection from tragedy. What He does offer however” Etc.
“So, what exactly were you thinking when you became a Christian? Following Jesus is not for the faint of heart” Etc
I see you’re back to cutting and pasting from one of your old favorites Makarios’s blog. You dishonest prick. Why are you creationists such a bunch of liars? Doesn’t your stupid book have something to say about bearing false witness?
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
Perhaps I was not clear so I will ask again
Do you reject Jesus Christ and His teaching?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
“Do you reject Jesus Christ and His teaching?”
The only reason you are a Christian is by accident of where and when you were born. If you’d been born in the Middle East you’d be bleating on about Islam. So given your belief is based on the serendipity of your birthplace how do you know you’re backing the right horse.
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
The only reason you are a Christian is by accident of where and when you were born.
another false assumption but you
I was raised by atheists and did not accept Jesus Christ until i was 25 year old
You were raised in America by Christians and yet reject what your parents taught you
If we used your assumption then you should be a Christian and I should be a atheist,LOL
you did grow up with a religion you know reject did you not?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
Why did you turn to Christianity and not a different religion?
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew
I follow no religion but have a personal relatioship with Christ
Why do you reject Jesus and fight against only Christians?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
I don't. Creationists =/= Christians.
You didn't answer my question. Why Jesus?
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew
What is a Creationist
Don't Creationist believe things Christians don't
Don't some Christions believe in evolution as I do?
I follow Jesus because he lives
Who do you reject Jesus?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
That still wasn't an answer. Can you read English?
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew
You asked why Jesus and i said because He is alive and since He lives I can have a personal relationship with Him You can too
Why do you reject Jesus
Also what about my question about Christians that don't accept Creationism as you define it?
What about Creationist who are not Christians?
Why don't you answer my question?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"Why don't you answer my question?"
You didn't answer mine. My question was: why Jesus over any other deity? Your "answer" doesn't answer that question.
Most creationists are not Christian. There are many more Hindu and Muslim creationists. In the US, Christian creationists merely have the most influence.
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stewpotb62
given your belief is based on the serendipity of your birthplace how do you know you’re backing the right horse
you were raised in a church and yet reject Jesus now
What happened to make you reject Jesus
Did you reject Jesus because of the abused you experience at your church?
I found the only horse that is alive JESUS but thank you for keeping me on my toes
I studied eastern and west religions in College so I did not came to Christ by a serendipitous way
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@stewp
In the US, the number of non-religious people has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001.
This was the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms among all religious groups. So if people grew up in american as I did why are they not Christians?
Most atheists grew up in Christian homes like you did.
I grew up in a atheist
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"So if people grew up in american as I did why are they not Christians?"
Most are. We're just entering another Age of Enlightenment. Our education focuses on logic, reason and empiricism, just as it should. Young people are growing up much more aware of the Constitution and the influence that religion has worldwide, which is usually negative.
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew
So you agree with me that a person does not always take on the religion of his parents?
Also what about my question about Christians that don't accept Creationism as you define it?
What about Creationist who are not Christians?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"So you agree with me that a person does not always take on the religion of his parents?"
No. But usually they do, or at least take the most influential religion of the area.
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew
Yet I was raised by atheists
Also what about my question about Christians that don't accept Creationism as you define it?
What about Creationist who are not Christians?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
I would say that most educated Christians are not creationists. They realize that their faith doesn't have to conflict with reality. What creationists have in common is that they can't separate doctrine from deity...as in, they worship their holy books AS their gods even if they don't realize it.
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheZooCrew
Also what about my question about Christians that don't accept Creationism as you define it?
What about Creationist who are not Christians?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
“You were raised in America by Christians and yet reject what your parents taught you”
Another excellent bit of research. A simple glimpse at my home page will tell you I’m from the UK.
“Do you reject Jesus Christ and His teaching?”
Do you reject Odin, Thor Zues, Ra, Gaia, Shiva, Loki, and Hera?
When you work out why you reject these gods them you’ll understand why we reject your god.
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
Well let me rephase my comment
Were your parent atheists or did they take you to a christian church where you were abused
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stewpotb62
Well let me rephase my comment
Were your parent atheists or did they take you to a christian church where you were abused
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
Do you reject Odin, Thor Zues, Ra, Gaia, Shiva, Loki, and Hera?
your spelling is terrible BTW Zeus Not Zues LOL Jesus said he was the truth and the light and the life and none comes to god except by Him
Choosing Jesus means to reject all others by definition
Now I choose Jesus who do you choose?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
"Jesus said he was the truth and the light and the life and none comes to god except by Him"
Most deities in every other religion also say something to this effect.
