There is no information without intelligence. Sequential information, digital algorithmic coding, structure and design in the cell and the nathropic constants of the universe are a clear indicator of an external causal agent due to the cause and effect structure.
Yes micro evolution is fact but has biological boundaries, allowing subspeciation, but not transspeciation, which is totally faith based.
Aron believes we are evolved stardust mutated from rocks. I admire his faith!!!
@TheZooCrew The whole vid proves my point. All common descent proves is a common Creator using the same building blocks for life. Degeneration and genetic entropy has been proven. It's all winding down. I admire your faith that love, conscience and our intellect are just evolutionairy by-products. The fool says in his heart that there is no intelligence behind sequential information, since it has never been observed otherwise!
"Degeneration and genetic entropy has been proven."
Those are two blatant lies unless you can actually prove otherwise. Tell me, why are there over 300,000 peer-reviewed publications on evolution and 0 on creationism?
@TheZooCrew Well John C Sanford. Highly qualified and has all the credentials has written to peer reviewed scientific papers on it, so you are the one who lying.
When the total function of the gene changes through chemical imbalance, radiation or copying errors we do not see an increase of beneficial information to the overall system, which rules out macro evolution. Speciation is prgrammed into the nanotech system in order to sustain life, but still degenerates over time.
Sanford is a liar. His papers about genetic entropy are incredibly misleading, and I can prove it. His "simulations" are run with unrealistic initial conditions (like a worldwide population) and he claims that because a single mutation would take too long to propagate across this unrealistic population, evolution doesn't happen. The simulation software is valid, but Sanford's assertions are ridiculous.
@TheZoo Macro evolution is an unproven myth with no evidence to back it up, we see a decline in size and diversity. Evolution is bankrupt, and all the dumbed down atheist are getting brainwashed to buy the ET panspermia lie, so they will go from the abiogenesis deception to an even greater deception which is prophesied to come as well. You are holding on to randomness myth which is the total absence of information and design, which will lead to destruction. Wake up man. You are being deceived!
@TheZooCrew Crazy talk to you, because you don't know better and refuse the dig deeper to maintain in your own deception. Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. You are limiting yourself only governed by your sensory mechanism and your head knowledge, but there is a bot more to it than that. I hope you wake up in time to realize that. The abiogenesis macro evolution myth is dead being held up by the achemical atheist death cult by being in total spiritual denial.
@Ramohog Wasn't it vice versa? That people were destroyed because they got some kind of knowledge about good and evil.
I wonder if your god will destroy you for knowing that the atheism is a cult or for not knowing it is not a cult. Or maybe both. Can't happen? Why? Don't limit yourself by logic. You are missing massive knowledge you could obtain by forgetting about it. Also thinking is outdated. Stop thinking, you are limiting yourself.
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
Evolution and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive, but it still seems to me that the only way to reconcile God with evolution (or science as a whole for that matter) is to be increasingly vague about what God is and what his role is/was in the diversification of life. To reconcile Him with the full body of evidence, one in fact needs to be so vague as to render the notion of god entirely useless. One must also insert a God where one is not necessary to explain what is observed.
@JOESZAK Inevitably, though, the more vague one becomes about God, the further away from the clear-cut claims of Christianity they venture.
I'm not going to suggest that modern Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive, but that's simply because Christians have (in some cases) molded their religion to fit science (Theistic Evolution, as an example).
@JOESZAK (Part 2) If we're talking about the Christianity that adheres fully to Biblical claims, however, there is no doubt that the two are mutually exclusive, because the Bible claims that every species on Earth was created "according to it's own kind". Evolution is a direct contradiction to this.
My point was that the moment a Christian believer starts incorporating scientific evidence into their belief system, they start eliminating things that their "God" is supposedly responsible for, and this is true even if we completely ignore the literal translation of the bible.
I used to subscribe to "Theistic evolution" until I realized I couldn't pinpoint what exactly my god was responsible for, thus rendering the idea useless.
no. accepting evolution does not deny the existence of a god. there can be gods who created a world with evolution at its hub
HOWEVER. when you write a faerie-tale book called 'the bible' which preaches about a tyrannical asshole of a god creating humans in his image (ie: no evolution), looks like there's a bit of a catch. it's not so much creationism so much as judeo-christian superstitions created about things BEFORE recorded history
it doesn't deny gods so much as the judeo-christian god, which explains their attitude. it denies THEIR god. oh well. looks like history and nature is proving this god to be an amalgamation of various dictatorial people who wanted as many mental-slaves as possible. just accept jehovah is a lie to control people's minds with fear of death so they can extort their money and move on
As an atheist, Christian evolutionists are fine. But Creationists make my blood boil. Mainly because they choose to believe in a concept that has been demonstrably disproved by science.
@manazoa The issue for me is not so much how Mankind or the earth was formed. Whatever way it happened would be fine by me. The real issue is that in order to make their insane doctrine, YEC's twist and corrupt the meanings of the Bible so much it looses some of its purpose as a spiritual guide.
These cults are nothing more than scam artists that harm the Church and Mankind more than help it.
