How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
Nuh Uh, god made us with depression and anxiety so we could all kill ourselves because of Adam and Eve's sin. Haven't you read the Bible you ignorant scientists and doctors!?!?!?!?
if you live to reproduce, then your genes get passed on. so if aslong as people are living to thier twenties and reproducing, then theres no need to evolve. nuff said, dumbass... hes expecting us to be perfect beings
Atheists claim to have "reason" yet in the next breath they believe we are here for no reason and purpose. So if reason never existed to begin with, then by default they cannot have "reason".
@ChristJesusReigns At what age should a person stop talking themselves to sleep (prayer) and maybe dispense with the imaginary friend? o_O I will let you think about that. My answer would be around 8 years old. Are you 8 years old yet? o_O
@ChristJesusReigns two different definitions of the word reason. reason meaning cause and reason meaning logic. you are correct about science. it is philosophy, ever changing philosophy. and so is religion, all of the hundreds of them throughout the centuries. unchanging deity based philosophies created in different regions. alot are still around, and alot have faded away. science will never be "right", but neither will religion. ill stick with the one that takes reality into account.
Free energy has been here all along ,But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
Fascintating discussion! The explanatory power of evolution by natural selection is the only one out there that makes everything in the natural world make sense. Best thing of all is we know it's a fact!
@BlackWidowVictoria I don't need to waste time 'proving' evolution - the evidence is available for any sensible person to find. The emergence of the universe is a far more difficult issue but not one to shy away from because it's hard and simply posit god as the answer. Difficult questions demand difficult answers and science is looking: read about the Big Bang, inflationary theory, the Ekpyrotic theory. Because you find it hard to understand how things happen doesn't that mean they didn't?
darwin hinted at the possibilities of his theory to develop profound understanding of nature and ourselves demonstrated in this bit of conversation. my anxiety (which is substantial) has been ben salved not only by the understanding of the reason discussed, but by the realization that it is, in fact, part of something far beyond me.
Why isn't this taught in high schools? I feel like I have such a better understanding of how the body works just by having an idea of why it works that way.
@shldflght No, it's because greedy bastards don't want to pay more taxes. Therefore, the officials cut those funds so people that elect them can keep their dirty money.
@Dralzun Hmm that seems to be a more logical argument. I gladly concede this one to you sir with the addition of the officials mirroring the belief systems of whoever the voter majority is as well.
@shldflght Thanks. I just wish people in general knew more about the benefits of a strong education system. Maybe then, they would understand the gravity of their actions and the left would stop victimizing the officials...
If you lived longer you would reproduce more. However, your genes would stagnate the gene pool and your offspring would not be able to adapt to environmental changes.
Diversity is more suited to changing circumstances, in the long term a short life is better for DNA reproduction. It's the DNA which needs to survive, not the individual.
I gotta call Dawkins out on his statement at 1:00 about natural selection only selecting up to the point of reproduction. We mammals must raise our young, so if parents died after reproducing the child would likely die, and the parent's genes along with it. Even sterile 90 year old grandparents fight for the survival of their genes by caring for grandchildren.
@Aerosteon I agree, which is why people live far beyond reproductive age. But then it becomes a question of - at what age does a person cease to be important to the survival of the latest generation?
That's not a hard question. A person ceases to be important to the survival for the next generation when the net future benefit they can be expected to offer becomes less than the net future aid they will require.
In economics this comes up all the time. As equipment gets older the cost of service and repairs eventually becomes greater than the profit you make from running it. That's when the equipment is no longer useful.
@Aerosteon You got it wrong. He said if you'd ask Charles Darwin he would say so. And we all know that the evolution theory has changed since Darwin's time. Dawkins said this to show the misunderstanding many have about evolution.
How did the conscience evolve? Lying can help me out in the short term, so whose to say that it's not bad for my evolution? If it's better to reproduce a lot, then wouldn't it be "best" for me to get wealthy lying to people and then sleep with numerous women to reproduce. From an evolutionary standpoint, wouldn't that be best. Why should I feel bad for not having a conscience. Shouldn't I live for what is best for me, survival of the fittest. Why do I hate to sin? Why do I want to do good?
Lying exists because it can sometimes be useful, but if you lie to someone and are ever caught, the penalty usually outweighs the benefit, and the more times you get caught the worse and worse the penalty is until you are sidelined by society entirely. So there are very strong evolutionary pressures not to lie. This is an evolutionary reason for the development of a conscience and guilt over harming others (via lies and other means). STDs are a cause of sexual guilt pressuring one to monogamy.
@darkmiles22 If we come from animals why do we have a conscience A well known atheist said that he didn't believe in right and wrong because if he did that would mean he would have to admit intelligent design is true.
@BlackWidowVictoria Why do we feel pleasure and pain? Because those mechanisms evolved over time as strong incentives to perform certain actions and avoid others that were beneficial or harmful to the propagation of our genes. Sex is good for spreading genes, so it gets top billing. Food and water are good for staying alive long enough to have sex, so they likewise are rewarded by the brain. Cuts and scrapes make contracting an infection easier, so they are strongly punished.
@BlackWidowVictoria A conscience facilitates the peaceful existence of communities, both in mammal societies in the wild and in modern, human society. Communities offer great advantages to being an outcast, particularly security in numbers. Evolution gives a wonderful explanation for conscience, but again, just because we understand why it exists doesn't mean we should ignore it. It is still useful for one thing. But it is also a part of who we are, and I see no reason not to embrace it.
@BlackWidowVictoria Animal(zoology): any living organism characterized by voluntary movement, the possession of cells with noncellulose cell walls and specialized sense organs enabling rapid response to stimuli, and the ingestion of complex organic substances such as plants and other animals.
@darkmiles22 "STDs are a cause of sexual guilt pressuring one to monogamy."
I want to amend this to "STDs cause evolutionary pressure in both individuals and cultures to increase sexual guilt that punishes polyamorous behavior."
Just as understanding evolution explains why we like sweet foods so much, but can't change our desire for sweets to a degree that we know is unhealthy, so too can understanding evolution explain why we feel guilty or pride or joy or fear, etc. without lessening how strongly we feel them in any way.
Why is being good because you're programmed to be good so unacceptable? Christians quote "God hath writ these things in your heart" at me all the time, but if it's NS doing the writing they hate it.
@darkmiles22 here is one thing that you can think about first law of thermodynamics energy cant be created or destroyed. Explain how the universe came into existence. tell me how does science answer this one.
@BlackWidowVictoria Stephen Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, tackles the question of what caused the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations cause particle-antiparticle somethings to come from nothing all the time (with net energy of 0). This has been demonstrated and is well understood by theory. The net energy of the cosmos is also 0 (because of gravity), strong support for the idea that the cosmos is a quantum fluctuation that snowballed in size due to the separation of gravity from other forces.
@BlackWidowVictoria Hawking explains in great detail a possible, natural mechanism by which the cosmos could have been caused. It could be wrong. We don't know. But to assume that because we don't know, it must have been an intelligent agent is a huge fallacy. Moreover it is antithetical to science and all human progress these past few centuries.
I forget the term, but humans are not the same kind of reproducer as every other animal. Many animals have a litter of offspring, which is immediately (or quickly) viable and can soon survive on its own - often the NUMBER of offspring an animal has is the guarantee of their survival. Humans survive not by numbers but by intelligence and knowledge. Years of upbringing are essential, a trustworthy and more reliable partner will give the children a better chance in life.
@MotionFrequency The evolution of morality is a complicated subject and I encourage you to google "evolution of morality", but basically humans are social creatures who generally only survive if their society survives. That means evolution favors groups of people who are able to work and play well with others. If your ancestors had lots of children, all of which died without reproducing when their society collapsed you would not be here.
I don't think I agree with the video - please clarify if I'm mistaken though :-/
IMHO the reason why we age is because evolution selects for traits that are most favorable; for instance the ability to reproduce but also the increased adaptability. Both are necessary. Both the absence of offspring and the absence of offspring which can survive and reproduce on its own are dead ends. Thus, through the generations we've been selected for both - not just the reproducability.
@DigitizedSelf you are mistaken. Your confusion stems from thinking that adaptation and reproduction as having separate interests. To clarify, an adaptation is simply the following: A genetic trait which increases the chances of surviving to sexual maturity in a given environment.
