@AthenianBaseball I merely point out that morals are indeed subjective. Despite the fact that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, the majority of people think homosexuality is OK. Lev 20:13
And you will find that the God of the Bible does not condone war. Lev 19:18, Rom 12:19
Christians are instructed by Christ to love our enemies Matt 5:44. NOT kill them.
There must be a set of objective rules or truths. Otherwise nothing is true and depends on the observer's opinion
AthenianBaseball is right. djyotta, you need to read whith Critical thinking...
[Ps] It is more logically to stop a few infected people then to let millions become infected and die. This might seem drastic to you, but it is common logic. Anyways, again think of the reasons why the "war" is happening, and realise "who" is depicting what. You'll find there is a great difference between hate and murder and this is proven again and again through-out the Bible.
@AcoworkerPK I agree there is a difference between 'manslaughter', 'murder' and 'war' but Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 shows that God does not condone war. Yes, in the Old Testament God worked his hands in Israel's wars, but that was before the New Testament was given which taught Israelites that they were to now 'love there enemies' and 'show greater love for one another'(Luke 6:27 John 13:34). A 'Christian' who goes to war has missunderstood the Gospel to his/her detrement.
@djyotta I mean, I guess. I believe in pixies. That is where I get my morals from, and I don't want you to question it. In fact, I will get it taught in schools that pixie farts hold the universe together. This is because it is the one universal truth; it comes from pixies.
@UltimaXG2 Ok, but did your pixies leave a book that proves their existance? Anyway, your comment seems to address some other issue: ie, whether ID should be taught in schools. I'm merely explaining that morals are subjective. Not quite sure what you're trying to say... you seem to be in agreement?
@djyotta Yes, they did, but you're too closed-minded to trust in the pixies. And, yes, morals are subjective. It's nice to see other people who understand this. I am agreeing with you on that.
@UltimaXG2 I'd rather be 'close-minded' than be willing to believe in anything without proof. Though I don't think close-minded is the right description. You can be open-minded (ie, willing to accept a belief) but still require complete proof. I'll accept the theory of evolution as fact if anyone can show me: A. video footage of this 'historic' process, or B. fossils of the in-between species, or C. replicate the process in a lab invironment. Surely this is not too much to ask?
@UltimaXG2 Well I should would like to have a look at B and C then. Got any links? Or is this just hot air. In the little research I've done it seems as though the fossil record does not actually show a gradual evolutionary process. Maybe you found something I didn't....?
@UltimaXG2 Actually 'intermediate' species are around all over the place depending on what two species you're comparing. What we haven't seen is an 'intermediate' (NOT transitional - this is completely different) species that can mate and produce unsterilized offspring with their closest relative. And despite the many 'intermediate' fossils there is not enough evidence to suggest that they are not in fact simply a completely different species. If you look at the facts with no bias...
@UltimaXG2 "Transitional" can be used for those forms that do not have a significant number of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words, a transitional organism is morphologically close to the actual common ancestor it shares with its more derived relative. "Intermediate" can be used for those forms that do have a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative.
@UltimaXG2 I may not have wasted my time studying evolution at high school, but at least I didn't get brainwashed. I've chosen instead to educate myself on factual sciences like mathematics and physics rather than philosophical garbage based on conjectures and ill-tested theories. Mathematicians can do what Evolutionists can not: provide complete and refutable proof.
@djyotta Math is not science, it is completely abstract. It can be applied to the material world, but is not itself material. No scientific fact can be "absolutely" proved-- but some things are so well documented with real phsycial observations and testing that they are universally accepted: the orbits of planets, the movements of continents, the evolution of life, etc.
@eatmylogic Math is not entirely abstract as the very existance of the universe requires the existance of mathematics as we know it. Also, the thought that evolution is 'well documented' is a laugh. How did the the first egg-laying creature come about? It would have to evolve this reproductive system in it's life time if it never used to lay eggs. As micro-organisms do not lay eggs, we may assume that egg-laying was achieved through evolutionary means. Seems a bit far fetched to me..
@UltimaXG2 is completely right.. and he isn't even hitting the Xbilllion problems between. Gradual process of evolution would produce billions of "transitional" stages between two "Whole species". Adaption is obvious and accepted, maybe you didn't realise this... there is a huge difference.
Society has portrayed morality as this sort of void where solid truth is no where to be found. The 'reality' of 'morality' is that 'morality' is a 'reality'. It is something that can be logically identified and subsequently accepted.
@FightingFitKravMaga "it must be composed of atoms, it must be material" I disagree with that. Just because I do not believe in spiritual matters does not mean I do not believe in ideas. I don't have to see a thought to believe that I can have one.
"because I don't hold that everything has to be material."
I don't either. The difference between you and me as that you blindly assume that the immaterial exists and alter your actions based upon that assumption. That is not logical.
@FightingFitKravMaga "you are a materialist" I took this from the societal standpoint, not the literal one, aka without morals acting only for material pleasure. It was my misunderstanding.
@FightingFitKravMaga "compartmentalize me or any other Christian with all other "religious" people" Why? You are a spiritualist are you not? That is all I need to know in order to compartmentalize you in the way I did.
"by doing so expect to falsify them"
That was in no way my goal.
I do not believe I've disrespected you in anyway. You may have taken my 'elitist' stance as being that, but mind you that wasn't intentional. It's just I'm tired of youtube debates where I'm never on the defensive.
@FightingFitKravMaga Being atheist doesn't make you a materialist. Typical religious assumption, that without a god to follow man cannot withhold his own set of morals.
"Is logic not immaterial? What then is your reason for appealing to it, if it is not material and therefore does not even exist?"
Is God not immaterial? What then is your reason for appealing to it, if it is not material and therefore does not even exist?
On your train of thought ^ (either way both are incorrect assumptions)
@RemBot2000 Do you believe there is anything outside of the 4 dimensions you are able to percieve? Anything other than the effects of energy on matter within lenth, height, depth, and time? A "spiritual" realm? I suppose if you believe in a "spiritual realm" but not a "god" then you can be atheist & not a materialist. But if you only hold to materialism then the very word "morals" holds no transcendant meaning past your own subjective & often times wavering standards of them.
@RemBot2000 Wrong. My basis is that morals aren't absolute if they fluctuate within different time periods & cultures. They are only objective to those who adhere to them during that time & space. Therefore morals are SUBJECTIVE by definition as I explained earlier. I'm not cursing you like God. I'm rationally arguing about your comment. Morality cannot be objective if it is not absolutely universal. Simply stating you "believe otherwise" is not a logical argument. Sorry.
If you don't mind me asking...show me please a time in known history when murder, for example, was morally and intrinsically acceptable. If your quest is for the truth, you'll find there never was such a time it and only comes to prove there is such a thing as absolute morals. Notions such as good and evil, wrong or right have always been here with us. When a mom would see her child killed no matter the reasons or the time, she'd always feel such thing is wrong. Can you deny this?
Your example is irrelevant as it was applicable only to a certain location in a certain time. What we are talking about here is not having sex with children, which in itself is immoral, but we are talking about intrinsically absolute and universal truths, not distorted practices that were agreed upon by a limited group of people. So again, you're example is irrelevant.
@RemBot2000 No. The comment was not intended to hurt you emotionally or physically. Now it's confirmed to me that you have no idea what it was that I was proposing. Clearly, it doesn't matter. You didn't understand my point in the first place, so I won't even bother explaining it to you. Have a nice day. ^_^
@SylphViper And here I went through all the trouble of finding the exact type of fallacy you were using. I knew it was just from reading it, I just had to identify it in order to make a reply more specific than "This argument is invalid based upon a failure in reasoning".
Let's put it this way.
A = DNA
B = supercomputer
C = work of god
Your argument is: A > B, therefore A = C
Last time I checked that's not how variables interconnect.