I don't think you understand the question. Either that or you're intentionally dancing.
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
Darwinism is the only theory we have which claims to explain the origin of life and its diversity without involving God or the supernatural, and so is seen by many scientists as the only scientific theory of origins. Many scientists also believe that science is the only way we have of knowing anything, and finding truth. Therefore the only scientific theory of origins must be true, even if there is strong evidence against it. For atheists evolution is the only show in town.They have total faith
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
Are you going to transfer the entire truth in science web-site to this comment section? Do you have to pay them royalties?
“Hi smelly cat what are they feeding you LOL”
Ohh pithy put down. What are you six years old or something? Surely you can find a site of insults to cut and paste from. Don’t try and come up with your own insults. You don’t have the mental dexterity to pull it off. If brains were dynamite you’d barely have enough to part your hair.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@stewpotb62
Hi smelly cat what are they feeding you LOL”
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
. If brains were dynamite you’d barely have enough to part your hair.
why would dynamite be used to part hair?
This is the worst insult ever
my cat is an atheist like you as he lacks belief in God
of course my cat is not smelly like you so there is a difference LOL
Did you go to a religious school where they abused you.
I find that only those who were abused by some religious person become such militant atheists like you and your ilk
I will pray for your healing Mr cat
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
“I find that only those who were abused by some religious person become such militant atheists like you and your ilk”
I’m not against religion. I’m against fundamentalist fuckwits like you. I’m against people like you who spread lies. You know people claiming to have an IQ 0f 135.. I’m against dishonest people like you who pass off stuff they cut and paste from web-sites as their own words. Creationists like you that want to drag education back to the dark age
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
What can you tell me about the abused you suffered as a child to make you such a militnat atheist?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
“You seem to be against Jesus Christ and those that follow Him
Why do you reject Jesus Christ?”
I see we can add reading comprehension to your long list of failings. As I said I’m not against religion just fundamentalist / creationist liars like you. Most Christians I have met are affable friendly sorts. Not ignorant, dishonest, tantrum juveniles like you. Pricks like you recruiting sergeants for atheism.
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
THE 9th COMMANDMENT
Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
You are not very intelligent or you would know what bearing false witness means
Since you have a low IQ and a lack of education i am not surprised
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
do you even know what bearing false witness mean OR are you way too stupid?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
As I said I’m not against religion
I did not mention religion sir
I said why are you against Jesus Christ!
You know Jesus is not a religion don't you?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
As I said I’m not against religion just fundamentalist / creationist liars like you
you told three lies in your last comment
I am not a fundamentalist nor a creationist
I never lie
but I am a savage
You father will be pleased
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
“I never lie”
So passing another person’s words off as your own isn’t being dishonest. Cutting and pasting from web-sites and posting them as your own words isn’t lying? Repeating crap about Micro and Macro evolution after you have been corrected on it isn’t lying?
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
So passing another person’s words off as your own isn’t being dishonest
I made it very easy for people to know I was using a web site silly boy
Now will you admit you lied about me bearing false witness
or perhaps you want to admit you are ignorant and stupid and therefore don't know what bearing false witness even means
you have an opinion about evolution based on your world view
I don't share your world view but that does not make me a liar boy
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
“your spelling is terrible BTW Zeus Not Zues”
Given your past posts I wouldn’t crow about spelling mistakes (apart from the cutting and posting you do).
You still haven’t explained why Jesus over the thousands of other deities you could have chose from. And this isn’t an answer:
“Jesus said he was the truth and the light and the life and none comes to god except by Him”
All these other religious have holy books with as much evidence as for the bible.
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
All these other religious have holy books with as much evidence as for the bible.
you are ignorant and think the evidence is the same but that is just not true
I won't say you are lying because i know you are a true believer in your atheism
you reject all gods so you question make no sense
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
Given your past posts I wouldn't crow about spelling mistakes
I admit with English some words are difficult to spell words no matter one's intelligence
However there is spell check and misspelling a word like Zeus is a dumb ass thing to do
Just saying
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
Were your parent atheists or did they take you to a christian church
Do your parent know you reject the teaching of your youth
Are they praying for you now to return to faith in Jesus?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
“Were your parent atheists or did they take you to a christian church
Do your parent know you reject the teaching of your youth
Are they praying for you now to return to faith in Jesus?”