You say I'm mistaken, yet I cannot see why :-/. I get the fact that higher adaption leads to higher chance of reproduction; this is why I mentioned it in the first place
Basically my objection is against the notion that evolution only selects for the ability to reproduce; this is certainly a necessity and the only important factor for a single generation of evolution, but if all offspring were to perish before maturing it would mean little in the long run - thus adaptation as a necessity too.
@DigitizedSelf dude, 'ability to survive to sexual maturity' comes under the 'capacity to reproduce' -they're one and the same thing. That's basically where I'm coming from. Reproduction is always selected for, e.g. If it happens to be that the ability to dodge lions is conducive to finding a mate (making babies in the future) then agility is favored.
@DigitizedSelf Sheep and cows, for instance, have not evolved to escape from humans and live longer as this would not help them to reproduce; farmers ensure that they get to breed for other traits before being slaughtered.
@S0lidShade Wow, that's a late reply :S ...yeah? In what way does this mean that they're not selected for favorable traits/adaptability (amount of meat or milk generated for instance) in comparison to just their ability to reproduce? I'd say you're contradicting yourself with these last to replies... the age of the livestock is exactly determined by which is most favorable to acquire the necessary traits and not just which makes them reproduce the most.
To state it clearer: The "reason" why we age is that evolution selects for the ability to reproduce and, in the longer span of time, the ability of offspring to do the same (the latter is what I earlier denoted as being part of adaptation) - not for long age.
in the u.s., in the business of 'professional' wrestling an alarming amount of performers have died under the age of 40. many deaths are related to alchol, drugs, steroids etc.
is it fair to say that this is natural selection at work? killing off the weak (ie those with inferior gene pools), so to speak?
forgive my ignorance if this is not the case and of course i do not wish death upon anyone but one must admit there is a pattern.
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
It amazes me how people can watch videos like these and not get what's staring at them right in the face. How the fuck can God and all that crap be more believable than evolution? Religion is like devolution in a sense that it's completely backwards and very unhelpful to TODAY'S real problems. One day maybe you religious peeps will finally see that kneeling and standing for an invisble being every Sunday did nothing but ache your legs.
@mazk1985 that's a bit extreme dont ya think? I mean most religious people im sure are good people. As long as they don't harm anyone who cares what they believe in? They might be wrong, even obviously wrong but there's no need to be obnoxious and mock their beliefs.
@chessfan6 I'm sorry I used strong language. Truly. I don't normally speak out harshly but religion was and still is to some degree a form of control just like debt nowadays is a form of control. Religion, thank God, doesn't exert the kind of influence it once had but my anger from the Earth's current shitty condition got the better of me and I was sick and tired of living in a horribly corrupt world full of liars and cheats. Religion was created to control man and I despise all forms of control
@mazk1985 Well there are some good forms of control like laws which protect the common good, I'm sure you don't despise that form. I think the problem with Christianity (the only religion I understand well enough to speak about) is that it's just blatantly a lie. Good rational people believe something with so many contradictions and flaws.
I agree churches have too much power over people, but I would be ok with that if there were two shreds of evidence to support the damn thing...
@chessfan6 what is contradictory about it. If you really study it you will see that it explains everything. We use the same data they do we can explain it too. Look up a video called Demolishing strongholds. If you actually listen and focus on that video it will show you how Christianity works. The problem is people already have there minds made up and they wont listen to reason. So if thats you then don't bother
@chessfan6 thank you. But the one thing that we have an answer to is the one thing that Science can't prove or even have an answer to. CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE THINK HARD ENOUGH ABOUT IT AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE IS NO ANSWER APART FROM GOD.
Answer to #1: Your version of "science" is philosophy. man made philosophy. That's why there are different stories every 2 or so years in textbooks. More philosophy to sell at the market, that's all to #2: Again, philosophies to #3: Yes, God does solve the problem, and no, you don't have to ask who created God because God IS the first cause. He doesn't fall under human laws and regulations. He is outside of human wisdom
Answer to #4: U aren't thinking, you're philosophying...
@ChristJesusReigns Well if by philosophy you mean "the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics", Then yes science is a type of philosophy. That in no way decreases its value. It is man's quest to learn about our universe. Just because man has discovered it doesn't mean it is flawed. Things change in textbooks because we were proven wrong so the idea must change. That is a device to correct our mistakes. Until you can prove something wrong you have no argument
@ChristJesusReigns Also if you are going to propose a statement like "God IS the first cause" without any proof shown, then I am allowed to say the universe created itself without any proof. We do not resolve anything making claims such as these.
The main difference between you and I is that I am willing to accept the idea that there is a God, I just don't think it is so. You are not willing to accept the idea that there is no God.
@ChristJesusReigns "All people have to do is study world history and see the bloodbath that Islam has caused for 1,400 years and counting now. Muhammed was a murderer and a pedophile." <<< YOUR words. Your cult has made you just another "crusader" thirsty for war against Muslim countries, yes? It is why Atheists do not want Christian extremists in charge of the government.
@ChristJesusReigns Science is real, so of course new answers are found as we learn more. Your cult just invents "magic" and says........"There it is!!! We do not need to study or learn anymore." SO SAD. Have a "blessed" day "brother" LoooooooooL Xd
@mazk1985 ONE REASON. HOW DID THE UNIVERSE COME TO BE. and don't give me big bang. Something had to cause the big bang. Explain it what was the first thing in existence and how did that come to be. answer that and you will have solved the mystery of the WORLD.
Every creationist that thinks evolution/selection is a worthless theory that doesn't need to be taught should be forced to watch this until their eyes melt.
Freethinkers know that they are super-evolved primates. Believers imagine that they were made out of slime when God phlegmed in a puddle on the sixth day.
Why exactly would a supersmart monkey want to debate a piece of crockery?
So there's a threshold for how much anxiety you "should" be experiencing. If you're too over-reactive, you'll end up miserable and probably in a worst condition; if you're too lenient, you may possibly die. Those people in between are the ones who eventually end up benefiting the most. I GET IT NOW!
Very good. I love hearing articulate scientists talk to each other. Of course Dawkins is playing "interviewer" here and already understands this, but it's still fun to hear.
What a load of crock, these guys are supposed to be intelligent, they have no idea of the complexity of a single cell. We find a watch on the ground and ask "who made this" we look at a single cell that is infinitely more complex than a watch and say "this happened by chance" The underlying reason people believe in evolution is to avoid believing in the creator God.
A watch is an inanimate object and can not assemble itsself. A cell is living breathing changing matter. You're comparing plastic apples with organic oranges.
The reason people accept evolution is because thats where the evidence leads us. Unfortunately for most religious people, they dont bother studying the evidence with an open mind and jump straight to their own pre-determined conclusion.
Scientists are always testing existing theories and finding better explanation's for things. The beauty of the scientific method is that it tests itself - the scientist's creed is 'challenge everything'.
Whereas the tragedy of religion is that its only test is faith - the priest's creed is 'trust me'.
Which, ironically, makes me trust science, and challenge religion.
I don't see your point, you are telling me that a cell which is at least a trillion times more complex than a watch happened by chance and the simple watch was designed, where is the logic in that?
Evolution is not a science, you can not test the theory. I totally support the scientific method, in fact many of our scientific pioneers were Bible believing six day creation Christians, Pasteur, Kepler, Newton and others.
You are taking a black and white approach to this. Its not black and white, your logic reminds me of a great analogy by barry lynn;
We walk out into the forest one day and watch a mole build a mole hill and say wow thats very interesting. Then we walk out the next day and see a mountain off in the distance, and say "wow, a really big mole must have build that".
I accept evolution because i have extensively researched it, and it makes sense to me.
Evolution has done absolutely nothing for humanity, in fact it limits scientific research. Most evolutionists walk around with blindfolds on. An example:- a few years ago I visited a cave and listened to the same old millions of years talk by the guide. When he had finished I told him that I did not believe what he had just told me and I believed that the earth was no more than 10000 years old. He replied That I could be right and he lead me to the back of the cave
and showed me a massive stalagmite that was a meter high and about 600mm diameter, he said that when he started working in the cave about 14 years ago that it was only inches high and he continued to show and tell me how fast the formations changed and grew, all depended on how much rain there was. I said why do you tell the people the millions of years story? he sad "that is what I am paid to tell them.
The validity of a scientific theory is not determined by how useful it is, or whether some guy working in a cave has a different opinion. The fact that certain scientific pioneers were religious is also completely irrelevant.
Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientist (including scientists who beleive in a god) for one reason and one reason only; Because thats where the evidence leads them.
Please explain to me how evolution limits scientific research.
Because i really dont see how your anecdotal story of this guy working in a cave is somehow an indicator that scientists walk around with blindfolds on.
Thats exactly what creationists do. Their doctrine doesnt permit them to admit they are wrong and change their understanding in light of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Its the complete opposite of science.
A good example would be Piltdown Man. Over 500 scientific essays including a number of doctoral theses were written on Piltdown Man. The fraud was so obvious you could see the file marks on the teeth. This demonstrates just how blindly scientist follow their belief in evolution regardless of the facts. Another example would be Haeckel's fabricated drawings purporting to show embryo development mimicking so called evolutionary development, a fraud still in textbooks published today.
Another example of people blinded by their belief in evolution. A number of years ago I visited Mt Schank, a dormant volcano in Victoria. There was a sign stating that the volcano erupted 4,000 years ago and that it was completely under water when it erupted. I thought as I looked out at the horizon from the summit, 158 m above sea level, "what an example of Noah's flood" I returned about 4 years later and a new sign had been erected, same text but the 4,000 had been changed to 40,000.
Oh no!! You've uncovered the worldwide conspiracy of scientists who go around adding zero's to geological time charts to make the age of the earth seem several orders of magnitude older than it actually is, for the sole purpose of spreading their evil, small-minded, godless misinformation.....OR....maybe the first sign just had a typo and was replaced for that reason........idiot
You missed my point completely, I don't know who added the "0" to the sign, but they were most likely influenced (brainwashed) by their belief in evolution. The fact is that the volcano did erupt 4000 to 5000 years ago as per almost all volcanologist sites and literature. You will see little or no mention of this fact on the tourism sites that promote the area. There was no typo on the first sign.
Science doesn't claim to know everything, nor to get everything right the first time. It is a self correcting system of understanding the world that changes when new evidence emerges. For that reason frauds (like the one u mentioned, cannot persist)...It's amusing to see you thump your chest and use the Piltdown Man as an example of the failure of science...when it was the scientific method itself that exposed the fossils for the hoax that they were.
"This demonstrates just how blindly scientist follow their belief in evolution regardless of the facts."
No. It demonstrates perfectly that the scientific method works. Frauds and hoaxes will always be exposed and i cant stress enough how stupid it is to expect scientists to throw out the mountains of genuine evidence and call the theory a failure just because a few people tried to fool the scientists 100 YEARS AGO. Do you honestly not realise how weak your argument is?
There isn't one single peice of evidence that would completely prove evolution beyond all doubt. However the fused chromosome #2 n the great apes are very compelling. Genetic evidence is the most compelling of all.
All of the facts and evidence that have been discovered in geology, paleontology, genetic and other fields of science are all completely consistent with evolution.
If you are actually interested in finding out about it then i suggest watching potholer54 or AronRa's videos.
"fused chromosome #2 n the great apes " a very poor piece of "evidence" open to much biased interpretation. Great evidence from geology, the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. I suppose it all boils down to your bias, we all have the same evidences. I prefer to take the word of some one that was there in the beginning, you can believe the myth that the princess kissed the frog and millions of years later the frog turned into a prince.
You now what cracks me up the most about people like you? You completely reject science and remain willfully ignorant and laugh off 150 years of scientific discovery as "a fairy tale". So your preferred alternative is to put your complete trust in a book written by primitive men about a god which says exactly that you were poofed into existence by magic.
Its just laughable. It's clear you are a waste of time. Your pathetic anecdotal arguments are so weak.
"Haeckel's fabricated drawings purporting to show embryo development mimicking so called evolutionary development, a fraud still in textbooks published today"
Oh really? Care to provide me with a single example?
My apologies, I should have said "used" today as in 2004 edition of Biology: The Unity & Diversity of Life. There may be books published today that use the drawings, if I get the time I will do further research. I know the scientific method works, but what I am saying is that it cannot be applied to evolution. Both sides of the argument have their bias. I believe that evolution is a religion of blind faith. My above examples are evidence of that.
Evolution is blind faith? Are you kidding me? Do you just close your eyes and block your ears every time you hear one of the huge number of evidences for evolution? Or have you just never bothered to do any research?
Your examples are based on nothing but complete ignorance of evolution and clearly desperate attempts at discrediting it using century old hoaxes. Quite honestly its pathetic.
You misunderstand how science works. There is no one "conclusive" piece of evidence for anything.
Evidence, gathered over years, independently, from many fields of science, all point towards the age of the earth, the inheritance of physics features, the inheritance of behaviours, the genetic similarities/differences, ... I could go on.
They all point to evolution being the best explanation for life on this planet.
Show me a body of extra-biblical evidence that points to the existence of god
Got any evidence of that claim? How does it explain blind people seeing, and people seeing things way off their bodies position in space, and then live to tell about it? ;)
Occam's Razor. Studies are going on, theories are being formed, but there is no evidence that it is anything supernatural. It's hypocritical of you to ask for evidence and yet you choose the supernatural, which is a lack of a real explanation.
Your logic is "science can't yet explain it, therefor it is supernatural and confirms my worldview", which is wrong. Even if NDEs were somehow supernatural, that doesn't mean that Christianity is correct, or that God exists.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence that it IS something supernatural going on. And see, here is where your prejudice shows: "...which is a lack of a real explanation" ...? A supernatural explanation can't be a real explanation? Why not? It's not like science = materialism. That's tremendously closed-minded thinking, mate ;)
I know that NDEs being supernatural doesn't imply Christianity nor God. In fact, much of what NDE research tells us goes straight in the face of Christianity.
Supernatural basically means that it's beyond our understanding. If you're able to rationally explain it, it's not supernatural.
Labelling something as supernatural IS close-minded, because it rejects all other explanations in favor of a lack of one, and then blocks any further study.
The only evidence you could have for the supernatural is a lack of evidence for the natural. It's difficult to observe NDEs because there are many factors involved that can't be replicated in a study.
How does something being supernatural equal to it being beyond our understanding? You may certainly elaborate on that one ;)
No, because if an event CANNOT be explained in materialistic terms, then it is by definition supernatural. Doesn't make it inauthentic; rather, it makes the metaphysical hypothesis 'materialism' invalid. You are basically being dogmatic about your belief if you can't see that.
As far as evidence goes, here is a short summary of why there is ample evidence to see NDEs as afterlifish rather than hallucinatorish:
nderf(.)org/NDE%20Med%20Explicable(.)htm
And, as a sidenote, while NDEs DO disprove Christianity (just like fossil records), they also support the God-hypothesis, as many deep NDEers are told about, and some even experience, a single creator being.
No. Some things that happen DISPROVE a theory about the reason for such thing to happen. But how is your argument related to blind people seeing despite impaired visual cortex'?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, it's in the brain. The visual cortex is the part of the brain that interprets the data from the eyes. When that is impaired, you're blind. People who have impaired visual cortex', however, SEE during their near-death experiences.
If you read my previous post some of the "hoaxes" I personally observed. I set you a task to put things into perspective, work out how many molecules are in a human body, and say your god of evolution could stack one molecule per second, how many humans could he make in 20 billion years?
I did read your personal hoax "evidence", and if thats what you consider enough to completely reject a theory which has withstood the scrutiny of over 150 years of scientific study, then honestly, you are an idiot. No wonder you accept the magic man story. Because thats got lots of evidence going for it eh? You're all about that evidence right? You would never accept anything as fact unless it can be proven beyond all doubt, right?
You speak as though the so called theory of evolution has been static, a theory that changes as often as I change my clothes. What evolutionist call a fact one week is discarded the next. EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE IT IS A BELIEF. The theory of evolution has not aided mankind in any way, on the contrary, it has encouraged racism, abortion, euthanasia, eugenics etc. Whereas real science, electronics, medicine, physics, chemistry etc. has contributed to humanity in many ways.
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist", just people who accept science as the only way to discover truths about reality and those who put their faith in magic stories.
clearly you lack a critical understanding of the issue. Religions are what lead to hate, separation and murders. The theory of evolution is fact and science based and has seen little change since it's inception by Darwin over 150 years ago. Even the intelligent design theory would at some level account for change and evolution. Maybe educate yourself before your next post.