How are you going to draw a moral from the story, if you think the snake really talks?
finally somebody who is getting the right message out! I hate all these athiests thinking all christians are creationists and i hate all these creationists thinking the same thing!
wasn't Hitler a Lamarckist? not that it matters whether or not Hitler accepted evolution or not, it has absolutely NO bearing whether evolution is true, and I'm sick of cry-baby creationists pretending that they're making any sort of argument. The theory of evolution provides the best explanation for the diversity of life, and has never been falsified, FUCKING DEAL.
@AronRa I think you pointed this out in one of your videos, I forget which one. Though I tend to not entertain any of these non-arguments against evolution, or creationist arguments in general, I really appreciate the patience you have in taking up the mantle against the scientifically challenged.
@PassatGele No, it is not a belief. It is something that has been observed, recorded and tested. There is substantial proof to justify the theory of evolution. There is none whatsoever for creationism. Also, please explain how you go from assumption = belief. Science has never claimed absolute certainty about anything, this is why you creationists are idiots, your brain lacks basic logic functions. Oh that computer youre typing on, it was created by science btw.
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."
Adolf Hitler (Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler. Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979, p. 241. )
Aaron , a little pause between sentences would make the video more digestible , dont you think ? Even all the truths mentioned here should be shouted to the four corners of the earth . Calmed and poised expression is always more effective and impact deeply !
@mi55eros It always cracks me up whenever I see someone spelling his name with a second A, as if he has repeatedly misspelled his own name. That isn't even how you pronounce it, Aron sounds like are-own.
Excellent video - my only gripe, such as it is, is that you overstate at the start, the knowledge needed to understand evolution. This may be off putting to some. Whilst the detailed mechanisms of genetic and physiological changes are complicated, the principle of Natural Selection can be understood by a five year old. That's why I prefer the old fashioned term - 'evolution' is a term that seems to have been highjacked by people who want to portray it as some kind of magic.
Then there was the appeal to majority, saying the majority of scientists accept it. Even assuming the polling data is accurate, and it wasn't just mere speciation accepted but primate ancestry and abiogenesis, that only gets the Christian to consider the possibility.
Moral credibility is a consideration. Especially when you start listening to the leading ones, the trust really is lost.
As a sidenote, when AronRa boasted of putting videos online for free, profiteer Dawkins knew the implication.
@highwind8124 One thing, Everyone needs and wants to make money, but that alone does not diminish their credibility. If so, then most religious figures would be considered as not credible. Most american religious headfigures are incredibly wealthy, and by your definition of wealth equals non.credibility. Im sure that if Dawkins could give away his books for free, he would.
@highwind8124 "Then there was the appeal to majority, saying the majority of scientists accept it"
Actually it was you creatards who claimed that there was some giant scientific conflict, the statistics on the near 100% of biologists who regard creationism as ridiculous nonsense was a response to your lying.
"Moral credibility is a consideration"
Yes, the lying under oath bit by creationists is an issue. With your values its do as you say not as you do.
"We (humanity) suffered amazingly heavily under the Nazis who were devout theists and evolutionists."
Wrong. Darwin's works were burned under Hitler's orders. What a terrible lie.
"Moral credibility is a consideration."
What does this even mean? I'm unsure what you're babbling about. It sure seems like you're just another parrot who thinks they're the only person who knows "the truth."
@highwind8124 The nazis were apparently creationists. Hitler certainly was. He denied evolution as a sin against the divine creator, and he ordered Darwin's books to be burnt.
"Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency."
"If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an EVOLUTIONARY higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."
Nice quote-mining. I see you ignored the parts where he claims to want to do God's work. Notice how Hitler went about doing this...ARTIFICIAL selection, also called eugenics. Hitler rejected Darwinian evolution and instead attempted to force artifical Lamarckism.
It helps if you actually know something instead of copying and pasting that which you do not understand.
Hitler, in that quote, does not say that over those many years the higher evolutionary stage was achieved through artificial selection, but quite explicitly gives the credit to "Nature".
In other words, you've falsely accused me of taking that quote out of context. I didn't. You did.
@highwind8124 Hitler never mentioned Darwin or used the word "Evolution" in the German version. He was talking about his racial ideology. He also wrote: "Eine solche Entwicklung herbeiführen, heißt aber denn doch nichts anderes, als Sünde treiben [wider den Willen des ewigen Schöpfers]"
In the brackets: "against the will of the eternal Creator". Sounds not like from a evolutionismist.
""against the will of the eternal Creator". Sounds not like from a evolutionismist."
I began this conversation by clearly stating: "Nazis who were devout theists and evolutionists". It was in agreement with AronRa's point that there are theistic evolutionists.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, and I was pointing out what a dangerous mix the two can potentially become, and did.
Yes, from cover to cover. Just once. I keep a written review with select quotes from it, documenting outright lies, inconsistencies, immoralities, etc.
I also read many of Hitler's speeches (not all) and his "Last Testament".
" I keep a written review with select quotes from it, documenting outright lies, inconsistencies, immoralities, etc."
This is seemingly now useless, seeing as you clearly don't understand it. Your "review" seems to be, like everything you post, the product of an uneducated apologist's opinion.