@RemBot2000 That's not a fallacy. That's common sense. Design does not arise from nothing. That is fact. This is irrefutable. To say that the human body lacks design is tantamount to calling yourself an idiot.
@SylphViper The best part about this is you're not even willing to examine the situation objectively. I love this. I really do. People like you make my life worth living. I have nothing to say to a wall.
@RemBot2000 It's a good thing that you aren't talking to a wall, because then you wouldn't have anyone to present logical facts in place of fictional delusions.
@SylphViper Totally. You might want to reread what you stated first though. No wait, you did, but you still didn't get it. Either way it's fine. I don't care enough to pursue this conversation any further. Sorry for wasting your time and my own.
The planet is not fine tuned for us, we are fined tuned fto IT. We grew out of the earth, we are part of it. It is only natural that all our characteristics are determined by what can survive under earthly conditions. The early earth just happened to fall wihin the range of chemistry where moecules can replicate, and from there they grew more complex in sync with their environment. Believing a god had to do it is as primitive as thinking lightning must be Zeus' thunderbolts.
@SylphViper When computers are found to develop and evolve in the natural world, I might believe that some sort of "god" designed them-- but they are not. Those who claim that natural forms like stars, planets and organisms are designed for a purpose, that there is any personal intelligence directing them, are only trying to manipulate people the way the Wizard fooled the residents of OZ. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
@HPoelzig Now you're just spouting lies. Because computers do NOT randomly sprout up in nature. Were it so, then an organism could simply be built in a laboratory like Frankenstein. Life does NOT COME FROM NON-LIFE. EVER. If it did, it would be scientific, and could be REPRODUCED. It would seem that YOU are the one who's been brainwashed by this "Man behind the curtain." Evolution is not science. It's a joke. And every mathematician that has half a brain agrees with that.
@SylphViper Obviously life had to have come from non-life-- the only alternative is that life is eternal. Name one mathematician in the math dept. of any major university who is anti-evolution. Just becaue the transition from non-living to living is rare or only happens under certain conditions early in a planet's history doesn't mean it NEVER happens. We already understand a lot of the chemical processes involved in the formation of life. Hint: the gods have nothing to do with it.
@HPoelzig Obviously you aren't thinking straight. HOW can life come from non-life? Where in ANY science book is the process of spontaneous generation ever logically and scientifically explained? HOW does it happen?And if it DID, you NEED to prove that SUCH A PHENOMENON CAN ACTUALLY OCCUR. It's called the scientific method. There is NO such event EVER successfully "recreated" within a laboratory. Therefore, it is not science, but rather a bunch of well fabricated lies with no evidence whatsoever.
@HPoelzig Johannes Kepler, 1571 to 1630. Rene Descartes 1596-1650. Isaac Newton, 1642-1727. Gregor Mendel, 1822-1884. Albert Einstein, 1879-1955. I can keep going until my hands drop off. >.>
@SylphViper Eienstein was an atheist, like most physicists since the 20th century. The rest in your list were born in an era so dominated by the Christian religion that no one would dare go against it publicly for fear of arrest and prosecution for heresy.
@HPoelzig “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
“Before God we are all equally wise – and equally foolish.“
“I, in any case, am convinced [God] does not play dice.”
“The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.”
“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.”
@HPoelzig I'll also have you know that the Catholic church was the one doing the prosecuting. Newton was strongly against the teachings of the Catholic church, and instead derived his data from the true Bible, not the totally plagerized and screwed up Catholic version. He was more of a Puritan, if you can call him that. If anything, he was putting a target mark on his back for prosecution, so saying that he was being forced to believe in God is simply a joke.
@SylphViper Newton was also a staunch believer in the Medieval superstition of alchemy and bible numerology just like Rev. Camping, the preacher who predicted the Rapture last week. After Newton became a religious fanatic he never made another scientific discovery. Can you name any distinguished cosmologist or physicist in THIS century who believes in the supernatural? Or maybe within the last 100 years? No? I rest my case.
@HPoelzig Still, that's completely off topic.I haven't even mentioned the modern day mathematicians(the ones who have actually one awards and national recognition for brilliance).Oh, and Rev.Camping? Yeah. He's a liar.The very book he claims to know all about condemns his claims. He's a walking contradiction. Literally. Anyway, moving on. My point is that evolution is not mathematically sound. It's as simple as that. Were it scientific, it could be observed and tested. It cannot.
@SylphViper Then why is evolution taught as the very central idea of biology in every university on earth, in which there are also presumably, mathematicians? Could it be that you simply don't understand evolution OR math? Do you have a university education? The whole world can't be out of step except you.
@HPoelzig Excuse me, but we're not discussing circumstancialism here. We are discussing facts. And the fact is, there is no experiment that shows that life can come from non-life. And because there is no such experiment and never WILL be, we can safely believe that the theory of evolution is merely a joke, because that theory is directly linked to spontaneous generation, which is a lie as well.
Intelligence creates data. All that has data and information is born of intelligence. DNA is more complex that the world's most powerful supercomputer. And yet, evolutionists cannot admit that such incredible design requires a designer. Life can't come from non-life. When an evolutionist creates life from non-life within a laboratory enironment, I will believe that the theory of Evolution is no longer a theory. Until then, it's just un-scientific, not mathematically sound, and plain BS.
@SylphViper "DNA is more complex that the world's most powerful supercomputer. And yet, evolutionists cannot admit that such incredible design requires a designer."
This is referred to as the fallacy of composition.
@SylphViper You don't know what I said, yet you agree with it because it was beyond your understanding. You seem like a person who looks for the truth in things, I shouldn't doubt your opinions.
@RemBot2000 I know precisely what it was that you said. And in the case that you're too dense to figure it out for yourself, I'll just let you know now...I don't agree with what you said. At all.
@RemBot2000 Perhaps YOU should start using your emotions. Or, rather, that combined with logic. If you couldn't taste the sarcasm or the simple logic behind what I said, then it's fairly obvious that you still don't understand exactly what I was doing with this conversation. Please, sharpen your analytical skills. Just a little more. It shouldn't be too hard to figure this out.
@SylphViper Ah, I see now. Your first reply was sarcastic, well seeing how this is the internet the only way to ascertain sarcasm is by already having known the person and their views beforehand. Even if this is the case it still wouldn't have changed my reply because either way you didn't actually understand what I was referring to and how it relates to your initial comment in order to remove any supposed validity from it.
@Riste1986 Love didn't create planet Earth. Humans, and the emotions they feel grew out of the Earth, but don't pre-date it. Ultimately, all forms in the cosmos evolved from principles so fundamental and abstract that they cannot be described in human terms.
Dear thetruth3574 - This documentary says nothing about the Bible.
It is just a bunch of reputable people from the scientific community giving their perspective of the universe. I think they do a good job of presenting their views. Does mainstream thinking accept this? Well, mainstream thinking rejected Copernicus as well. Stay open to facts. Guard against emotional reaction.
@mikey7777766 QUOTE: "This documentary says nothing about the Bible."
That's becasue it is dishonest. From the overblown "inspirational" music to the manipulative Creationist cliches, the vid is clearly right-wing religious rhetoric. Creationism can't win an argument on its merits, it must resort to shell games like this.
Why haven't the makers of this video put their theories up for peer review? Why don’t any reputable scientists agree with them? Why is their no material evidence for any of this? If your bible is 100% accurate why does it think that bats are birds, stars can fall down, the moon is a light, the heavens are a solid roof over the Earth and the value of Pi is 3.0
This is not a science documentary. It is religious propaganda, marketed solely to a certain type of Protestant bumpkin who doesn't give a damn about science, but is hell-bent on the fantasy that his right-wing ideology will someday come to dominate the American body politic. It has the same logic behind it as a street corner shell game.
logic: How do u know that 1) this is not a sci doc? 2) rel prop? 3) marketed solely & not a mere example? 4) Protestant? 5) bumpkin? 6) doesn't care about sci? 7) a fantasy? 8) a street corner shell game is a proper illustration of its logic? Now u threw out a lot of canards & anyone can up & say things. But what is your LOGICAL proof of all that?
this planet isn't really suitable for human life when you think abut it. we only have 1 % of all the water that is usable, vast life that relies on one anothers balance to survive, and we are near the edge of death with ozone depletion, melting ice caps, and damaging our very life sources. We are lucky we have thrived.