As an evolutionist, why is hate bad?, in fact what is bad and what is good? How would you know?
How can you know evolution is fact? The theory of evolution has change greatly over the last 150 years. A cell in Darwin's time was thought to be something simple when it is now known to be extremely complex. Darwinists have no explanations for the enormous complexity of a cell, only speculations (just so stories).
There are more manufacturing process going on in a single cell than all the different manufacturing process going on by man in the whole world. The data stored in the DNA takes up a trillion times less space than our most compact computer storage methods.
The atheistic Soviet Union's atrocities alone outnumber all the so called religious wars combined, does 100 million casualties make the point?
"Darwinists have no explanations for the enormous complexity of a cell, only speculations (just so stories)."
You don't know sh*t about what Darwinists say, this argument from complexity you are presenting just shows it. Do your homework and try, for a second, to accept that the Bible is a work of fiction. If you can't do that, then there's no reason to even discuss.
"The theory of evolution has changed greatly over the last 150 years."
I suggest you do some research, perhaps start by reading some of the books by Michael Denton or Michael Behe.
Have you read the Bible?
Interesting that you put your faith is a so called science that has many unanswered questions, many people opposed to it and many scientist discarding the theory (mainly microbiologist). I have no problem with real science, notice how major scientific theories have not changed much at all, maths, chemistry, physics and logic based sciences in particular.
Then, you have a problem with the Bible. You can't go with both unless you take the Bible metaphorically, which would mean you don't have an explainable and substantial world view that I can understand and accept.
Evolution isn't the only theory that disproves the Bible. Did you really think so? Brainwashed to the core.
And if you think physics hasn't changed A LOT in the past years, then you don't know what you're talking about.
There has been new discoveries but the basic principles of physics have not changed a lot in recent years, it was a long time ago that they put a man on the moon.
Can you give me some examples where science has proved the Bible to be wrong. I do not want evolutionary arguments as I do not believe that evolution is a science.
"Can you give me some examples where science has proved the Bible to be wrong. I do not want evolutionary arguments as I do not believe that evolution is a science."
You said you had no problems with physics, but physics proves the Bible wrong. From the Big Bang theory to Quantum Decay and radiometric dating, the fairy tale is exposed.
Archaeology proves it wrong too. Logic proves it wrong too, there are many arguments against the God portrayed in the Bible that are based on simple Logic.
Big Bang theory and radiometric dating, are science based on evolutionary presuppositions, both great examples of how evolutionary beliefs are producing bad science. There is far more evidence for a young earth than an old earth. Where is the examples of science proving the Bible wrong? You have given me nothing but a bunch of "just so" statements. Just focus on this specif point with specific examples.
"Big Bang theory and radiometric dating, are science based on evolutionary presuppositions, both great examples of how evolutionary beliefs are producing bad science." HAHA LOL OK MAN you are really undereducated. The "specific points and specific examples" are at your disposal EVERYWHERE. Especially in libraries and universities. You expect me to give you a lifelong education on every subject that disproves the Bible? Go find answers in reality, not some old fairy story. Have a nice life.
Again "just so" statements. Just give me a couple of specific examples? I can say the same to you, Go read the Bible, research, all the anti evolution literature out there etc. etc. What I am asking is to engage me with specific examples, not give me a lifetime education. I have spent time investigating the claims of evolution, Have you spent time investigating the claims of the Bible? I have read "Origin of the Species" have you read the Bible?
This has been flagged as spam show
How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
EXALTEDDIRT 4 days ago
God is fiction.
Karoke77 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"@ChristJesusReigns leave the internet please
Bzdi138 1 year ago (6 thumbs up)" <<< My favorite "quote" ever!! O_O ^__^
Karoke77 1 month ago
This video is mistitled
ravitubeyou123 9 months ago
These guys are verbally masturbating each other.
VincentPriceRushJob 10 months ago
Let's treat religious ppl with panic attacks..
Melicioel7 10 months ago
Intelligent design rules fuck non theist bullshit.
youngfred116 11 months ago
@youngfred116 how it doesn't do anything?
skydome29 10 months ago
@skydome29 intelligent design rules fuck non theist bullshit
youngfred116 10 months ago
@youngfred116
wow what a thought inspiring argument!
AndonutsJeff 7 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndonutsJeff intelligent design rules fuck non theist bullshit
youngfred116 7 months ago
@chessfan6: that's just a play on words.
findtruth512 11 months ago
Nuh Uh, god made us with depression and anxiety so we could all kill ourselves because of Adam and Eve's sin. Haven't you read the Bible you ignorant scientists and doctors!?!?!?!?
c0unterph0bia 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Really enjoyed you video informative. When you have time come visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Really enjoyed you video informative. When you have time come visit my channel!
truehealthyproducts 11 months ago
if you live to reproduce, then your genes get passed on. so if aslong as people are living to thier twenties and reproducing, then theres no need to evolve. nuff said, dumbass... hes expecting us to be perfect beings
TheAwesomeFormat 1 year ago
Atheists claim to have "reason" yet in the next breath they believe we are here for no reason and purpose. So if reason never existed to begin with, then by default they cannot have "reason".
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns leave the internet please
Bzdi138 1 year ago 8
@Bzdi138
You'd like that wouldn't you. Stalin wanted to get rid of all Christians and eliminate their rights too.
ChristJesusReigns 1 month ago
@ChristJesusReigns While Jesus wants to rid of us our rights and if we don't worship him...well we get thrown into fire....Stalin>Jesus
Bzdi138 1 month ago
@Bzdi138 AMEN ^__^
Karoke77 1 month ago
@ChristJesusReigns At what age should a person stop talking themselves to sleep (prayer) and maybe dispense with the imaginary friend? o_O I will let you think about that. My answer would be around 8 years old. Are you 8 years old yet? o_O
Karoke77 1 month ago
@ChristJesusReigns ♪ ♫ ♩ ♬ ♭ ♮ ♯ Tell me why
Everything turned around
Packing up
Shacking up's all you wanna do
You can go your own way
Go your own way
You can call it
Another lonely day" ♪ ♫ ♩ ♬ ♭ ♮ ♯
Karoke77 1 day ago
@ChristJesusReigns two different definitions of the word reason. reason meaning cause and reason meaning logic. you are correct about science. it is philosophy, ever changing philosophy. and so is religion, all of the hundreds of them throughout the centuries. unchanging deity based philosophies created in different regions. alot are still around, and alot have faded away. science will never be "right", but neither will religion. ill stick with the one that takes reality into account.
chaseybarney 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns I will give you a juxtaposition and hopefully you can see why your argument is flawed:
(P stands for premise, C is conclusion)
P1: Nothing is better than heaven
P2: A hamburger is better than nothing
C: Therefore, a hamburger is better than heaven.
Think about it.
chessfan6 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns Happy Halloween!!! BOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LooooooooooooooooooL XD Are you dressing up as a dragon?
A monkey?? Noah?? As a homicide bomber??
Make sure to wear reflective gear where required!! LOL
TRICK OR TREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hehehehehehehehe
Karoke77 4 months ago
this has to be the most enlightening video i have ever seen in my life
captaindisguise 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FFreeThinker my msn in profile! Intelligent Design: Natural Selection And Mental Health
sexykatie90 1 year ago
Maximize reproduction, time to change this,
Lucuskane 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come baby Russian ladies ** leefoxnow.info **
monica49nbfgre 1 year ago
Free energy has been here all along ,But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
cadentavaricegrtrj 1 year ago
Fascintating discussion! The explanatory power of evolution by natural selection is the only one out there that makes everything in the natural world make sense. Best thing of all is we know it's a fact!
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 PROVE IT. BUT NOT JUST THAT "fact" PROVE THE CREATION AND COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSE. .If you think hard enough about it you can't
BlackWidowVictoria 1 year ago
@BlackWidowVictoria I don't need to waste time 'proving' evolution - the evidence is available for any sensible person to find. The emergence of the universe is a far more difficult issue but not one to shy away from because it's hard and simply posit god as the answer. Difficult questions demand difficult answers and science is looking: read about the Big Bang, inflationary theory, the Ekpyrotic theory. Because you find it hard to understand how things happen doesn't that mean they didn't?