So you ask a question in the first line (Christian has a capital letter and a questions require a question mark). Then in the next two lines you carry on as though you know the answer
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"So you ask a question in the first line (Christian has a capital letter and a questions require a mark"
you go through alot of trouble not to answer my questions my love
ok please forgive my errors and i will work harder to please you
Were your parent atheists or did they take you to a Christian church?
IF you were raised in a church by your parents, do they know you now reject Jesus Christ?
IF your parents are Christians do you think they would pray for you to return to God?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
"I made it very easy for people to know I was using a web site"
Doesn't change your attempt to pass it off as your own. You should have cited Makarios.
"you have an opinion about evolution based on your world view"
Well, no. "Worldview" means nothing to most of us. It's better to look at the world through uncolored, uncurved glasses.
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
I made it very easy for people to know I was using a web site silly boy
So the quote from your home page that starts:
“Luckily Wendy and I have been through this scenario many times,” Etc
Or the post you made on another video that prefixed a cut and paste comment with “my thoughts are”
Is making it clear that is cut and pasted. Liar
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
Luckily Wendy and I have been through this scenario many times,” Etc
there you go as i said I made it very clear by not changing the words at all
How long did it take you to know I posted the story from a web site?
one min? two?
many people post from wed sites on youtube without references
why are you being such a prig about this?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
“many people post from wed sites on youtube without references
why are you being such a prig about this?”
Because you are a liar. You have constantly passed off your cut and post crap as your own. To try and justify it with a pathetic comment like.
“I made it very easy for people to know I was using a web site silly boy”
Is also dishonest. Even when your dishonest practice was pointed out by me and others you continued to cut and paste.
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
I said i would make a effort so that you know when I am pasting so why are you still going on about it
You would think i stole you girlfriend or something
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
Faith in the work of Jesus, from top to bottom.
Faith in the work of Jesus , from first to last.
There is nothing that we can do or not do to merit salvation. Our bad actions will not cancel out our faith and our good actions will not add a single point to our faith. Our salvation is by God’s grace and that alone. All you have to do is accept it. It requires too much honesty and humility for an atheist, but it might not be too hard for you.
Posted by Thesauros
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
I’ll leave you to your cutting and pasting I’m off to bed
stewpotb62 4 weeks ago
@stewpotb62
good night sweet prince
Sleep well and don't let the bed bugs bites
soft kiss
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"Faith in the work of Jesus , from first to last"
That faith you have in jesus, is actually faith for the imagination of a group of people
vvv,jesusneverexisted,com
He was a reverberation of previous mythical characters and his character developed over about a 400 year period. He wasn't even written about until a few hundred years after he supposedly lived, which is suspicious coming from a region where documentation of actual events was thorough and common
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
The Old Testament was written before Jesus was ever born. The New Testament was written by the men who knew Jesus, who walked with Him, ate with Him, and learned from Him. In the O.T. there are prophecies concerning His birthplace, that He would be born of a virgin, that He would be rejected by His own people, that He would be betrayed by a close friend (Psalm 41:9), that He would die by having His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16-18), and that He would rise from the dead
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
"In the O.T. there are prophecies concerning His birthplace, that He would be born of a virgin, that He would be rejected by His own people, that He would be betrayed by a close friend (Psalm 41:9), that He would die by having His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16-18), and that He would rise from the dead"
All of these attributes exist in several other mythical figures that existed long before Jesus did.
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
you did not answer my question
Are you an atheist?
In the N.T. all these prophecies, and many more, are fulfilled by Jesus. Now, this is the question you must answer: "If the Bible is not inspired from God, then why does it have so many fulfilled prophecies?" How is that possible if the Bible were not from God?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"you did not answer my question
Are you an atheist?"
Seeing as how I can't disprove supernatural entities, no. Nor can I prove them, nor do I think there's any evidence for them besides the fact "shit exists." That would make me an agnostic leaning highly towards one side.
I can however look at religion and see how it's evolved from previous ideologies and anthropomorphic notions (such as christian bible saying God looks like a man) and conclude it's bullshit
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"In the N.T. all these prophecies, and many more, are fulfilled by Jesus"
Those prophecies are vague, ambiguous prophecies. Like, "In the future, people will stop believing in this, thus rendering it true!" <which is seriously a prophecy in the bible. It's an infallible prophecy
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@co
The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove the bible is inspired So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exist in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
Virgin birth, 12 disciples, salvation, resurrection are all repeated in other religions
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be true that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the OT
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
Off topic question: Do you agree God looks like a black man with supernatural powers?
If not, then you can't take everything the bible says as truth and you even must admit some of it is blatantly wrong.