Everybody knows there is a God. I don't know why we even argue this stuff. The people who say he doesn't exist are simply denying what they know deep down. Go ahead and shoot this comment down...you don't have to convince me...it's YOU that you have to convince! And judging by the comments I read on here, I see a lot of nervous and angry skeptics trying to defend their belief system.
@brdlyrck78 It's obvious that deep down you know that god is a myth, and are just trying to convince yourself that it is not just a fantasy inherited from your ancestors. By arguing here, you can set your doubts aside for a moment and play the true believer. I feel sorry for you having to live a lie, having to be careful not to admit to yourself that it is all pretend. No wonder you are so anxious and angry. It must be hard on you psychologically to be on the run from the truth all the time.
Haha, another failed attempt by jesus freaks to skew scientific discoveries so as to try and win over skeptics. I, for one, will not fall for this ruse. Religions have long been changing what they believe to better suit the knowledge of the masses. They have to keep changing so that they continue to seem right. Even in the bible, the facts are all wrong. The Universe was created in 7 days? Try billions of years. Genesis is full of inconsistencies, read it with understanding and you will see.
@VioletFlame137 Science: Ur Doing It (Terribly) Wrong! And again: Stop your spam in private messages and on comments. Also: please do us all a favor and start using your brains nature given ability of logical thinking.
100 billion stars in the Milky way. 100 Billion galaxies and these IDiots claim the "Privileged Planet"? Please, do they have some knowledge of the Universe that the rest of us don't have? We are only beginning to find other extrasolar planets so if ours is privileged or not can't be determined yet.
we may consider ourselves "privileged" in the sense that in all the years we hace had the ability to send signals & probes that reach beyond this planet, in all the missions that have taken man beyond our atmosphere. all the searching & painstaking hours of listening for the smallest sign that life, let alone intelligent life, exists anywhere 'near' us proven futile. this is not to say that life does not exist elsewhere, but it would make us privileged by definition 'round here.
The odds of getting a universe this perfect by chance are 1 and 1 trillion. Thats like filling the world with sand 1 trillion feet high covering earth, blindfolding a regular guy and giving him 1 and onley 1 chance to go out and find the grain of sand thats painted green without cheating. I think there was a guy that cheated, and he rules heaven and earth.
@dude33ism "The odds of getting a universe this perfect by chance are 1 and 1 trillion"
Excuse me, but this universe exists. Thus, the probability of a universe like ours existing is P=1. Your comments suggest you might do well with an education in science and mathematics.
At least turn on discovery channel or watch NOVA or SOMETHING before you say things like, "Just look at where the earth is positioned, and where the solar system is positioned it's just to perfect."
"suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that
5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that
6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive
"Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that...
@tkjaros "We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence, in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features"
If you must know, it's called the anthropic principle. WLC has been thoroughly and completely debunked with his fictional musings relating to this. The reason it looks fine-tuned to us, is that we are here as intelligent, sentient beings observing the universe in which we exist.
@tkjaros I do a lot of thinking about the anthropic principle, even though it is more philosophic than scientific. It's a very interesting topic - one which everyone should investigate. From Wiki: "Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life - to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, or saying that ships had been invented to house barnacles." Life has adapted to physics, not vice versa.
@drgoldteef What are you talking about? If I flip a coin and it lands heads, then by your argument that means the probability of it landing heads is 1, not 0.5! Just because it happened, does not mean the probability of it happening was a sure 100%.
And here you are telling others to educated themselves with science and mathematics. Here is some education for you: just because an unlikely event happens, does not mean it was likely to happen.
@calculus89 "Here is some education for you: just because an unlikely event happens, does not mean it was likely to happen."
Spoken as if you have some ethereal knowledge of how likely universe-formation is. How many sides does that coin have? How many times are you flipping and at what rate?
I say it's inevitable. You may say it's a miracle. One thing is for sure: If the universe hadn't formed, you wouldn't be here flipping your imaginary coins and pondering the outcome. But you are.
@drgoldteef Not my job. Even if it was, if mathematics could be proven so quickly and simply, what would the point of years worth of classes be?. Furthermore, since you seem to argue and reason without logic, that may not be useful for someone such as yourself.
@calculus89 "mathematics could be proven so quickly and simply"
A simple equation demonstrating the likelihood of universe formation! When you discover the value for n, let me know. I'll email the team at Berkeley working on M-theory. I'm sure you'll come up with it soon. Best of luck!
@drgoldteef What is wrong with you? Why are you unable to discuss the topic at hand? Get off your soapbox about proving the probability of the universe forming. I am talking about flipping a fair coin 1 time. By your argument, you say that no matter which side it lands on, the probability of that side showing is 1 because it happened! Let me reiterate since you are unable to comprehend. (next post)
@calculus89 " I am talking about flipping a fair coin 1 time... By your argument, you say that no matter which side it lands on, the probability of that side showing is 1 because it happened!"
This video is not about flipping a coin. I think you're on the wrong video. Try this one: /watch?v=uwuv-IWQKSk
I can't, in good conscience, forward this video to someone I care about, and have them read all the junk commentary from people bickering. This does the actual documentary a disservice. after this comment of mine, please take all the comments off so that I can effectively help someone with your video.
Why would a "blessed one" have to yell via Caplock? is a question. Anyway, my point was I didn't want the person that I wanted to have see this have to read all the distracting nonsense. It's ok, I found a way around it.
Perhaps they would put up a separate vid with no comments allowed other than this one.
@GuitarGare Mate that's a very immature comment to make, unless the people you care about are extremely weak minded and prone to accepting every view they read 100%?
Debating is a requisit of a healthy community who give thought to their surroundings and their place in the universe! What you seem to be talking about is a world where no one has any views other than the people who you'd like to have views, namely yourself and those affiliated with you.
Having said that though, I'm glad this is not explicitly a Creationist view. Seems they're just kicking back at the "insignificant dot" idea, saying the universe and life must have a purpose. That's at least more encompassing, and preferable to any religious dogma. Anyway, science doesn't say we're "insignificant", not in the slightest. Science is also about awe, joy and wonder. Creationists like to portray science as spiritless. Far from it.
@ytupld Umm.. science does say we are insignficant. It says there is no purpus for us in life, and that were all just an accident. Creationism says that there is a god that created us for a purpose and loves us very much. If we are an accident how come the universe is so perfectly desighned. Just look at where the earth is positioned, and where the solar system is positioned it's just to perfect.
I watched this and it's completely pointless. They say Earth and its inhabitants are in the *best* situation possible for observing the universe. Yet they present no evidence whatsoever that a better situation can't exist. They don't even raise the possibility. So basically if we lived on another planet, they'd say the same thing. Makes so sense.
@ytupld our planet is the exact size it needs to be, exactly where it need to be. our son is the exact size it need to be and the exact distance it needs to be.our moon is the same, and the other planets actually shelter us from comets. thats the amazing part, if any of these factors were abit different, conditions on this planet would be to much for us.
@iamdk007 There are billions of trillions of stars in our universe, and who knows how many planets...with such a huge universe, the odds are in our favor that at least one planet would have all its features perfectly "tweaked" for life...so Earth is a result of huge odds, not a result of special creation. Make sense?