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
darwin hinted at the possibilities of his theory to develop profound understanding of nature and ourselves demonstrated in this bit of conversation. my anxiety (which is substantial) has been ben salved not only by the understanding of the reason discussed, but by the realization that it is, in fact, part of something far beyond me.
burnhippiesforfuel 1 year ago
SUPER!!!!!!!!!!!
szmako 1 year ago
Why isn't this taught in high schools? I feel like I have such a better understanding of how the body works just by having an idea of why it works that way.
ic3Septre 1 year ago
@ic3Septre because most of our elected officials and school boards don't believe in evolution
shldflght 1 year ago
@shldflght No, it's because greedy bastards don't want to pay more taxes. Therefore, the officials cut those funds so people that elect them can keep their dirty money.
Dralzun 1 year ago
@Dralzun Hmm that seems to be a more logical argument. I gladly concede this one to you sir with the addition of the officials mirroring the belief systems of whoever the voter majority is as well.
shldflght 1 year ago
@shldflght Thanks. I just wish people in general knew more about the benefits of a strong education system. Maybe then, they would understand the gravity of their actions and the left would stop victimizing the officials...
Dralzun 1 year ago
awesome series! Very interesting
mrbarnes86 1 year ago
If you lived longer you would reproduce more. However, your genes would stagnate the gene pool and your offspring would not be able to adapt to environmental changes.
Diversity is more suited to changing circumstances, in the long term a short life is better for DNA reproduction. It's the DNA which needs to survive, not the individual.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
I gotta call Dawkins out on his statement at 1:00 about natural selection only selecting up to the point of reproduction. We mammals must raise our young, so if parents died after reproducing the child would likely die, and the parent's genes along with it. Even sterile 90 year old grandparents fight for the survival of their genes by caring for grandchildren.
Aerosteon 1 year ago
@Aerosteon I agree, which is why people live far beyond reproductive age. But then it becomes a question of - at what age does a person cease to be important to the survival of the latest generation?
sesshou76 1 year ago
@sesshou76
That's not a hard question. A person ceases to be important to the survival for the next generation when the net future benefit they can be expected to offer becomes less than the net future aid they will require.
In economics this comes up all the time. As equipment gets older the cost of service and repairs eventually becomes greater than the profit you make from running it. That's when the equipment is no longer useful.
Aerosteon 1 year ago
@Aerosteon You got it wrong. He said if you'd ask Charles Darwin he would say so. And we all know that the evolution theory has changed since Darwin's time. Dawkins said this to show the misunderstanding many have about evolution.
McAnkkuli 1 year ago
this whole interview is the response to all those people asking for proof of evolution and what evolutionary theory can do for us.
Diabolojr 1 year ago
How did the conscience evolve? Lying can help me out in the short term, so whose to say that it's not bad for my evolution? If it's better to reproduce a lot, then wouldn't it be "best" for me to get wealthy lying to people and then sleep with numerous women to reproduce. From an evolutionary standpoint, wouldn't that be best. Why should I feel bad for not having a conscience. Shouldn't I live for what is best for me, survival of the fittest. Why do I hate to sin? Why do I want to do good?
MotionFrequency 2 years ago
Lying exists because it can sometimes be useful, but if you lie to someone and are ever caught, the penalty usually outweighs the benefit, and the more times you get caught the worse and worse the penalty is until you are sidelined by society entirely. So there are very strong evolutionary pressures not to lie. This is an evolutionary reason for the development of a conscience and guilt over harming others (via lies and other means). STDs are a cause of sexual guilt pressuring one to monogamy.
darkmiles22 2 years ago 6
@darkmiles22 If we come from animals why do we have a conscience A well known atheist said that he didn't believe in right and wrong because if he did that would mean he would have to admit intelligent design is true.
BlackWidowVictoria 1 year ago
@BlackWidowVictoria Why do we feel pleasure and pain? Because those mechanisms evolved over time as strong incentives to perform certain actions and avoid others that were beneficial or harmful to the propagation of our genes. Sex is good for spreading genes, so it gets top billing. Food and water are good for staying alive long enough to have sex, so they likewise are rewarded by the brain. Cuts and scrapes make contracting an infection easier, so they are strongly punished.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
@BlackWidowVictoria A conscience facilitates the peaceful existence of communities, both in mammal societies in the wild and in modern, human society. Communities offer great advantages to being an outcast, particularly security in numbers. Evolution gives a wonderful explanation for conscience, but again, just because we understand why it exists doesn't mean we should ignore it. It is still useful for one thing. But it is also a part of who we are, and I see no reason not to embrace it.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
@BlackWidowVictoria Animal(zoology): any living organism characterized by voluntary movement, the possession of cells with noncellulose cell walls and specialized sense organs enabling rapid response to stimuli, and the ingestion of complex organic substances such as plants and other animals.
You are one.
Riff625 1 year ago
@darkmiles22 "STDs are a cause of sexual guilt pressuring one to monogamy."
I want to amend this to "STDs cause evolutionary pressure in both individuals and cultures to increase sexual guilt that punishes polyamorous behavior."
darkmiles22 1 year ago
Just as understanding evolution explains why we like sweet foods so much, but can't change our desire for sweets to a degree that we know is unhealthy, so too can understanding evolution explain why we feel guilty or pride or joy or fear, etc. without lessening how strongly we feel them in any way.
Why is being good because you're programmed to be good so unacceptable? Christians quote "God hath writ these things in your heart" at me all the time, but if it's NS doing the writing they hate it.
darkmiles22 2 years ago
@darkmiles22 here is one thing that you can think about first law of thermodynamics energy cant be created or destroyed. Explain how the universe came into existence. tell me how does science answer this one.
BlackWidowVictoria 1 year ago
@BlackWidowVictoria Stephen Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, tackles the question of what caused the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations cause particle-antiparticle somethings to come from nothing all the time (with net energy of 0). This has been demonstrated and is well understood by theory. The net energy of the cosmos is also 0 (because of gravity), strong support for the idea that the cosmos is a quantum fluctuation that snowballed in size due to the separation of gravity from other forces.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
@BlackWidowVictoria Hawking explains in great detail a possible, natural mechanism by which the cosmos could have been caused. It could be wrong. We don't know. But to assume that because we don't know, it must have been an intelligent agent is a huge fallacy. Moreover it is antithetical to science and all human progress these past few centuries.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
I forget the term, but humans are not the same kind of reproducer as every other animal. Many animals have a litter of offspring, which is immediately (or quickly) viable and can soon survive on its own - often the NUMBER of offspring an animal has is the guarantee of their survival. Humans survive not by numbers but by intelligence and knowledge. Years of upbringing are essential, a trustworthy and more reliable partner will give the children a better chance in life.
8DX 1 year ago
@MotionFrequency The evolution of morality is a complicated subject and I encourage you to google "evolution of morality", but basically humans are social creatures who generally only survive if their society survives. That means evolution favors groups of people who are able to work and play well with others. If your ancestors had lots of children, all of which died without reproducing when their society collapsed you would not be here.
jhuger 1 year ago
Bloody great series. Much food for thought.
ShallowBeThyGames 2 years ago
I don't think I agree with the video - please clarify if I'm mistaken though :-/
IMHO the reason why we age is because evolution selects for traits that are most favorable; for instance the ability to reproduce but also the increased adaptability. Both are necessary. Both the absence of offspring and the absence of offspring which can survive and reproduce on its own are dead ends. Thus, through the generations we've been selected for both - not just the reproducability.
DigitizedSelf 2 years ago
@DigitizedSelf you are mistaken. Your confusion stems from thinking that adaptation and reproduction as having separate interests. To clarify, an adaptation is simply the following: A genetic trait which increases the chances of surviving to sexual maturity in a given environment.
S0lidShade 2 years ago
You say I'm mistaken, yet I cannot see why :-/. I get the fact that higher adaption leads to higher chance of reproduction; this is why I mentioned it in the first place
Basically my objection is against the notion that evolution only selects for the ability to reproduce; this is certainly a necessity and the only important factor for a single generation of evolution, but if all offspring were to perish before maturing it would mean little in the long run - thus adaptation as a necessity too.
DigitizedSelf 2 years ago
@DigitizedSelf dude, 'ability to survive to sexual maturity' comes under the 'capacity to reproduce' -they're one and the same thing. That's basically where I'm coming from. Reproduction is always selected for, e.g. If it happens to be that the ability to dodge lions is conducive to finding a mate (making babies in the future) then agility is favored.