@highwind8124 then you should know that he was motivated by ultra-nationlistic ideals combined with hatred of jews. I remaber reading a line that said ,, a fox will always be a fox,, it then said he is afraid that the ,,lesser races(asian, blacks, slavs) will come to have more overpower then the stronger races of humans (germans),,. These types of Ideas have nothing to do with evolation.
@highwind8124 Thank you for pointing out one of several places where Hitler expresses erroneous reasons for why he refuses to accept evolution. In one of my Darwin Day speeches, I list a few much more clear examples.
@highwind8124 Except, of course, that this description is not Evolution by Natural Selection. It apparently just has the word "EVOLUTIONARY" in it. Hitler doesn't actually appear to understand Darwinian Evolution, which has no concept such as "a higher stage of being".
@highwind8124 "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism" ~ Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
@Schism704 "and yet he hated christianity,(he saw it as merely an enchanced form of judaism)"
That's actually not true, most of his anti-christian quotes were written in a 1953 book called Hitlers Secret Conversations by H.R. Trevor Roper which turns out to be mainly fiction.
@highwind8124 "It ignores the Catholic-Protestant divide, the heated debate."
Robert T. Bakker and Francis Collins are protestants. Anyway, the point was merely to show that evolution and christian faith (or faith of any kind) are not incompatible, as you acknowledged.
I'm a little disappointed with Collins. I need to re-read his book, but seeing him so senselessly give up on the traditional authorship of the Gospel accounts to Bill Maher of all people, was odd. I saw that in Religulous.
Then the thing where indulges the fantasy that life might exist on other planets because there are so many out there, rather than commenting on the factual failure of abiogenesis.
I just don't see how one could easily marry belief in a deity, and evolution/big bang. Since they adequately explain the universe. A universe with a god, will be indistinguishable from a universe without a god. Occam's razor would dictate one to choose the godless universe as the most probably solution.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
@Mogley52 this per se does not refute atheism. you are simply clarifying a common misconception that actually suggests a supernatural force or creator, thus proposing the randomness of a universe not in accordance with a creator
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
@Mogley52 "NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). "
I want an actual definition of "kinds" so that when you make this claim I can show Evolution by Natural Selection is predictive and creationism is silly.
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a single cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food, we received in the womb, to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
@Mogley52 Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
@Mogley52 "The supernatural cannot be proved by science "
Neither can Leprechauns, and for the exact same reason.
"science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe"
Your inability to come up with another option is not "scientific evidence", all you are doing is using special pleading because your faulty reasoning led you to an infinite regress. That is the exact opposite of science.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
@Mogley52 " Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator"
And Newton believed you could turn lead into gold. Luckily science is about what you can prove, not random opinions from "big scientists".
@Mogley52 From your article "Not all evolutionists even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. "
This is a laugh because Biologists are actually very consistent about what species a fossil belongs to. Creationists on the other hand will claim a bone is a human with rickets one day and a chimpanzee the next. Same creationist and same bone.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a single cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food, we received in the womb, to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Creationists argue the age of the earth, and therein the universe, at approximately 6,000 years. Astronomers routinely share with us their discoveries of galaxies as much as 12,000,000,000 light years away from us (known as "GN-108036") or more. Light speed is represented mathematically as "c" for "constant" because it is the same speed everywhere within our known universe. That's twelve billion years, not six thousand.
@psychomantiskiller Light years represent a measurement of distance versus time. When we say, "12 billion light years away," we know time and distance, particularly because time is constant, and so is the distance light travels in a given time frame: roughly 186,000 miles per second.
@psychomantiskiller If something is 3 lightyears away and we see it, that means it existed at least 3 years ago. Lightyears can also be used to measure time, since if we know distance and speed, time is easy to get.
Rao tin Ngày đã xế, bóng chiều đã dài. Hãy sữa lại đường-lối và việc làm của các ngươi. Trước khi dây bạc đứt, và chén vàng bể. Hãy rao những lời nầy và truyền ra. Hỡi con-cái Bên-gia-min, hãy trốn khỏi thành Giê-ru-sa-lem, để được yên-ổn. Tiếng kèn thổi là tiếng của Đức Giê-hô-va.
The fact that many theists understand evolution is fact should be repeated as often as possible.
It does baffle me a bit that some scientists, highly trained, can believe in, say, the god of the bible, though. Science might leave room for a vague, deistic god perhaps, but yahweh is most definitely out.
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
I love some of these comments... Okay, so some people say that the universe can't be eternal. It wasn't "always there." God made it. Well, where did God come from? Oh... you say he was eternal and always there. Either things can be eternal or they cannot. If God can be, why can't the universe?
@TheNewHijabi Eternal is defined as an infinite duration, usually pertaining to time. Thing is timespace and matter are dependent on each other and time is dynamic rather than the static phenomenon most perceive it to be. For example, a black hole is incredibly dense and as such time moves slower at the rim of the hole than it does in normal space.