@ytupld Pointless? They give ample evidence that within our own solar system, no other planet is in as good a position to observe. That doesn't seem pointless to me. And speaking as someone who accepts Creation, science isn't spiritless at all. In fact science is just one more mechanism through which God reveals Himself to those who are willing to see. Romans 1:19, 20 says He has revealed who He is through nature, but that most people are unwilling to see it.
The second law of thermodynamics states that, within an ISOLATED system, entropy will increase over time and the system will eventually reach a state of equilibrium. This...doesn't have much to do with the change of genetic material within a population.
Creationist don't understand 'systems'
Like they think all the planets should spin the same direction,
it's sad that this arguement is still going on. we were created by intelligent design as well as evolution. I can prove there's evolution, I had a baby. But what is a day to God? Time is only linear to us with our simple minds.
This intro was seriously impressive. What an incredible place we live in and what incredible mysteries still to discover. We are so small in this endless blackness; it seems really scary to think that, there is absolutely nothing else out there, with this idea in mind, It is very sad, the way we treat each other in this small world, its like a humongous dysfunctional family and ultimately the obvious: we are not so great after all & we are in really bad shape. we are lonely...
u are the second christian that replies to my comment lol brother i am trying to win souls to The Lord. I write like this because i want to have atheist friends. I am a believer =D
the other christian with his comment is scaring people away from God with his attitude.
At first we didnt do anything wrong but adam and eve messed up. But you know what is amazing God still loves us! And if you believe in him, you will have eternal life. So please get a bible it will change your life!!
I'm not doing it for him, I'm doing it for any honest person who reads these comments and might be swayed by his fanatical nonsense.
The awesome thing about being an atheist is I don't have to worry about my sadistic sky-daddy punishing me for my misdeeds. I have a fully formed conscience that does it just fine while I'm here.
This joker on the other hand has to deal with the consequences of his lies for all eternity.
lie: a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.
"The awesome thing about being an atheist is I don't have to worry about my sadistic sky-daddy punishing me for my misdeeds. I have a fully formed conscience that does it just fine while I'm here."
Of course. We all do. We feel guilty when we make mistakes. We "pay our penance" by working hard not to repeat the mistakes and if we've harmed any one else, making it up to them.
The difference is, my conscience can't torture me for all eternity. :)
@thisisanaccount100 .... well, if the consequence of guilt isn't manifested by working hard not to repeat the mistakes we've made, and is further made up to those we've harmed through something which you've yet to define, then what is guilt?.... and what are you saying?
Murder is accepted as morally acceptable by pretty much everyone.
It's called WAR.
Look it up in the Bible, and you'll see that any soldier is a Murderer. Just as is someone who feels hate towards another person...
There can only be one universal truth. And it comes from God.
djyotta 2 months ago in playlist The Privileged Planet
@djyotta The Bible does not define all circumstances of killing someone as murder, actually. Most clearly, war.
AthenianBaseball 2 months ago
@AthenianBaseball I merely point out that morals are indeed subjective. Despite the fact that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, the majority of people think homosexuality is OK. Lev 20:13
And you will find that the God of the Bible does not condone war. Lev 19:18, Rom 12:19
Christians are instructed by Christ to love our enemies Matt 5:44. NOT kill them.
There must be a set of objective rules or truths. Otherwise nothing is true and depends on the observer's opinion
djyotta 2 months ago
@AthenianBaseball
AthenianBaseball is right. djyotta, you need to read whith Critical thinking...
[Ps] It is more logically to stop a few infected people then to let millions become infected and die. This might seem drastic to you, but it is common logic. Anyways, again think of the reasons why the "war" is happening, and realise "who" is depicting what. You'll find there is a great difference between hate and murder and this is proven again and again through-out the Bible.
AcoworkerPK 3 weeks ago
@AcoworkerPK I agree there is a difference between 'manslaughter', 'murder' and 'war' but Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 shows that God does not condone war. Yes, in the Old Testament God worked his hands in Israel's wars, but that was before the New Testament was given which taught Israelites that they were to now 'love there enemies' and 'show greater love for one another'(Luke 6:27 John 13:34). A 'Christian' who goes to war has missunderstood the Gospel to his/her detrement.
djyotta 3 weeks ago
@djyotta I mean, I guess. I believe in pixies. That is where I get my morals from, and I don't want you to question it. In fact, I will get it taught in schools that pixie farts hold the universe together. This is because it is the one universal truth; it comes from pixies.
UltimaXG2 1 month ago
@UltimaXG2 Ok, but did your pixies leave a book that proves their existance? Anyway, your comment seems to address some other issue: ie, whether ID should be taught in schools. I'm merely explaining that morals are subjective. Not quite sure what you're trying to say... you seem to be in agreement?
djyotta 1 month ago
@djyotta Yes, they did, but you're too closed-minded to trust in the pixies. And, yes, morals are subjective. It's nice to see other people who understand this. I am agreeing with you on that.
UltimaXG2 1 month ago
@UltimaXG2 I'd rather be 'close-minded' than be willing to believe in anything without proof. Though I don't think close-minded is the right description. You can be open-minded (ie, willing to accept a belief) but still require complete proof. I'll accept the theory of evolution as fact if anyone can show me: A. video footage of this 'historic' process, or B. fossils of the in-between species, or C. replicate the process in a lab invironment. Surely this is not too much to ask?
djyotta 1 month ago
@djyotta B and C have already been done. A is impossible because you would need to hold a few million years of footage.
UltimaXG2 1 month ago
@UltimaXG2 Well I should would like to have a look at B and C then. Got any links? Or is this just hot air. In the little research I've done it seems as though the fossil record does not actually show a gradual evolutionary process. Maybe you found something I didn't....?
djyotta 1 month ago
@djyotta Yeah, hang on, lemme just google "list of transitional fossils" for you. Also, dog domestication is an application of C.
UltimaXG2 1 month ago
@UltimaXG2 Actually 'intermediate' species are around all over the place depending on what two species you're comparing. What we haven't seen is an 'intermediate' (NOT transitional - this is completely different) species that can mate and produce unsterilized offspring with their closest relative. And despite the many 'intermediate' fossils there is not enough evidence to suggest that they are not in fact simply a completely different species. If you look at the facts with no bias...
djyotta 1 month ago
@djyotta
>'intermediate' (NOT transitional - this is completely different)
Yeah, I'm not going to take anything you say seriously any more.
>If you look at the facts with no bias...
If you look at the facts with no education. Fixed that for you.
UltimaXG2 1 month ago
@UltimaXG2 "Transitional" can be used for those forms that do not have a significant number of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words, a transitional organism is morphologically close to the actual common ancestor it shares with its more derived relative. "Intermediate" can be used for those forms that do have a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative.
Gotta love that wiki...
djyotta 1 month ago
@UltimaXG2 I may not have wasted my time studying evolution at high school, but at least I didn't get brainwashed. I've chosen instead to educate myself on factual sciences like mathematics and physics rather than philosophical garbage based on conjectures and ill-tested theories. Mathematicians can do what Evolutionists can not: provide complete and refutable proof.
djyotta 1 month ago
@djyotta Yeah, I mean, I guess, if mapping genomes isn't really considered proof.
UltimaXG2 1 month ago
@djyotta Math is not science, it is completely abstract. It can be applied to the material world, but is not itself material. No scientific fact can be "absolutely" proved-- but some things are so well documented with real phsycial observations and testing that they are universally accepted: the orbits of planets, the movements of continents, the evolution of life, etc.
eatmylogic 3 weeks ago
@eatmylogic Math is not entirely abstract as the very existance of the universe requires the existance of mathematics as we know it. Also, the thought that evolution is 'well documented' is a laugh. How did the the first egg-laying creature come about? It would have to evolve this reproductive system in it's life time if it never used to lay eggs. As micro-organisms do not lay eggs, we may assume that egg-laying was achieved through evolutionary means. Seems a bit far fetched to me..
djyotta 3 weeks ago
@UltimaXG2
@UltimaXG2 is completely right.. and he isn't even hitting the Xbilllion problems between. Gradual process of evolution would produce billions of "transitional" stages between two "Whole species". Adaption is obvious and accepted, maybe you didn't realise this... there is a huge difference.