S0lidShade 1 year ago
Comment removed
S0lidShade 1 year ago
@DigitizedSelf Sheep and cows, for instance, have not evolved to escape from humans and live longer as this would not help them to reproduce; farmers ensure that they get to breed for other traits before being slaughtered.
S0lidShade 1 year ago
@S0lidShade Wow, that's a late reply :S ...yeah? In what way does this mean that they're not selected for favorable traits/adaptability (amount of meat or milk generated for instance) in comparison to just their ability to reproduce? I'd say you're contradicting yourself with these last to replies... the age of the livestock is exactly determined by which is most favorable to acquire the necessary traits and not just which makes them reproduce the most.
DigitizedSelf 1 year ago
To state it clearer: The "reason" why we age is that evolution selects for the ability to reproduce and, in the longer span of time, the ability of offspring to do the same (the latter is what I earlier denoted as being part of adaptation) - not for long age.
DigitizedSelf 2 years ago
all fuckin hogwash........
betsall 2 years ago
fancy opening a discussion on why?
papercutpictures 2 years ago
in the u.s., in the business of 'professional' wrestling an alarming amount of performers have died under the age of 40. many deaths are related to alchol, drugs, steroids etc.
is it fair to say that this is natural selection at work? killing off the weak (ie those with inferior gene pools), so to speak?
forgive my ignorance if this is not the case and of course i do not wish death upon anyone but one must admit there is a pattern.
slaveoftheheart 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" - Check it out on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
It amazes me how people can watch videos like these and not get what's staring at them right in the face. How the fuck can God and all that crap be more believable than evolution? Religion is like devolution in a sense that it's completely backwards and very unhelpful to TODAY'S real problems. One day maybe you religious peeps will finally see that kneeling and standing for an invisble being every Sunday did nothing but ache your legs.
"Hail motherfucking science"
mazk1985 2 years ago 62
@mazk1985 that's a bit extreme dont ya think? I mean most religious people im sure are good people. As long as they don't harm anyone who cares what they believe in? They might be wrong, even obviously wrong but there's no need to be obnoxious and mock their beliefs.
chessfan6 1 year ago
@chessfan6 I'm sorry I used strong language. Truly. I don't normally speak out harshly but religion was and still is to some degree a form of control just like debt nowadays is a form of control. Religion, thank God, doesn't exert the kind of influence it once had but my anger from the Earth's current shitty condition got the better of me and I was sick and tired of living in a horribly corrupt world full of liars and cheats. Religion was created to control man and I despise all forms of control
mazk1985 1 year ago
@mazk1985 Well there are some good forms of control like laws which protect the common good, I'm sure you don't despise that form. I think the problem with Christianity (the only religion I understand well enough to speak about) is that it's just blatantly a lie. Good rational people believe something with so many contradictions and flaws.
I agree churches have too much power over people, but I would be ok with that if there were two shreds of evidence to support the damn thing...
chessfan6 1 year ago
@chessfan6 what is contradictory about it. If you really study it you will see that it explains everything. We use the same data they do we can explain it too. Look up a video called Demolishing strongholds. If you actually listen and focus on that video it will show you how Christianity works. The problem is people already have there minds made up and they wont listen to reason. So if thats you then don't bother
BlackWidowVictoria 1 year ago
@chessfan6 thank you. But the one thing that we have an answer to is the one thing that Science can't prove or even have an answer to. CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE THINK HARD ENOUGH ABOUT IT AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE IS NO ANSWER APART FROM GOD.
BlackWidowVictoria 1 year ago
@BlackWidowVictoria 1) Just because science does not have a proven answer yet does not mean it will never have one. Your assumption is incorrect
2) There are currently several postulated theories that have nothing to do with God
3) Saying God did it really doesn't solve the problem. Then we have to answer the question of who or what created God.
4) Clearly you are the one that hasn't been thinking hard about it. If you can only see one solution to this question, your thinking is limited.
chessfan6 1 year ago
@chessfan6
Answer to #1: Your version of "science" is philosophy. man made philosophy. That's why there are different stories every 2 or so years in textbooks. More philosophy to sell at the market, that's all to #2: Again, philosophies to #3: Yes, God does solve the problem, and no, you don't have to ask who created God because God IS the first cause. He doesn't fall under human laws and regulations. He is outside of human wisdom
Answer to #4: U aren't thinking, you're philosophying...
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns Well if by philosophy you mean "the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics", Then yes science is a type of philosophy. That in no way decreases its value. It is man's quest to learn about our universe. Just because man has discovered it doesn't mean it is flawed. Things change in textbooks because we were proven wrong so the idea must change. That is a device to correct our mistakes. Until you can prove something wrong you have no argument
chessfan6 1 year ago
@ChristJesusReigns Also if you are going to propose a statement like "God IS the first cause" without any proof shown, then I am allowed to say the universe created itself without any proof. We do not resolve anything making claims such as these.
The main difference between you and I is that I am willing to accept the idea that there is a God, I just don't think it is so. You are not willing to accept the idea that there is no God.
chessfan6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristJesusReigns "All people have to do is study world history and see the bloodbath that Islam has caused for 1,400 years and counting now. Muhammed was a murderer and a pedophile." <<< YOUR words. Your cult has made you just another "crusader" thirsty for war against Muslim countries, yes? It is why Atheists do not want Christian extremists in charge of the government.
Karoke77 1 month ago
@ChristJesusReigns Science is real, so of course new answers are found as we learn more. Your cult just invents "magic" and says........"There it is!!! We do not need to study or learn anymore." SO SAD. Have a "blessed" day "brother" LoooooooooL Xd
Karoke77 1 month ago
@mazk1985 ONE REASON. HOW DID THE UNIVERSE COME TO BE. and don't give me big bang. Something had to cause the big bang. Explain it what was the first thing in existence and how did that come to be. answer that and you will have solved the mystery of the WORLD.
BlackWidowVictoria 1 year ago
@BlackWidowVictoria Inflationary theory explains the Big Bang. You didn't know this and yet you're banging on as if you were smart or something...
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mazk1985
Hail Jesus Christ, the King of kings, and Lord of lords!
ChristJesusReigns 1 year ago
Every creationist that thinks evolution/selection is a worthless theory that doesn't need to be taught should be forced to watch this until their eyes melt.
ndyt 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Two very intresting people. Great video thanks
buddyjesus1000 2 years ago
thank you
rosehurry 2 years ago
Freethinkers know that they are super-evolved primates. Believers imagine that they were made out of slime when God phlegmed in a puddle on the sixth day.
Why exactly would a supersmart monkey want to debate a piece of crockery?
thallassocracy 2 years ago
So there's a threshold for how much anxiety you "should" be experiencing. If you're too over-reactive, you'll end up miserable and probably in a worst condition; if you're too lenient, you may possibly die. Those people in between are the ones who eventually end up benefiting the most. I GET IT NOW!
ArtOfPhire 2 years ago
Very good. I love hearing articulate scientists talk to each other. Of course Dawkins is playing "interviewer" here and already understands this, but it's still fun to hear.
planetdarwin 2 years ago
dawkins is the real god and steven hawking the creator.
userwl2850 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Does My Father Love Me?" - A new video on my channel that looks at how Atheists and Christians interpret the same evidence very differently.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
What a load of crock, these guys are supposed to be intelligent, they have no idea of the complexity of a single cell. We find a watch on the ground and ask "who made this" we look at a single cell that is infinitely more complex than a watch and say "this happened by chance" The underlying reason people believe in evolution is to avoid believing in the creator God.
vintagea 2 years ago
A watch is an inanimate object and can not assemble itsself. A cell is living breathing changing matter. You're comparing plastic apples with organic oranges.
The reason people accept evolution is because thats where the evidence leads us. Unfortunately for most religious people, they dont bother studying the evidence with an open mind and jump straight to their own pre-determined conclusion.
luker4459 2 years ago
Scientists are always testing existing theories and finding better explanation's for things. The beauty of the scientific method is that it tests itself - the scientist's creed is 'challenge everything'.
Whereas the tragedy of religion is that its only test is faith - the priest's creed is 'trust me'.
Which, ironically, makes me trust science, and challenge religion.
luker4459 2 years ago
I don't see your point, you are telling me that a cell which is at least a trillion times more complex than a watch happened by chance and the simple watch was designed, where is the logic in that?