I was aware of that, but I appreciate the extra information :-) I meant it more as a theoretical question to creationists -- if they accept that some things (ie, God) can be "eternal" then I don't understand why they can't accept that the universe could be "eternal" as well. If God doesn't require a beginning, then why are they using that argument to "disprove" evolution (even though evolution isn't concerned with the origin of the universe, of course)
@TheNewHijabi Good points, and your right- evolution isn't concerned with the origin of the universe but of course you know that is no concern to people that cannot grasp the concept of science. I don't even see why they attempt debating it since they are so "right" anyway, although I do understand why the intentional deceivers do it- they are in it for the money.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
@Mogley52 Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
@Mogley52 "The supernatural cannot be proved by science "
Neither can Leprechauns, and for the exact same reason.
"science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe"
Your inability to come up with another option is not "scientific evidence", all you are doing is using special pleading because your faulty reasoning led you to an infinite regress. That is the exact opposite of science.
@Mogley52 Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it.
@Mogley52 "science points to a supernatural intelligence" <- Not unless you change the meaning of words by quite a bit.
"Intelligence", as observed so far in the cosmos, is an emergent (high-level) property of some biological systems reaching a certain complexity level. Reusing that word for the mechanisms that caused the universe to begin, is not reasonable. I would especially not call it scientific to misuse words in such a way.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 "NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). "
I want an actual definition of "kinds" so that when you make this claim I can show Evolution by Natural Selection is predictive and creationism is silly.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
at 3:09 to 3:16 he admits that God might be true but states it can't be proven
It's clear this guy isn't a militant atheist he simply doesn't believe (nothing wrong with that) but he seems ok with open minded Christians (I for one have no problem with open minded atheists) . As a Catholic I really like this rant.
@Pirate44444 never accused all or a majority of atheists of being militant i don't know why you said I should actually listen... I do in fact listen that is why i watch these videos and listen to my atheist and agnostic friends and they n turn listen to my beliefs with a respectful attitude as well
I wonder if teaching evolution is where we should start. By the fact that most don't seem to understand what science does or how it works perhaps that is what we should concentrate on teaching.Once you understand how science works and how the evidence is reviewed evolution becomes the obvious choice.
Willful ignorance is part of the problem here. The scientific method is covered in most public education, but before children enter school, creationist parents usually ingrain creationism as a special pleading fallacy...as if somehow the scientific method doesn't work for evolution, but works for everything else.
@TheZooCrew It seems to me,and it is just an impression,that a great many people simply don't understand how science arrives at answers. Many think peer review is like kids listening to their peers.This is why they don't realize peer review is important, this is why they think that if scientists debate a theory the theory is invalid. True willful ignorance is out there but many are fooled because they lack the knowledge to understand how information is analysed and those we can help
@faircompetition1 It is easy actually. If you want more people to get science and especially evolution, you must fight against the false idea that to believe in science you must dismiss God.
As long as there are nasty foul mouthed atheists claiming that somehow believing in evolution disproves God, you will have automatic wilful ignorance about science by some.
Doesn't matter if you prove through peer review a million billion times.
This is the real dagger in the heart for evolution deniers: There isn't a biologist/zoologist alive that wouldn't LOVE to disprove evolution or prove creationism or the existence of God. Any of those are paradigm-shifting events and would make them the Einstein of their time, make them world famous and rich and garner them a Nobel Prize or two. There is no way the "scientific community" could accept evolution so vigorously if it weren't true and inarguable fact. Next.
@RockBanned "There is no way the "scientific community" could accept evolution so vigorously if it weren't true and inarguable fact. Next."
Of course you're right. But saying "Next" at the end is like making one attempt at shaking shit off a blanket and thinking you're done with it.
8^)
There's no limit to how vehemently a determined Creationist can lie and ignore evidence to hang on to their delusion. Shameful in the 21st century, I mean REALLY!!!
Ted Haggard has a scary looking face.
jmhizon83 1 day ago
Wanna hear a funny joke? "A rational creationist statement."
donkeyfieldmouse 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice presentation. :) if only those sheep would listen... and stop being sheep 0_o
rommelfcc 3 days ago
Comment removed
rommelfcc 3 days ago
There is no information without intelligence. Sequential information, digital algorithmic coding, structure and design in the cell and the nathropic constants of the universe are a clear indicator of an external causal agent due to the cause and effect structure.
Yes micro evolution is fact but has biological boundaries, allowing subspeciation, but not transspeciation, which is totally faith based.
Aron believes we are evolved stardust mutated from rocks. I admire his faith!!!
Ramohog 3 days ago
@Ramohog
Nice straw men.
/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
Sorry. You're totally wrong.
TheZooCrew 2 days ago
@TheZooCrew The whole vid proves my point. All common descent proves is a common Creator using the same building blocks for life. Degeneration and genetic entropy has been proven. It's all winding down. I admire your faith that love, conscience and our intellect are just evolutionairy by-products. The fool says in his heart that there is no intelligence behind sequential information, since it has never been observed otherwise!
Ramohog 1 day ago
@Ramohog
"Degeneration and genetic entropy has been proven."
Those are two blatant lies unless you can actually prove otherwise. Tell me, why are there over 300,000 peer-reviewed publications on evolution and 0 on creationism?
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
@TheZooCrew Well John C Sanford. Highly qualified and has all the credentials has written to peer reviewed scientific papers on it, so you are the one who lying.
When the total function of the gene changes through chemical imbalance, radiation or copying errors we do not see an increase of beneficial information to the overall system, which rules out macro evolution. Speciation is prgrammed into the nanotech system in order to sustain life, but still degenerates over time.