AcoworkerPK 3 weeks ago
we watched this in class it was pretty cool
silvibest 4 months ago
Science reveals God to the open minded. So don't worry, you're not alone.
peipappy1 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
djyotta 1 month ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gotyou123ful 5 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga "these actions are, in an evolutionary sense, foolishness of the highest and most laughable degree"
I agree entirely and it is that 'morality' that is slowly killing the human race.
"Sacrifice" is the act giving up something you value toward something you do not deem worthy. There is no logic in it. I do not make sacrifices.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga "But not only cannot anything be objective right or wrong in the atheistic"
See: "Objectivism".
"but there is not even an evolutionary explanation for human nature being morally oriented"
Oh but there is! It's man-kind's famous past-time known as "logic".
"Morality is what tells you to leap onto a grenade to save comrades, or to die under torturous interrogation to save them."
Hahah. The morality you speak of is the one portrayed by society. Not the CORRECT one.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga "Sums up the inconsistency of atheistic morality."
Society has portrayed morality as this sort of void where solid truth is no where to be found. The 'reality' of 'morality' is that 'morality' is a 'reality'. It is something that can be logically identified and subsequently accepted.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga "it must be composed of atoms, it must be material" I disagree with that. Just because I do not believe in spiritual matters does not mean I do not believe in ideas. I don't have to see a thought to believe that I can have one.
"because I don't hold that everything has to be material."
I don't either. The difference between you and me as that you blindly assume that the immaterial exists and alter your actions based upon that assumption. That is not logical.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga "you are a materialist" I took this from the societal standpoint, not the literal one, aka without morals acting only for material pleasure. It was my misunderstanding.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga "When did I tell you I was a materialist?" What?
"Of course immaterial things can exist"
"if it is not material and therefore does not even exist"
Self-contradiction. I think there might be a large whole in your argument. Just maybe.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga "compartmentalize me or any other Christian with all other "religious" people" Why? You are a spiritualist are you not? That is all I need to know in order to compartmentalize you in the way I did.
"by doing so expect to falsify them"
That was in no way my goal.
I do not believe I've disrespected you in anyway. You may have taken my 'elitist' stance as being that, but mind you that wasn't intentional. It's just I'm tired of youtube debates where I'm never on the defensive.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga Being atheist doesn't make you a materialist. Typical religious assumption, that without a god to follow man cannot withhold his own set of morals.
"Is logic not immaterial? What then is your reason for appealing to it, if it is not material and therefore does not even exist?"
Is God not immaterial? What then is your reason for appealing to it, if it is not material and therefore does not even exist?
On your train of thought ^ (either way both are incorrect assumptions)
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@RemBot2000 Do you believe there is anything outside of the 4 dimensions you are able to percieve? Anything other than the effects of energy on matter within lenth, height, depth, and time? A "spiritual" realm? I suppose if you believe in a "spiritual realm" but not a "god" then you can be atheist & not a materialist. But if you only hold to materialism then the very word "morals" holds no transcendant meaning past your own subjective & often times wavering standards of them.
violetember 8 months ago
@violetember Your basis is that morals cannot be objective. I believe otherwise. Curse me for being judgmental in a way only "God" can be.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@RemBot2000 Wrong. My basis is that morals aren't absolute if they fluctuate within different time periods & cultures. They are only objective to those who adhere to them during that time & space. Therefore morals are SUBJECTIVE by definition as I explained earlier. I'm not cursing you like God. I'm rationally arguing about your comment. Morality cannot be objective if it is not absolutely universal. Simply stating you "believe otherwise" is not a logical argument. Sorry.
violetember 5 months ago
@violetember Me: "Your basis is that morals cannot be objective."
You: "Wrong"
You: "morals are SUBJECTIVE"
How was I wrong again?
"Simply stating you "believe otherwise" is not a logical argument. Sorry."
I was not stating an argument you condescending prick, I was stating my opinion.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck about changing yours.
I've come to my conclusions using only my rational capacity. I don't subscribe to spiritual bullshit.
Care to learn? It might help. If not I don't give a fuck.
RemBot2000 5 months ago
@violetember,
If you don't mind me asking...show me please a time in known history when murder, for example, was morally and intrinsically acceptable. If your quest is for the truth, you'll find there never was such a time it and only comes to prove there is such a thing as absolute morals. Notions such as good and evil, wrong or right have always been here with us. When a mom would see her child killed no matter the reasons or the time, she'd always feel such thing is wrong. Can you deny this?
flotopo 2 months ago
@flotopo No, that is not the case. Today it is morally wrong to have sex with children but in Greek times it was moral.
Wiki search Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
3Zimmerer 2 months ago
@3Zimmerer,
Your example is irrelevant as it was applicable only to a certain location in a certain time. What we are talking about here is not having sex with children, which in itself is immoral, but we are talking about intrinsically absolute and universal truths, not distorted practices that were agreed upon by a limited group of people. So again, you're example is irrelevant.
flotopo 2 months ago
Comment removed
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@RemBot2000 No. The comment was not intended to hurt you emotionally or physically. Now it's confirmed to me that you have no idea what it was that I was proposing. Clearly, it doesn't matter. You didn't understand my point in the first place, so I won't even bother explaining it to you. Have a nice day. ^_^
SylphViper 9 months ago
@SylphViper And here I went through all the trouble of finding the exact type of fallacy you were using. I knew it was just from reading it, I just had to identify it in order to make a reply more specific than "This argument is invalid based upon a failure in reasoning".
Let's put it this way.
A = DNA
B = supercomputer
C = work of god
Your argument is: A > B, therefore A = C
Last time I checked that's not how variables interconnect.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@RemBot2000 That's not a fallacy. That's common sense. Design does not arise from nothing. That is fact. This is irrefutable. To say that the human body lacks design is tantamount to calling yourself an idiot.
SylphViper 8 months ago
@SylphViper
Well said. :)
SkittlesWithFeathers 8 months ago
@SylphViper The best part about this is you're not even willing to examine the situation objectively. I love this. I really do. People like you make my life worth living. I have nothing to say to a wall.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@RemBot2000 It's a good thing that you aren't talking to a wall, because then you wouldn't have anyone to present logical facts in place of fictional delusions.
SylphViper 8 months ago
@SylphViper You just insulted yourself.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@RemBot2000 Or perhaps you are making delusional assumptions, as usual.
SylphViper 8 months ago
@SylphViper Totally. You might want to reread what you stated first though. No wait, you did, but you still didn't get it. Either way it's fine. I don't care enough to pursue this conversation any further. Sorry for wasting your time and my own.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@RemBot2000 You said something similar before. I feel like I'm listening to a broken record...
SylphViper 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SylphViper You really don't know when to quit do you?
RemBot2000 8 months ago
The planet is not fine tuned for us, we are fined tuned fto IT. We grew out of the earth, we are part of it. It is only natural that all our characteristics are determined by what can survive under earthly conditions. The early earth just happened to fall wihin the range of chemistry where moecules can replicate, and from there they grew more complex in sync with their environment. Believing a god had to do it is as primitive as thinking lightning must be Zeus' thunderbolts.
HPoelzig 9 months ago
@HPoelzig And believing that Bill Gates employs random-number generators to write his software is equally insane, I suppose.