Evolution is not a science, you can not test the theory. I totally support the scientific method, in fact many of our scientific pioneers were Bible believing six day creation Christians, Pasteur, Kepler, Newton and others.
vintagea 2 years ago
You are taking a black and white approach to this. Its not black and white, your logic reminds me of a great analogy by barry lynn;
We walk out into the forest one day and watch a mole build a mole hill and say wow thats very interesting. Then we walk out the next day and see a mountain off in the distance, and say "wow, a really big mole must have build that".
I accept evolution because i have extensively researched it, and it makes sense to me.
luker4459 2 years ago
Evolution has done absolutely nothing for humanity, in fact it limits scientific research. Most evolutionists walk around with blindfolds on. An example:- a few years ago I visited a cave and listened to the same old millions of years talk by the guide. When he had finished I told him that I did not believe what he had just told me and I believed that the earth was no more than 10000 years old. He replied That I could be right and he lead me to the back of the cave
vintagea 2 years ago
and showed me a massive stalagmite that was a meter high and about 600mm diameter, he said that when he started working in the cave about 14 years ago that it was only inches high and he continued to show and tell me how fast the formations changed and grew, all depended on how much rain there was. I said why do you tell the people the millions of years story? he sad "that is what I am paid to tell them.
vintagea 2 years ago
The validity of a scientific theory is not determined by how useful it is, or whether some guy working in a cave has a different opinion. The fact that certain scientific pioneers were religious is also completely irrelevant.
Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientist (including scientists who beleive in a god) for one reason and one reason only; Because thats where the evidence leads them.
Please explain to me how evolution limits scientific research.
luker4459 2 years ago
Because i really dont see how your anecdotal story of this guy working in a cave is somehow an indicator that scientists walk around with blindfolds on.
Thats exactly what creationists do. Their doctrine doesnt permit them to admit they are wrong and change their understanding in light of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Its the complete opposite of science.
luker4459 2 years ago
A good example would be Piltdown Man. Over 500 scientific essays including a number of doctoral theses were written on Piltdown Man. The fraud was so obvious you could see the file marks on the teeth. This demonstrates just how blindly scientist follow their belief in evolution regardless of the facts. Another example would be Haeckel's fabricated drawings purporting to show embryo development mimicking so called evolutionary development, a fraud still in textbooks published today.
vintagea 2 years ago
Another example of people blinded by their belief in evolution. A number of years ago I visited Mt Schank, a dormant volcano in Victoria. There was a sign stating that the volcano erupted 4,000 years ago and that it was completely under water when it erupted. I thought as I looked out at the horizon from the summit, 158 m above sea level, "what an example of Noah's flood" I returned about 4 years later and a new sign had been erected, same text but the 4,000 had been changed to 40,000.
vintagea 2 years ago
Oh no!! You've uncovered the worldwide conspiracy of scientists who go around adding zero's to geological time charts to make the age of the earth seem several orders of magnitude older than it actually is, for the sole purpose of spreading their evil, small-minded, godless misinformation.....OR....maybe the first sign just had a typo and was replaced for that reason........idiot
FrankSlade1983 2 years ago
You missed my point completely, I don't know who added the "0" to the sign, but they were most likely influenced (brainwashed) by their belief in evolution. The fact is that the volcano did erupt 4000 to 5000 years ago as per almost all volcanologist sites and literature. You will see little or no mention of this fact on the tourism sites that promote the area. There was no typo on the first sign.
vintagea 2 years ago
Science doesn't claim to know everything, nor to get everything right the first time. It is a self correcting system of understanding the world that changes when new evidence emerges. For that reason frauds (like the one u mentioned, cannot persist)...It's amusing to see you thump your chest and use the Piltdown Man as an example of the failure of science...when it was the scientific method itself that exposed the fossils for the hoax that they were.
FrankSlade1983 2 years ago
"This demonstrates just how blindly scientist follow their belief in evolution regardless of the facts."
No. It demonstrates perfectly that the scientific method works. Frauds and hoaxes will always be exposed and i cant stress enough how stupid it is to expect scientists to throw out the mountains of genuine evidence and call the theory a failure just because a few people tried to fool the scientists 100 YEARS AGO. Do you honestly not realise how weak your argument is?
luker4459 2 years ago
Can you give me one conclusive "evidence" for evolution?
vintagea 2 years ago
There isn't one single peice of evidence that would completely prove evolution beyond all doubt. However the fused chromosome #2 n the great apes are very compelling. Genetic evidence is the most compelling of all.
All of the facts and evidence that have been discovered in geology, paleontology, genetic and other fields of science are all completely consistent with evolution.
If you are actually interested in finding out about it then i suggest watching potholer54 or AronRa's videos.
luker4459 2 years ago
"fused chromosome #2 n the great apes " a very poor piece of "evidence" open to much biased interpretation. Great evidence from geology, the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. I suppose it all boils down to your bias, we all have the same evidences. I prefer to take the word of some one that was there in the beginning, you can believe the myth that the princess kissed the frog and millions of years later the frog turned into a prince.
vintagea 2 years ago
You now what cracks me up the most about people like you? You completely reject science and remain willfully ignorant and laugh off 150 years of scientific discovery as "a fairy tale". So your preferred alternative is to put your complete trust in a book written by primitive men about a god which says exactly that you were poofed into existence by magic.
Its just laughable. It's clear you are a waste of time. Your pathetic anecdotal arguments are so weak.
luker4459 2 years ago
How do you know god was there?
St00sh13 2 years ago
"Haeckel's fabricated drawings purporting to show embryo development mimicking so called evolutionary development, a fraud still in textbooks published today"
Oh really? Care to provide me with a single example?
luker4459 2 years ago
My apologies, I should have said "used" today as in 2004 edition of Biology: The Unity & Diversity of Life. There may be books published today that use the drawings, if I get the time I will do further research. I know the scientific method works, but what I am saying is that it cannot be applied to evolution. Both sides of the argument have their bias. I believe that evolution is a religion of blind faith. My above examples are evidence of that.
vintagea 2 years ago
Evolution is blind faith? Are you kidding me? Do you just close your eyes and block your ears every time you hear one of the huge number of evidences for evolution? Or have you just never bothered to do any research?
Your examples are based on nothing but complete ignorance of evolution and clearly desperate attempts at discrediting it using century old hoaxes. Quite honestly its pathetic.
luker4459 2 years ago
A lot of talk, one "conclusive" evidence for evolution please?
vintagea 2 years ago
You misunderstand how science works. There is no one "conclusive" piece of evidence for anything.
Evidence, gathered over years, independently, from many fields of science, all point towards the age of the earth, the inheritance of physics features, the inheritance of behaviours, the genetic similarities/differences, ... I could go on.
They all point to evolution being the best explanation for life on this planet.
Show me a body of extra-biblical evidence that points to the existence of god
St00sh13 2 years ago
>Show me a body of extra-biblical evidence that points to the existence of god
Near-Death Experience research! Enjoy :)
forestloves 2 years ago
That's just chemicals in the brain. Many drugs (like LSD) can also set them off.
SuperBlahmaster 2 years ago
Got any evidence of that claim? How does it explain blind people seeing, and people seeing things way off their bodies position in space, and then live to tell about it? ;)
Do some research!
forestloves 2 years ago
Occam's Razor. Studies are going on, theories are being formed, but there is no evidence that it is anything supernatural. It's hypocritical of you to ask for evidence and yet you choose the supernatural, which is a lack of a real explanation.
Your logic is "science can't yet explain it, therefor it is supernatural and confirms my worldview", which is wrong. Even if NDEs were somehow supernatural, that doesn't mean that Christianity is correct, or that God exists.
SuperBlahmaster 2 years ago
Actually, there is a lot of evidence that it IS something supernatural going on. And see, here is where your prejudice shows: "...which is a lack of a real explanation" ...? A supernatural explanation can't be a real explanation? Why not? It's not like science = materialism. That's tremendously closed-minded thinking, mate ;)
I know that NDEs being supernatural doesn't imply Christianity nor God. In fact, much of what NDE research tells us goes straight in the face of Christianity.
forestloves 2 years ago
Supernatural basically means that it's beyond our understanding. If you're able to rationally explain it, it's not supernatural.
Labelling something as supernatural IS close-minded, because it rejects all other explanations in favor of a lack of one, and then blocks any further study.