Ramohog 1 day ago
@Ramohog
Sanford is a liar. His papers about genetic entropy are incredibly misleading, and I can prove it. His "simulations" are run with unrealistic initial conditions (like a worldwide population) and he claims that because a single mutation would take too long to propagate across this unrealistic population, evolution doesn't happen. The simulation software is valid, but Sanford's assertions are ridiculous.
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
@TheZoo Macro evolution is an unproven myth with no evidence to back it up, we see a decline in size and diversity. Evolution is bankrupt, and all the dumbed down atheist are getting brainwashed to buy the ET panspermia lie, so they will go from the abiogenesis deception to an even greater deception which is prophesied to come as well. You are holding on to randomness myth which is the total absence of information and design, which will lead to destruction. Wake up man. You are being deceived!
Ramohog 1 day ago
@Ramohog
Well, it was only a matter of time before the incoherent crazy talk came out. Happens every time.
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
@TheZooCrew Crazy talk to you, because you don't know better and refuse the dig deeper to maintain in your own deception. Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. You are limiting yourself only governed by your sensory mechanism and your head knowledge, but there is a bot more to it than that. I hope you wake up in time to realize that. The abiogenesis macro evolution myth is dead being held up by the achemical atheist death cult by being in total spiritual denial.
Ramohog 1 day ago
@Ramohog Wasn't it vice versa? That people were destroyed because they got some kind of knowledge about good and evil.
I wonder if your god will destroy you for knowing that the atheism is a cult or for not knowing it is not a cult. Or maybe both. Can't happen? Why? Don't limit yourself by logic. You are missing massive knowledge you could obtain by forgetting about it. Also thinking is outdated. Stop thinking, you are limiting yourself.
upisoft2 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ramohog
"we do not see an increase of beneficial information to the overall system, which rules out macro evolution."
Blatant lie. Again. Watch the video I posted.
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
Evolution is fact. Educate yourself, don't waste you life believing the dogma.
Ewaves1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
RosesOfTimes 4 days ago
Evolution and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive, but it still seems to me that the only way to reconcile God with evolution (or science as a whole for that matter) is to be increasingly vague about what God is and what his role is/was in the diversification of life. To reconcile Him with the full body of evidence, one in fact needs to be so vague as to render the notion of god entirely useless. One must also insert a God where one is not necessary to explain what is observed.
JOESZAK 5 days ago
@JOESZAK Inevitably, though, the more vague one becomes about God, the further away from the clear-cut claims of Christianity they venture.
I'm not going to suggest that modern Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive, but that's simply because Christians have (in some cases) molded their religion to fit science (Theistic Evolution, as an example).
(Cont.)
SeedsOfHatred 3 days ago
@JOESZAK (Part 2) If we're talking about the Christianity that adheres fully to Biblical claims, however, there is no doubt that the two are mutually exclusive, because the Bible claims that every species on Earth was created "according to it's own kind". Evolution is a direct contradiction to this.
SeedsOfHatred 3 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred I completely agree with this.
My point was that the moment a Christian believer starts incorporating scientific evidence into their belief system, they start eliminating things that their "God" is supposedly responsible for, and this is true even if we completely ignore the literal translation of the bible.
I used to subscribe to "Theistic evolution" until I realized I couldn't pinpoint what exactly my god was responsible for, thus rendering the idea useless.
JOESZAK 3 days ago
@JOESZAK Well-said.
SeedsOfHatred 3 days ago
the answer is quite obvious:
no. accepting evolution does not deny the existence of a god. there can be gods who created a world with evolution at its hub
HOWEVER. when you write a faerie-tale book called 'the bible' which preaches about a tyrannical asshole of a god creating humans in his image (ie: no evolution), looks like there's a bit of a catch. it's not so much creationism so much as judeo-christian superstitions created about things BEFORE recorded history
obvious lies.
infernalone666 5 days ago
@infernalone666
it doesn't deny gods so much as the judeo-christian god, which explains their attitude. it denies THEIR god. oh well. looks like history and nature is proving this god to be an amalgamation of various dictatorial people who wanted as many mental-slaves as possible. just accept jehovah is a lie to control people's minds with fear of death so they can extort their money and move on
infernalone666 5 days ago
I rather enjoyed that video thanks.
4unclestu 5 days ago
1:31 - Derphat.
EikC 6 days ago
As an atheist, Christian evolutionists are fine. But Creationists make my blood boil. Mainly because they choose to believe in a concept that has been demonstrably disproved by science.
manazoa 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@manazoa The issue for me is not so much how Mankind or the earth was formed. Whatever way it happened would be fine by me. The real issue is that in order to make their insane doctrine, YEC's twist and corrupt the meanings of the Bible so much it looses some of its purpose as a spiritual guide.
These cults are nothing more than scam artists that harm the Church and Mankind more than help it.
How are you going to draw a moral from the story, if you think the snake really talks?
redddbaron 1 week ago
finally somebody who is getting the right message out! I hate all these athiests thinking all christians are creationists and i hate all these creationists thinking the same thing!