SylphViper 9 months ago
@SylphViper When computers are found to develop and evolve in the natural world, I might believe that some sort of "god" designed them-- but they are not. Those who claim that natural forms like stars, planets and organisms are designed for a purpose, that there is any personal intelligence directing them, are only trying to manipulate people the way the Wizard fooled the residents of OZ. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
HPoelzig 9 months ago
@HPoelzig Now you're just spouting lies. Because computers do NOT randomly sprout up in nature. Were it so, then an organism could simply be built in a laboratory like Frankenstein. Life does NOT COME FROM NON-LIFE. EVER. If it did, it would be scientific, and could be REPRODUCED. It would seem that YOU are the one who's been brainwashed by this "Man behind the curtain." Evolution is not science. It's a joke. And every mathematician that has half a brain agrees with that.
SylphViper 9 months ago
@SylphViper Obviously life had to have come from non-life-- the only alternative is that life is eternal. Name one mathematician in the math dept. of any major university who is anti-evolution. Just becaue the transition from non-living to living is rare or only happens under certain conditions early in a planet's history doesn't mean it NEVER happens. We already understand a lot of the chemical processes involved in the formation of life. Hint: the gods have nothing to do with it.
HPoelzig 9 months ago
@HPoelzig Obviously you aren't thinking straight. HOW can life come from non-life? Where in ANY science book is the process of spontaneous generation ever logically and scientifically explained? HOW does it happen?And if it DID, you NEED to prove that SUCH A PHENOMENON CAN ACTUALLY OCCUR. It's called the scientific method. There is NO such event EVER successfully "recreated" within a laboratory. Therefore, it is not science, but rather a bunch of well fabricated lies with no evidence whatsoever.
SylphViper 9 months ago
@HPoelzig Johannes Kepler, 1571 to 1630. Rene Descartes 1596-1650. Isaac Newton, 1642-1727. Gregor Mendel, 1822-1884. Albert Einstein, 1879-1955. I can keep going until my hands drop off. >.>
SylphViper 9 months ago
@SylphViper Eienstein was an atheist, like most physicists since the 20th century. The rest in your list were born in an era so dominated by the Christian religion that no one would dare go against it publicly for fear of arrest and prosecution for heresy.
HPoelzig 9 months ago
@HPoelzig “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
“Before God we are all equally wise – and equally foolish.“
“I, in any case, am convinced [God] does not play dice.”
“The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.”
“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.”
Einstein's words. You figure out the rest.
SylphViper 9 months ago
@HPoelzig I'll also have you know that the Catholic church was the one doing the prosecuting. Newton was strongly against the teachings of the Catholic church, and instead derived his data from the true Bible, not the totally plagerized and screwed up Catholic version. He was more of a Puritan, if you can call him that. If anything, he was putting a target mark on his back for prosecution, so saying that he was being forced to believe in God is simply a joke.
SylphViper 9 months ago
@SylphViper Newton was also a staunch believer in the Medieval superstition of alchemy and bible numerology just like Rev. Camping, the preacher who predicted the Rapture last week. After Newton became a religious fanatic he never made another scientific discovery. Can you name any distinguished cosmologist or physicist in THIS century who believes in the supernatural? Or maybe within the last 100 years? No? I rest my case.
HPoelzig 9 months ago
@HPoelzig Still, that's completely off topic.I haven't even mentioned the modern day mathematicians(the ones who have actually one awards and national recognition for brilliance).Oh, and Rev.Camping? Yeah. He's a liar.The very book he claims to know all about condemns his claims. He's a walking contradiction. Literally. Anyway, moving on. My point is that evolution is not mathematically sound. It's as simple as that. Were it scientific, it could be observed and tested. It cannot.
SylphViper 9 months ago
@SylphViper Then why is evolution taught as the very central idea of biology in every university on earth, in which there are also presumably, mathematicians? Could it be that you simply don't understand evolution OR math? Do you have a university education? The whole world can't be out of step except you.
HPoelzig 9 months ago
@HPoelzig Excuse me, but we're not discussing circumstancialism here. We are discussing facts. And the fact is, there is no experiment that shows that life can come from non-life. And because there is no such experiment and never WILL be, we can safely believe that the theory of evolution is merely a joke, because that theory is directly linked to spontaneous generation, which is a lie as well.
SylphViper 8 months ago
Intelligence creates data. All that has data and information is born of intelligence. DNA is more complex that the world's most powerful supercomputer. And yet, evolutionists cannot admit that such incredible design requires a designer. Life can't come from non-life. When an evolutionist creates life from non-life within a laboratory enironment, I will believe that the theory of Evolution is no longer a theory. Until then, it's just un-scientific, not mathematically sound, and plain BS.
SylphViper 9 months ago
@SylphViper "DNA is more complex that the world's most powerful supercomputer. And yet, evolutionists cannot admit that such incredible design requires a designer."
This is referred to as the fallacy of composition.
RemBot2000 9 months ago
@RemBot2000 Indeed it is. That's not even all of the evidence against the fairy-tale called evolution.
SylphViper 9 months ago
@SylphViper You don't know what I said, yet you agree with it because it was beyond your understanding. You seem like a person who looks for the truth in things, I shouldn't doubt your opinions.
RemBot2000 9 months ago
@RemBot2000 I know precisely what it was that you said. And in the case that you're too dense to figure it out for yourself, I'll just let you know now...I don't agree with what you said. At all.
lol
SylphViper 9 months ago
Comment removed
RemBot2000 9 months ago
@SylphViper Let me put this in perspective.
You: "I know precisely what it was that you said."
You: "I don't agree"
What I said: "This is referred to as the fallacy of composition."
You: "Indeed it is. That's not even all of the evidence"
Try using your brain rather than your emotions.
RemBot2000 9 months ago
@RemBot2000 Perhaps YOU should start using your emotions. Or, rather, that combined with logic. If you couldn't taste the sarcasm or the simple logic behind what I said, then it's fairly obvious that you still don't understand exactly what I was doing with this conversation. Please, sharpen your analytical skills. Just a little more. It shouldn't be too hard to figure this out.
SylphViper 9 months ago
@SylphViper Ah, I see now. Your first reply was sarcastic, well seeing how this is the internet the only way to ascertain sarcasm is by already having known the person and their views beforehand. Even if this is the case it still wouldn't have changed my reply because either way you didn't actually understand what I was referring to and how it relates to your initial comment in order to remove any supposed validity from it.
RemBot2000 8 months ago
@Riste1986 Love didn't create planet Earth. Humans, and the emotions they feel grew out of the Earth, but don't pre-date it. Ultimately, all forms in the cosmos evolved from principles so fundamental and abstract that they cannot be described in human terms.
eatmylogic 11 months ago
Life is fine tuned through the process of evolution by natural selection.
"WLC started to find mistakes in Gods works"
WLC is dishonest, so whatever he says has to be scrutinized. And god doesn't make mistakes, as you suggested.
drgoldteef 11 months ago
Dear thetruth3574 - This documentary says nothing about the Bible.
It is just a bunch of reputable people from the scientific community giving their perspective of the universe. I think they do a good job of presenting their views. Does mainstream thinking accept this? Well, mainstream thinking rejected Copernicus as well. Stay open to facts. Guard against emotional reaction.
mikey7777766 1 year ago 2
@mikey7777766 QUOTE: "This documentary says nothing about the Bible."