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
Think about it... the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah.
Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
Do I agree God looks like a black man
Do you mean Jesus?
No one knows what Jesus looks like but we do know he was Jewish
and you must admit some of it is blatantly wrong.
only athiest make these kinds of statements and have NEVER been able to back up what they say with evidence much less proof.
You are making assertions without a lick of evidence and therefore they are merely youe opinions .Why should anyone believe your opinions??
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"Do I agree God looks like a black man
Do you mean Jesus?"
No, not Jesus, GOD/YAHWEH/Whatever you call him. In the bible it says he looks like man. Since the first homo sapiens walking/"created" on earth were black, this means God looks like a black male human.
Do you agree with this, or do you deny what the bible says?
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
Where in the bible does it say God is not spirit
Are you a black man?
What kind of atheist are you strong weak?
You keep making assertions without any evidecne
please support you opinions with evidence!
God is Spirit and not a man
I have read the 66 books of the bible and I can tell you it never says God looks like man
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
I'm not black, nor do I bring this up because of racism. I bring it up to show you how the bible has origins in human imagination. Everywhere you look in these times, humans have thought of ourselves as God-like, and so most deities are made to look humanoid. This anthropomorphic view is shown in the bible when genesis says man (adam in hebrew) was made in God's appearance (image in hebrew, unambiguous terminology), and jesus/angels/disciples also look human
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
In the image of God does not mean physical form since God is spirit and not flesh
Other religion make gods in their own image but the 66 books of the bible don't do this
are you an atheist?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"In the image of God does not mean physical form since God is spirit and not flesh"
In English, you're right. In hebrew, the "image" word is used to describe only physical appearance. Whenever its used it is to say something looks like another thing. It is very unambiguous and not open to interpretation. The bible writers thought ourselves as Godly, so they could only imagine a God like ourselves. God was thought of as a human-like entity and with a personality
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
we are not created in the physical image of God, because Judaism always maintains that God is incorporeal and has no physical appearance. Rambam points out that the Hebrew words translated as "image" and "likeness" in Gen. 1:27 do not refer to the physical form . The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Psalm 73:20, "you will despise their image ." You despise a person's nature and not a person's physical appearance
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
No, tzellem means image, tzel means essense.
Tzellem always refers to apperance
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"No one knows what Jesus looks like but we do know he was Jewish"
Since God personally impregnated Mary, and since God is evidently a black man, this shows us that Jesus was a mulatto. Half black, half middle eastern
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
God is evidently a black man,
Why do you think God is a black man?
Did you start you own black man religion
The bible never says such a thing you crazy man?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"Why do you think God is a black man?"
See below.
All artist depictions of God have, until recently, always shown God as an elderly white man. Now Christians don't think of him as anything because they realized how stupid it is to think humans require a creator because of our complexity, yet a God who looks like his own creations does not require one himself. This was not always the case, as I've already pointed out anthropomorphism in the bible.
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
All artist depictions of God have, until recently, always shown God as an elderly white man.
This is not evidence of what God looks like as these artist did not see God
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"This is not evidence of what God looks like as these artist did not see God "
No, but it shows us that most everyone at the time thought of ourselves as God like, and so they made God look like us. They not only depicted him as humanoid, but they also wrote of him as a humanoid in the bible (along with all the other supernatural figures)
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
No, but it shows us that most everyone at the time thought of ourselves as God like, and so they made God look like us.
The Hebrews never made pictures of God like other religions
God did not even say His name much less reveal His form
you don't know the bible at all by your comments
The Old Testament clearly stateed God is Spirit and NOT a man
show me where you get this crap from if not from you own ass.LOL
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
"
God did not even say His name much less reveal His form"
His name in Hebrew is Elohim (proper name), his image is like man.
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"The Old Testament clearly stateed God is Spirit and NOT a man"
Spirits can and were still thought of as having an appearance, just not a physical body.
This is typical of how people also thought of other humanoid God/deity figures.
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
Since God personally impregnated Mary
The holy spirit entered mary and not the seed of a man according to scripture my frend
Are you a black man?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"The holy spirit entered mary and not the seed of a man according to scripture my frend"
Anyone who understands biology knows it takes a Y chromosome to make a male human. What, you think Jesus was walking around with half a genome? Don't be irrational
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
Anyone who understands biology knows
that Virgins don't have babies dude LOL
do you believe the supernatural is possible?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"Anyone who understands biology knows
that Virgins don't have babies dude LOL"
Virgin just means without sex. So this shows us God artificially inseminated her. Either way, Jesus had half of God's genome
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
you know that Mary never had sex and was filled with the holy spirit
do you believe in the supernatural?
back the you error with God
What is it in our nature that is God-like? Rashi explains that we are like G-d in that we have the ability to understand and discern. Rambam elaborates that by using our intellect, we are able to perceive things without the use of our physical senses, an ability that makes us like God, who perceives without having physical senses.