Schism704 1 week ago in playlist Evolution vs. Creationism
wasn't Hitler a Lamarckist? not that it matters whether or not Hitler accepted evolution or not, it has absolutely NO bearing whether evolution is true, and I'm sick of cry-baby creationists pretending that they're making any sort of argument. The theory of evolution provides the best explanation for the diversity of life, and has never been falsified, FUCKING DEAL.
hempartist420 1 week ago
@hempartist420 Mao and Stalin were Lamarckian. Hitler was a creationist.
AronRa 1 week ago 5
@AronRa I think you pointed this out in one of your videos, I forget which one. Though I tend to not entertain any of these non-arguments against evolution, or creationist arguments in general, I really appreciate the patience you have in taking up the mantle against the scientifically challenged.
hempartist420 1 week ago
@hempartist420 Evolution is an assumption, therefore a believe!
PassatGele 1 week ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@PassatGele No, it is not a belief. It is something that has been observed, recorded and tested. There is substantial proof to justify the theory of evolution. There is none whatsoever for creationism. Also, please explain how you go from assumption = belief. Science has never claimed absolute certainty about anything, this is why you creationists are idiots, your brain lacks basic logic functions. Oh that computer youre typing on, it was created by science btw.
Diamondz2k 1 week ago
@hempartist420
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."
Adolf Hitler (Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler. Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979, p. 241. )
What a lousy atheist he was!
saguhh00 4 days ago
ARON-CADABRA!
Rarae192 1 week ago
@brono25 Well I think I saw him elaborate in his four facts and a fib video.
pat5168 1 week ago
A superb synopsis of religious delerium. Love it.
13thLegio 2 weeks ago
Aaron , a little pause between sentences would make the video more digestible , dont you think ? Even all the truths mentioned here should be shouted to the four corners of the earth . Calmed and poised expression is always more effective and impact deeply !
mi55eros 2 weeks ago
@mi55eros It always cracks me up whenever I see someone spelling his name with a second A, as if he has repeatedly misspelled his own name. That isn't even how you pronounce it, Aron sounds like are-own.
pat5168 2 weeks ago
@pat5168 Ive always heard it as Are-on.
brono25 2 weeks ago
A VERY GOOD ONE !!, MY FRIEND !!
mi55eros 2 weeks ago
Excellent video - my only gripe, such as it is, is that you overstate at the start, the knowledge needed to understand evolution. This may be off putting to some. Whilst the detailed mechanisms of genetic and physiological changes are complicated, the principle of Natural Selection can be understood by a five year old. That's why I prefer the old fashioned term - 'evolution' is a term that seems to have been highjacked by people who want to portray it as some kind of magic.
lozman67 2 weeks ago
Hey aron, love your vieos, but i think you have to take some break between your sentences
horbergus 2 weeks ago
I dont know shit man but I unerstand?
Mee551able 2 weeks ago
The first video doesn't really get us anywhere. It's just more of an intro.
Not all evolutionists are atheists. Okay. We know.
We (humanity) suffered amazingly heavily under the Nazis who were devout theists and evolutionists.
The whole: "Hey, even the Pope backs it." presumes the Pope has any moral credibility. It ignores the Catholic-Protestant divide, the heated debate.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
Then there was the appeal to majority, saying the majority of scientists accept it. Even assuming the polling data is accurate, and it wasn't just mere speciation accepted but primate ancestry and abiogenesis, that only gets the Christian to consider the possibility.
Moral credibility is a consideration. Especially when you start listening to the leading ones, the trust really is lost.
As a sidenote, when AronRa boasted of putting videos online for free, profiteer Dawkins knew the implication.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 One thing, Everyone needs and wants to make money, but that alone does not diminish their credibility. If so, then most religious figures would be considered as not credible. Most american religious headfigures are incredibly wealthy, and by your definition of wealth equals non.credibility. Im sure that if Dawkins could give away his books for free, he would.
RawSwedishMeatball 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 "Then there was the appeal to majority, saying the majority of scientists accept it"
Actually it was you creatards who claimed that there was some giant scientific conflict, the statistics on the near 100% of biologists who regard creationism as ridiculous nonsense was a response to your lying.
"Moral credibility is a consideration"
Yes, the lying under oath bit by creationists is an issue. With your values its do as you say not as you do.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124
"We (humanity) suffered amazingly heavily under the Nazis who were devout theists and evolutionists."
Wrong. Darwin's works were burned under Hitler's orders. What a terrible lie.
"Moral credibility is a consideration."
What does this even mean? I'm unsure what you're babbling about. It sure seems like you're just another parrot who thinks they're the only person who knows "the truth."
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 The nazis were apparently creationists. Hitler certainly was. He denied evolution as a sin against the divine creator, and he ordered Darwin's books to be burnt.
AronRa 2 weeks ago 23
@AronRa
"Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency."
- Mein Kampf
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124
Also, that quote-mining doesn't explain why Darwin's works were banned and burned by the Nazi Party.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago in playlist FFoC
@AronRa
"If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an EVOLUTIONARY higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."
- Mein Kampf
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124
Nice quote-mining. I see you ignored the parts where he claims to want to do God's work. Notice how Hitler went about doing this...ARTIFICIAL selection, also called eugenics. Hitler rejected Darwinian evolution and instead attempted to force artifical Lamarckism.