That's becasue it is dishonest. From the overblown "inspirational" music to the manipulative Creationist cliches, the vid is clearly right-wing religious rhetoric. Creationism can't win an argument on its merits, it must resort to shell games like this.
thetruth3574 11 months ago
It sounds to me like there are a lot of people who already have their stubborn presuppositions set. What happened to being open minded?
mikey7777766 1 year ago
did he say Voyager approached the sun in 1919 ?
hmmm
orbitration 1 year ago
@orbitration nope it turned toward the sun in 1990
MX6Maximus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why haven't the makers of this video put their theories up for peer review? Why don’t any reputable scientists agree with them? Why is their no material evidence for any of this? If your bible is 100% accurate why does it think that bats are birds, stars can fall down, the moon is a light, the heavens are a solid roof over the Earth and the value of Pi is 3.0
thetruth3574 1 year ago
This is not a science documentary. It is religious propaganda, marketed solely to a certain type of Protestant bumpkin who doesn't give a damn about science, but is hell-bent on the fantasy that his right-wing ideology will someday come to dominate the American body politic. It has the same logic behind it as a street corner shell game.
eatmylogic 1 year ago
Thunkful2 1 year ago
this planet isn't really suitable for human life when you think abut it. we only have 1 % of all the water that is usable, vast life that relies on one anothers balance to survive, and we are near the edge of death with ozone depletion, melting ice caps, and damaging our very life sources. We are lucky we have thrived.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 year ago
Everybody knows there is a God. I don't know why we even argue this stuff. The people who say he doesn't exist are simply denying what they know deep down. Go ahead and shoot this comment down...you don't have to convince me...it's YOU that you have to convince! And judging by the comments I read on here, I see a lot of nervous and angry skeptics trying to defend their belief system.
brdlyrck78 1 year ago
@brdlyrck78 Yeah, "Everybody knows there is a God,"-- only nobody knows what it is, if anything.
eatmylogic 1 year ago
@brdlyrck78 It's obvious that deep down you know that god is a myth, and are just trying to convince yourself that it is not just a fantasy inherited from your ancestors. By arguing here, you can set your doubts aside for a moment and play the true believer. I feel sorry for you having to live a lie, having to be careful not to admit to yourself that it is all pretend. No wonder you are so anxious and angry. It must be hard on you psychologically to be on the run from the truth all the time.
HPoelzig 9 months ago
Haha, another failed attempt by jesus freaks to skew scientific discoveries so as to try and win over skeptics. I, for one, will not fall for this ruse. Religions have long been changing what they believe to better suit the knowledge of the masses. They have to keep changing so that they continue to seem right. Even in the bible, the facts are all wrong. The Universe was created in 7 days? Try billions of years. Genesis is full of inconsistencies, read it with understanding and you will see.
Salger12 1 year ago
Narrated by Professor Xavier.
biggunfelix 1 year ago
@VioletFlame137 Science: Ur Doing It (Terribly) Wrong! And again: Stop your spam in private messages and on comments. Also: please do us all a favor and start using your brains nature given ability of logical thinking.
hanslol 1 year ago
This is so cool! it reminds me of Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who. We are a little speck on a ray of sunlight. And God is holding the speck :)
4hizcall 1 year ago
how does this translate to a being who doesnt want you to have sex before marriage?
bnote1990 1 year ago
Can I view this in Spanish?
99percentatheist 1 year ago
100 billion stars in the Milky way. 100 Billion galaxies and these IDiots claim the "Privileged Planet"? Please, do they have some knowledge of the Universe that the rest of us don't have? We are only beginning to find other extrasolar planets so if ours is privileged or not can't be determined yet.
csadler 1 year ago 2
@csadler
we may consider ourselves "privileged" in the sense that in all the years we hace had the ability to send signals & probes that reach beyond this planet, in all the missions that have taken man beyond our atmosphere. all the searching & painstaking hours of listening for the smallest sign that life, let alone intelligent life, exists anywhere 'near' us proven futile. this is not to say that life does not exist elsewhere, but it would make us privileged by definition 'round here.
flashoftruth 1 year ago
sorry for the misspellings and poor grammar, my eyes are bad & i was typing in the dark...i think you get the jist?
flashoftruth 1 year ago
The odds of getting a universe this perfect by chance are 1 and 1 trillion. Thats like filling the world with sand 1 trillion feet high covering earth, blindfolding a regular guy and giving him 1 and onley 1 chance to go out and find the grain of sand thats painted green without cheating. I think there was a guy that cheated, and he rules heaven and earth.
dude33ism 1 year ago
@dude33ism where did you get those numbers?
ilovetheview47 1 year ago
@dude33ism "The odds of getting a universe this perfect by chance are 1 and 1 trillion"
Excuse me, but this universe exists. Thus, the probability of a universe like ours existing is P=1. Your comments suggest you might do well with an education in science and mathematics.
At least turn on discovery channel or watch NOVA or SOMETHING before you say things like, "Just look at where the earth is positioned, and where the solar system is positioned it's just to perfect."
drgoldteef 1 year ago 2
@drgoldteef , 1 of 2
"suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that
5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that
6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive
tkjaros 1 year ago
@drgoldteef , 2 of 3
"Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that...
tkjaros 1 year ago
@drgoldteef 3 of 3
"7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,
in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features."
-William Lane Craig
tkjaros 1 year ago
@tkjaros "We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence, in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features"
If you must know, it's called the anthropic principle. WLC has been thoroughly and completely debunked with his fictional musings relating to this. The reason it looks fine-tuned to us, is that we are here as intelligent, sentient beings observing the universe in which we exist.
drgoldteef 1 year ago 2
@drgoldteef , thanks for your reply.
I was wondering where I could find a critique of this analogy. I must admit it is my ignorance that I have not found one yet.
tkjaros 1 year ago
@tkjaros I do a lot of thinking about the anthropic principle, even though it is more philosophic than scientific. It's a very interesting topic - one which everyone should investigate. From Wiki: "Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life - to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, or saying that ships had been invented to house barnacles." Life has adapted to physics, not vice versa.
drgoldteef 1 year ago
@drgoldteef What are you talking about? If I flip a coin and it lands heads, then by your argument that means the probability of it landing heads is 1, not 0.5! Just because it happened, does not mean the probability of it happening was a sure 100%.
And here you are telling others to educated themselves with science and mathematics. Here is some education for you: just because an unlikely event happens, does not mean it was likely to happen.
calculus89 10 months ago
@calculus89 "Here is some education for you: just because an unlikely event happens, does not mean it was likely to happen."
Spoken as if you have some ethereal knowledge of how likely universe-formation is. How many sides does that coin have? How many times are you flipping and at what rate?
I say it's inevitable. You may say it's a miracle. One thing is for sure: If the universe hadn't formed, you wouldn't be here flipping your imaginary coins and pondering the outcome. But you are.
drgoldteef 10 months ago
@drgoldteef Mathematics are not biased. It does not matter to which situation or scenario they are applied.
You said that because the universe is here, the probability of it happening was 1. Mathematically, that is an incorrect statement.
calculus89 7 months ago
@calculus89 "Mathematically, that is an incorrect statement."
Prove it.
drgoldteef 7 months ago
@drgoldteef Not my job. Even if it was, if mathematics could be proven so quickly and simply, what would the point of years worth of classes be?. Furthermore, since you seem to argue and reason without logic, that may not be useful for someone such as yourself.
calculus89 7 months ago
@calculus89 "mathematics could be proven so quickly and simply"
A simple equation demonstrating the likelihood of universe formation! When you discover the value for n, let me know. I'll email the team at Berkeley working on M-theory. I'm sure you'll come up with it soon. Best of luck!
drgoldteef 7 months ago
@drgoldteef What is wrong with you? Why are you unable to discuss the topic at hand? Get off your soapbox about proving the probability of the universe forming. I am talking about flipping a fair coin 1 time. By your argument, you say that no matter which side it lands on, the probability of that side showing is 1 because it happened! Let me reiterate since you are unable to comprehend. (next post)
calculus89 7 months ago
@calculus89 " I am talking about flipping a fair coin 1 time... By your argument, you say that no matter which side it lands on, the probability of that side showing is 1 because it happened!"
This video is not about flipping a coin. I think you're on the wrong video. Try this one: /watch?v=uwuv-IWQKSk
drgoldteef 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@calculus89 Just because an event actually happened (any event in the universe), does not mean the probability of it happen was 100%.