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"you know that Mary never had sex and was filled with the holy spirit"
She was filled with something alright, but not through sex.
God has a genome, and Jesus was given half of it and the Y chromosome mixed with Mary's DNA
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
God has a genome
perhaps your god has a genome but the the God in the bible sir
Are you an atheist or do you preach your own religion?
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"What is it in our nature that is God-like?"
Intellect and perception was not the likeness people had in mind.
b'Tzelem Elohim means in physical appearance of God. Humans, unequivocally, thought humans were divine and appeared like God. Nearly every religion has divine/God figures with human features.
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
In Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that God formed (vayyitzer) man. The spelling of this word is unusual: it uses two consecutive Yods instead of the one you would expect. The rabbis inferred that these Yods stand for the word "yetzer," which means impulse, and the existence of two Yods here indicates that humanity was formed with two impulses: a good impulse (the yetzer tov) and an evil impulse (the yetzer ra).
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of God's law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. According to some views, it does not enter a person until his 13th birthday, when he becomes responsible for following the commandments.
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@confettibrains
The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
What God had in mind is stated in His word and the people have nothing to do with it
The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by God, and all things created by God are good. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, but it can lead you to steal food. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
"There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion"
Rape, adultery and incest? Oh my! Just like all of Adam and Eve's offspring!
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
So, now that you understand b'Tzelem (unambiguously) means image/appearance, and that b'Tzelem Elohim means in the image of God, and since the first humans were african/black, do you now agree that God's IMAGE is like a black man?
If not, then you don't take the bible seriously
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
scholars have speculated on the origin of the Jewish faith, the first monotheistic world religion. Where did the Jewish faith come from? Secular historians Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson say, the cultural and ethnic origin of the Israelites are difficult because the archaeological and biblical evidence have not been reconciled.
But this remains to be answered by the scholars, “Where did the Jews come from?” and “Who created this unique race, religion and language of Jews?”
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
The jewish faith came from sumer/mesopotamia.
The garden of Eden story in particular was stolen from Sumer
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
Can you imagine a few pagans coming up with the idea for circumcision as the ritual to gain membership! How many Canaanites would be standing in line to join this new religion? All male adults and children 8 days and older had to be circumcised. This new found religion would need to become a race of people and they would establish their own particular language in only a few centuries! The idea that Judaism springs from paganism appears insane,
you are preaching your own gospel
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002
Circumcision does not create a new race, lol.
Circumcision was also practiced by the ancient egyptians. Perhaps that's where they stole the idea from?
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
@confett
perhaps perhap
you are attempting to operate out of your field of expertise when discussing the “God question.” Atheists often claim that God is a “crutch” for those that can’t handle life’s difficulties. Some atheists such as Richard Dawkins suggest that God is an immoral myth created by mentally disturbed people. Atheists deny the existence of a metaphysical realm a priori and that assertion results in their inability to rationally discuss the God-subject
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
you reject the supernatural don't U?
When atheists proclaim that science alone is the final arbiter of truth, that science alone is the only methodology of understanding, they are in fact making a declaration of faith. In so doing they have offered a “do as I say and not as I do”approach because while telling people to take nothing on faith but always defer to empirical evidence, i.e. scientific methods, they have themselves succumbed to accepting the scientific method by faith.
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
"that science alone is the only methodology of understanding"
No. The method used to understand the universe is typically mathematical. I think there are verses beyond our universe and other dimensions, but I think this not on faith but because the mathematics show it to be 100% possible. I also believe Occam's razor is accurate, so the implications surrounding a God is infinite or quite near it, whereas mathematical/scientific models are much more sound
confettibrains 4 weeks ago
Christopher Hitchens is oblivious to his predicament and says, “If one must have faith in order to believe something, then the likelihood of that something having any truth or value is considerably diminished.”Of course this statement is self-refuting because there is no empirical evidence to prove this statement is true. Hitchens thus becomes victim to the very thing he roundly criticizes in Christian theists, namely presupposition.
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago
A more obvious atheistic presuppositional bias is provided by Lewontin who says,We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment – a commitment to materialism ., for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
many retarded notions
mrlucky1232002 4 weeks ago