It helps if you actually know something instead of copying and pasting that which you do not understand.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago in playlist FFoC
@TheZooCrew
"Hitler rejected Darwinian evolution"
Hitler, in that quote, does not say that over those many years the higher evolutionary stage was achieved through artificial selection, but quite explicitly gives the credit to "Nature".
In other words, you've falsely accused me of taking that quote out of context. I didn't. You did.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 Hitler never mentioned Darwin or used the word "Evolution" in the German version. He was talking about his racial ideology. He also wrote: "Eine solche Entwicklung herbeiführen, heißt aber denn doch nichts anderes, als Sünde treiben [wider den Willen des ewigen Schöpfers]"
In the brackets: "against the will of the eternal Creator". Sounds not like from a evolutionismist.
M0rdH0rst 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M0rdH0rst
""against the will of the eternal Creator". Sounds not like from a evolutionismist."
I began this conversation by clearly stating: "Nazis who were devout theists and evolutionists". It was in agreement with AronRa's point that there are theistic evolutionists.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, and I was pointing out what a dangerous mix the two can potentially become, and did.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 have you read Mein Kampf ?
karikon11 2 weeks ago
@karikon11
Yes, from cover to cover. Just once. I keep a written review with select quotes from it, documenting outright lies, inconsistencies, immoralities, etc.
I also read many of Hitler's speeches (not all) and his "Last Testament".
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124
" I keep a written review with select quotes from it, documenting outright lies, inconsistencies, immoralities, etc."
This is seemingly now useless, seeing as you clearly don't understand it. Your "review" seems to be, like everything you post, the product of an uneducated apologist's opinion.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 then you should know that he was motivated by ultra-nationlistic ideals combined with hatred of jews. I remaber reading a line that said ,, a fox will always be a fox,, it then said he is afraid that the ,,lesser races(asian, blacks, slavs) will come to have more overpower then the stronger races of humans (germans),,. These types of Ideas have nothing to do with evolation.
karikon11 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 Thank you for pointing out one of several places where Hitler expresses erroneous reasons for why he refuses to accept evolution. In one of my Darwin Day speeches, I list a few much more clear examples.
/watch?v=VV3duw4lJE0
AronRa 2 weeks ago 25
@highwind8124 Except, of course, that this description is not Evolution by Natural Selection. It apparently just has the word "EVOLUTIONARY" in it. Hitler doesn't actually appear to understand Darwinian Evolution, which has no concept such as "a higher stage of being".
Gryffster 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism" ~ Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
Shockna 1 week ago
@highwind8124 hahahaha dude you got owned
messakg123 1 week ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
@AronRa and yet he hated christianity,(he saw it as merely an enchanced form of judaism)
Schism704 1 week ago in playlist Evolution vs. Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Schism704 "and yet he hated christianity,(he saw it as merely an enchanced form of judaism)"
That's actually not true, most of his anti-christian quotes were written in a 1953 book called Hitlers Secret Conversations by H.R. Trevor Roper which turns out to be mainly fiction.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@highwind8124 "It ignores the Catholic-Protestant divide, the heated debate."
Robert T. Bakker and Francis Collins are protestants. Anyway, the point was merely to show that evolution and christian faith (or faith of any kind) are not incompatible, as you acknowledged.
dannytibi 2 weeks ago
@dannytibi
I'm a little disappointed with Collins. I need to re-read his book, but seeing him so senselessly give up on the traditional authorship of the Gospel accounts to Bill Maher of all people, was odd. I saw that in Religulous.
Then the thing where indulges the fantasy that life might exist on other planets because there are so many out there, rather than commenting on the factual failure of abiogenesis.
It just seems like he wants to keep his job.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 "factual failure of abiogenesis". What does this mean exactly?
Gryffster 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@highwind8124
" the fantasy that life might exist on other planets because there are so many out there"
This is basically a certainty. I'm not speaking from knowledge, but you have no grounds to call it a "fantasy."
"the factual failure of abiogenesis."
Now THERE'S a blatant lie. What exactly makes abiogenesis impossible?
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 Elaborate on how the Nazis were evolutionists.
Akira625 2 weeks ago
im gonna watch all of these videos...
aaand GO!
Mikeybetts 3 weeks ago
AronRa , thanks for the spanish subtitles !!
EdyMar77 3 weeks ago
Dude, you should write a book about this
1354113 3 weeks ago
I just don't see how one could easily marry belief in a deity, and evolution/big bang. Since they adequately explain the universe. A universe with a god, will be indistinguishable from a universe without a god. Occam's razor would dictate one to choose the godless universe as the most probably solution.
onslaught147 3 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Excellent video.
I'm a Brit. We look across the water at American religiosity and can't believe the brainlessness of it all.
NevilleRhysBarnes 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
@Mogley52
You already spammed this video, dickhead.
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago in playlist FFoC
@TheZooCrew Besides being completely and unequivocally full of shit this myth damaged Simpleton must have the attention span of a fucking squirrel..