Your statement: "Excuse me, but this universe exists. Thus, the probability of a universe like ours existing is P=1."
That is incorrect. Just because something, anything, happens does not mean the likelihood of it happening was 1. Understand?
calculus89 7 months ago
Dear Illustra:
I can't, in good conscience, forward this video to someone I care about, and have them read all the junk commentary from people bickering. This does the actual documentary a disservice. after this comment of mine, please take all the comments off so that I can effectively help someone with your video.
Thanks.
GuitarGare 1 year ago
@GuitarGare WRONG - THERE IS NEVER A TIME WHEN OPEN SPEECH IS BAD - GET OVER YOURSELF
debate is what God wants so you will find truth
SATAN HATES DEBATE!
TEACHING stupid people is never pretty - and the STUBBORN STUPID PEOPLE ARE WORSE
BlessedONE333returnz 1 year ago
@BlessedONE333returnz
Why would a "blessed one" have to yell via Caplock? is a question. Anyway, my point was I didn't want the person that I wanted to have see this have to read all the distracting nonsense. It's ok, I found a way around it.
Perhaps they would put up a separate vid with no comments allowed other than this one.
google video has this and so does yokou.
GuitarGare 1 year ago
@GuitarGare Mate that's a very immature comment to make, unless the people you care about are extremely weak minded and prone to accepting every view they read 100%?
Debating is a requisit of a healthy community who give thought to their surroundings and their place in the universe! What you seem to be talking about is a world where no one has any views other than the people who you'd like to have views, namely yourself and those affiliated with you.
That's selfish, sad and unrealistic.
NoToTheYayo 1 year ago
@NoToTheYayo -I got around this, and didn't need youtube any longer.
Discussion, not debate, is a requisite of a healthy community. If no one secedes their opine when found to be wrong, then what's the point?
If all the views re: "how it really is" are correct and happen to be held by myself, those I'm affiliated with, then what?
When you've come to the conclusion that 2+2=4, there's no going back.
It's incontrovertible, and beyond the arena of "well, that's YOUR opinion."
GuitarGare 1 year ago
cool
Endlesslovekiss 1 year ago
Having said that though, I'm glad this is not explicitly a Creationist view. Seems they're just kicking back at the "insignificant dot" idea, saying the universe and life must have a purpose. That's at least more encompassing, and preferable to any religious dogma. Anyway, science doesn't say we're "insignificant", not in the slightest. Science is also about awe, joy and wonder. Creationists like to portray science as spiritless. Far from it.
ytupld 1 year ago 2
@ytupld Umm.. science does say we are insignficant. It says there is no purpus for us in life, and that were all just an accident. Creationism says that there is a god that created us for a purpose and loves us very much. If we are an accident how come the universe is so perfectly desighned. Just look at where the earth is positioned, and where the solar system is positioned it's just to perfect.
dude33ism 1 year ago
I watched this and it's completely pointless. They say Earth and its inhabitants are in the *best* situation possible for observing the universe. Yet they present no evidence whatsoever that a better situation can't exist. They don't even raise the possibility. So basically if we lived on another planet, they'd say the same thing. Makes so sense.
ytupld 1 year ago 2
@ytupld our planet is the exact size it needs to be, exactly where it need to be. our son is the exact size it need to be and the exact distance it needs to be.our moon is the same, and the other planets actually shelter us from comets. thats the amazing part, if any of these factors were abit different, conditions on this planet would be to much for us.
iamdk007 1 year ago
@iamdk007 There are billions of trillions of stars in our universe, and who knows how many planets...with such a huge universe, the odds are in our favor that at least one planet would have all its features perfectly "tweaked" for life...so Earth is a result of huge odds, not a result of special creation. Make sense?
sjlykowski 1 year ago 2
@ytupld Pointless? They give ample evidence that within our own solar system, no other planet is in as good a position to observe. That doesn't seem pointless to me. And speaking as someone who accepts Creation, science isn't spiritless at all. In fact science is just one more mechanism through which God reveals Himself to those who are willing to see. Romans 1:19, 20 says He has revealed who He is through nature, but that most people are unwilling to see it.
hinode56 1 year ago
I wonder if the Planet knows it is Privileged? Does it care?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Science does not denounce God, it just does not use the supernatural, gods don't change the outcome of any experiment.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The second law of thermodynamics states that, within an ISOLATED system, entropy will increase over time and the system will eventually reach a state of equilibrium. This...doesn't have much to do with the change of genetic material within a population.
Creationist don't understand 'systems'
Like they think all the planets should spin the same direction,
gregrutz 1 year ago
it's sad that this arguement is still going on. we were created by intelligent design as well as evolution. I can prove there's evolution, I had a baby. But what is a day to God? Time is only linear to us with our simple minds.
TheJoozie 2 years ago
I hope you aren't serious.
joshcena33 1 year ago
I am 100% serious!
aocel1 1 year ago
And you are?
joshcena33 1 year ago
This intro was seriously impressive. What an incredible place we live in and what incredible mysteries still to discover. We are so small in this endless blackness; it seems really scary to think that, there is absolutely nothing else out there, with this idea in mind, It is very sad, the way we treat each other in this small world, its like a humongous dysfunctional family and ultimately the obvious: we are not so great after all & we are in really bad shape. we are lonely...
MauricioPerez1969 2 years ago
Says you, but I'm Christian. That's what this video is saying: we're not alone. We have purpose and live.
blattt188 2 years ago 2
But God still loves us and we still have hope. And if you want to believe in him you will have hope.
aocel1 1 year ago
@aocel1 thank for been a soul winner.
u are the second christian that replies to my comment lol brother i am trying to win souls to The Lord. I write like this because i want to have atheist friends. I am a believer =D
the other christian with his comment is scaring people away from God with his attitude.
just a comment hehe
GBY
MauricioPerez1969 1 year ago
Observation selection and fine tuning arguments are for complete Simpletons..
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are thousand of 'earths' with life on them out there in space.
gregrutz 2 years ago
There are 12 vids all saying, 'If it was different, it would be different" Wow.
gregrutz 2 years ago
There are thousand of earths with life on them.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz
Prove one.
RenewalOfAllThings 2 years ago
prove god made all the universe just for the IDiots on earth.
gregrutz 2 years ago
At first we didnt do anything wrong but adam and eve messed up. But you know what is amazing God still loves us! And if you believe in him, you will have eternal life. So please get a bible it will change your life!!
aocel1 1 year ago
Where did you get that idea???!!!
aocel1 1 year ago
I'm not doing it for him, I'm doing it for any honest person who reads these comments and might be swayed by his fanatical nonsense.
The awesome thing about being an atheist is I don't have to worry about my sadistic sky-daddy punishing me for my misdeeds. I have a fully formed conscience that does it just fine while I'm here.
This joker on the other hand has to deal with the consequences of his lies for all eternity.
lie: a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.
Good luck.
thisisanaccount100 2 years ago
@thisisanaccount100 .....
"The awesome thing about being an atheist is I don't have to worry about my sadistic sky-daddy punishing me for my misdeeds. I have a fully formed conscience that does it just fine while I'm here."
....so you''ll punish yourself for your mistakes?
help me out with that
js1268 2 years ago
@js1268
Of course. We all do. We feel guilty when we make mistakes. We "pay our penance" by working hard not to repeat the mistakes and if we've harmed any one else, making it up to them.
The difference is, my conscience can't torture me for all eternity. :)
thisisanaccount100 2 years ago
@thisisanaccount100 ..... so guilt is enough?
js1268 2 years ago
@js1268
Clearly that isn't what I said.
thisisanaccount100 2 years ago
@thisisanaccount100 .... well, if the consequence of guilt isn't manifested by working hard not to repeat the mistakes we've made, and is further made up to those we've harmed through something which you've yet to define, then what is guilt?.... and what are you saying?
js1268 2 years ago