The only evidence you could have for the supernatural is a lack of evidence for the natural. It's difficult to observe NDEs because there are many factors involved that can't be replicated in a study.
SuperBlahmaster 2 years ago
How does something being supernatural equal to it being beyond our understanding? You may certainly elaborate on that one ;)
No, because if an event CANNOT be explained in materialistic terms, then it is by definition supernatural. Doesn't make it inauthentic; rather, it makes the metaphysical hypothesis 'materialism' invalid. You are basically being dogmatic about your belief if you can't see that.
Read more here:
ufoskeptic(.)org/grossman(.)html
Peace :)
forestloves 2 years ago
As far as evidence goes, here is a short summary of why there is ample evidence to see NDEs as afterlifish rather than hallucinatorish:
nderf(.)org/NDE%20Med%20Explicable(.)htm
And, as a sidenote, while NDEs DO disprove Christianity (just like fossil records), they also support the God-hypothesis, as many deep NDEers are told about, and some even experience, a single creator being.
Peace
forestloves 2 years ago
if you'er blind you still have the part of the brian that lets us see
seeing things is a two part thing they have the main part you need the one that put the photo together
kokofan50 2 years ago
>if you'er blind you still have the part of the brian that lets us see
Even those born blind because of a destroyed visual cortex see during an NDE. What about that? :)
forestloves 2 years ago
not every thing you have said in your life has one or 2 thing out side the general rule like those so if that if why you'er fucked
kokofan50 2 years ago
Wut?
You are most certainly allowed to re-frame that statement, because I could not at all understand your point.
forestloves 2 years ago
not every thing gose by the general rule of thum like what you were talking bout they are the one out side that general rule
kokofan50 2 years ago
No. Some things that happen DISPROVE a theory about the reason for such thing to happen. But how is your argument related to blind people seeing despite impaired visual cortex'?
forestloves 2 years ago
my point is that seeing is more than just eye its in the brian and no rule is not broken by something or can be
kokofan50 2 years ago
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, it's in the brain. The visual cortex is the part of the brain that interprets the data from the eyes. When that is impaired, you're blind. People who have impaired visual cortex', however, SEE during their near-death experiences.
forestloves 2 years ago
ok but what people see is part of the most complex and powerful part of you it can do all kinds of thing to you
kokofan50 2 years ago
Allright man, thanx for the convo :) Peace be with you
forestloves 2 years ago
same i gess we were dsaying the same thing differently
kokofan50 2 years ago
If you read my previous post some of the "hoaxes" I personally observed. I set you a task to put things into perspective, work out how many molecules are in a human body, and say your god of evolution could stack one molecule per second, how many humans could he make in 20 billion years?
vintagea 2 years ago
I did read your personal hoax "evidence", and if thats what you consider enough to completely reject a theory which has withstood the scrutiny of over 150 years of scientific study, then honestly, you are an idiot. No wonder you accept the magic man story. Because thats got lots of evidence going for it eh? You're all about that evidence right? You would never accept anything as fact unless it can be proven beyond all doubt, right?
luker4459 2 years ago
You speak as though the so called theory of evolution has been static, a theory that changes as often as I change my clothes. What evolutionist call a fact one week is discarded the next. EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE IT IS A BELIEF. The theory of evolution has not aided mankind in any way, on the contrary, it has encouraged racism, abortion, euthanasia, eugenics etc. Whereas real science, electronics, medicine, physics, chemistry etc. has contributed to humanity in many ways.
vintagea 2 years ago
1) The theory of evolution has changed very little since darwin first proposed it.
2) Just because evolution doesn't produce ipod's doesnt mean its factually incorrect. That is one of the the stupidest arguments i have ever heard.
3) More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than you could ever imagine. It still happens to this day.
Understanding the diversity of life does not encourage atrocities. Evil men do evil things. You're really clutching at straws aren't you?
luker4459 2 years ago
As a atheistic evolutionist how do you know what is evil?
vintagea 2 years ago
and how is evil defined?
ratpat 2 years ago
That is what I am asking luker4459, I would like an atheistic evolutionist definition.
vintagea 2 years ago
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist", just people who accept science as the only way to discover truths about reality and those who put their faith in magic stories.
luker4459 2 years ago
1. How do you know what is moral or immoral?
2. Why does it matter if something is harmful or injurious? "Survival of the fittest," "I must reproduce".
3. So what if there is misfortune or suffering. That's a part of "natural selection"
vintagea 2 years ago
clearly you lack a critical understanding of the issue. Religions are what lead to hate, separation and murders. The theory of evolution is fact and science based and has seen little change since it's inception by Darwin over 150 years ago. Even the intelligent design theory would at some level account for change and evolution. Maybe educate yourself before your next post.
timandsteph8488 2 years ago
As an evolutionist, why is hate bad?, in fact what is bad and what is good? How would you know?
How can you know evolution is fact? The theory of evolution has change greatly over the last 150 years. A cell in Darwin's time was thought to be something simple when it is now known to be extremely complex. Darwinists have no explanations for the enormous complexity of a cell, only speculations (just so stories).
vintagea 2 years ago
There are more manufacturing process going on in a single cell than all the different manufacturing process going on by man in the whole world. The data stored in the DNA takes up a trillion times less space than our most compact computer storage methods.
The atheistic Soviet Union's atrocities alone outnumber all the so called religious wars combined, does 100 million casualties make the point?
vintagea 2 years ago
"Darwinists have no explanations for the enormous complexity of a cell, only speculations (just so stories)."
You don't know sh*t about what Darwinists say, this argument from complexity you are presenting just shows it. Do your homework and try, for a second, to accept that the Bible is a work of fiction. If you can't do that, then there's no reason to even discuss.
"The theory of evolution has changed greatly over the last 150 years."
That's the advantage of science over myths.
pablovirus 2 years ago
I suggest you do some research, perhaps start by reading some of the books by Michael Denton or Michael Behe.
Have you read the Bible?
Interesting that you put your faith is a so called science that has many unanswered questions, many people opposed to it and many scientist discarding the theory (mainly microbiologist). I have no problem with real science, notice how major scientific theories have not changed much at all, maths, chemistry, physics and logic based sciences in particular.
vintagea 2 years ago
"I have no problem with real science."
Then, you have a problem with the Bible. You can't go with both unless you take the Bible metaphorically, which would mean you don't have an explainable and substantial world view that I can understand and accept.
Evolution isn't the only theory that disproves the Bible. Did you really think so? Brainwashed to the core.
And if you think physics hasn't changed A LOT in the past years, then you don't know what you're talking about.
pablovirus 2 years ago
There has been new discoveries but the basic principles of physics have not changed a lot in recent years, it was a long time ago that they put a man on the moon.
Can you give me some examples where science has proved the Bible to be wrong. I do not want evolutionary arguments as I do not believe that evolution is a science.
vintagea 2 years ago
"Can you give me some examples where science has proved the Bible to be wrong. I do not want evolutionary arguments as I do not believe that evolution is a science."
You said you had no problems with physics, but physics proves the Bible wrong. From the Big Bang theory to Quantum Decay and radiometric dating, the fairy tale is exposed.
Archaeology proves it wrong too. Logic proves it wrong too, there are many arguments against the God portrayed in the Bible that are based on simple Logic.
pablovirus 2 years ago
Big Bang theory and radiometric dating, are science based on evolutionary presuppositions, both great examples of how evolutionary beliefs are producing bad science. There is far more evidence for a young earth than an old earth. Where is the examples of science proving the Bible wrong? You have given me nothing but a bunch of "just so" statements. Just focus on this specif point with specific examples.
vintagea 2 years ago
"Big Bang theory and radiometric dating, are science based on evolutionary presuppositions, both great examples of how evolutionary beliefs are producing bad science." HAHA LOL OK MAN you are really undereducated. The "specific points and specific examples" are at your disposal EVERYWHERE. Especially in libraries and universities. You expect me to give you a lifelong education on every subject that disproves the Bible? Go find answers in reality, not some old fairy story. Have a nice life.
pablovirus 2 years ago
Again "just so" statements. Just give me a couple of specific examples? I can say the same to you, Go read the Bible, research, all the anti evolution literature out there etc. etc. What I am asking is to engage me with specific examples, not give me a lifetime education. I have spent time investigating the claims of evolution, Have you spent time investigating the claims of the Bible? I have read "Origin of the Species" have you read the Bible?
vintagea 2 years ago