ZombieProblem 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
@Mogley52 this per se does not refute atheism. you are simply clarifying a common misconception that actually suggests a supernatural force or creator, thus proposing the randomness of a universe not in accordance with a creator
psychomantiskiller 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). "
I want an actual definition of "kinds" so that when you make this claim I can show Evolution by Natural Selection is predictive and creationism is silly.
johnrainrules 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a single cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food, we received in the womb, to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it.
johnrainrules 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
johnrainrules 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist 0 0 Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "The supernatural cannot be proved by science "
Neither can Leprechauns, and for the exact same reason.
"science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe"
Your inability to come up with another option is not "scientific evidence", all you are doing is using special pleading because your faulty reasoning led you to an infinite regress. That is the exact opposite of science.
johnrainrules 4 weeks ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
@Mogley52
Promoting your own materials violates YouTube's terms of service. Have fun with the banhammer.
P.S. You're a lying cunt.
TheZooCrew 4 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew It's funny that my comments refuting his posts are still in top comments from the last time he played the copypasta game.
johnrainrules 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 " Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator"
And Newton believed you could turn lead into gold. Luckily science is about what you can prove, not random opinions from "big scientists".
johnrainrules 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 From your article "Not all evolutionists even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. "
This is a laugh because Biologists are actually very consistent about what species a fossil belongs to. Creationists on the other hand will claim a bone is a human with rickets one day and a chimpanzee the next. Same creationist and same bone.
Did you graduate highschool?
johnrainrules 4 weeks ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. "
This statement literally makes no sense.
"Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. "
Where? Relativity doesn't actually have a lot to do with the Big Bang Theory. You should probably stop cuntpasting from creationist websites.
johnrainrules 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a single cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food, we received in the womb, to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
well
I think George Carlin was correct , when he said ...Quote " I pray to Jo Pecsi and I get the same results " ! :-)))
Oh america ...like they used to say WTF happend to you , my old friend !
Brgds
GSO
GermanStraight1 4 weeks ago
Hey does anyone know what episode that is called on The Simpsons? the one with the Flanders walking into a museum?
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 The Monkey Suit.
ganados0 4 weeks ago
Creationists argue the age of the earth, and therein the universe, at approximately 6,000 years. Astronomers routinely share with us their discoveries of galaxies as much as 12,000,000,000 light years away from us (known as "GN-108036") or more. Light speed is represented mathematically as "c" for "constant" because it is the same speed everywhere within our known universe. That's twelve billion years, not six thousand.
mrbhave 1 month ago
@mrbhave light years are a measurement of distance
psychomantiskiller 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mrbhave 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psychomantiskiller Light years represent a measurement of distance versus time. When we say, "12 billion light years away," we know time and distance, particularly because time is constant, and so is the distance light travels in a given time frame: roughly 186,000 miles per second.
mrbhave 3 weeks ago
@psychomantiskiller If something is 3 lightyears away and we see it, that means it existed at least 3 years ago. Lightyears can also be used to measure time, since if we know distance and speed, time is easy to get.
onslaught147 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rao tin Ngày đã xế, bóng chiều đã dài. Hãy sữa lại đường-lối và việc làm của các ngươi. Trước khi dây bạc đứt, và chén vàng bể. Hãy rao những lời nầy và truyền ra. Hỡi con-cái Bên-gia-min, hãy trốn khỏi thành Giê-ru-sa-lem, để được yên-ổn. Tiếng kèn thổi là tiếng của Đức Giê-hô-va.
hoangtuyethalelugia.mov.vn
hoangtuyethalelugia.mov.vn
hoangtuyethalelugia 1 month ago in playlist AronRa, the Texas Tank
The fact that many theists understand evolution is fact should be repeated as often as possible.
It does baffle me a bit that some scientists, highly trained, can believe in, say, the god of the bible, though. Science might leave room for a vague, deistic god perhaps, but yahweh is most definitely out.
thebigJ1er 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, "
Evolution is not a directed process and "perfection' in this sentence is a meaningless concept.
"of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us"
Life on Earth is about the farthest thing from "minute accuracy".
johnrainrules 1 month ago
What are these episodes of the simpsons? I must watch.
zillatamer 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
I love some of these comments... Okay, so some people say that the universe can't be eternal. It wasn't "always there." God made it. Well, where did God come from? Oh... you say he was eternal and always there. Either things can be eternal or they cannot. If God can be, why can't the universe?
TheNewHijabi 1 month ago
@TheNewHijabi Eternal is defined as an infinite duration, usually pertaining to time. Thing is timespace and matter are dependent on each other and time is dynamic rather than the static phenomenon most perceive it to be. For example, a black hole is incredibly dense and as such time moves slower at the rim of the hole than it does in normal space.
MrMonkeyThumbsticks 1 month ago
@MrMonkeyThumbsticks
I was aware of that, but I appreciate the extra information :-) I meant it more as a theoretical question to creationists -- if they accept that some things (ie, God) can be "eternal" then I don't understand why they can't accept that the universe could be "eternal" as well. If God doesn't require a beginning, then why are they using that argument to "disprove" evolution (even though evolution isn't concerned with the origin of the universe, of course)
TheNewHijabi 1 month ago
@TheNewHijabi Good points, and your right- evolution isn't concerned with the origin of the universe but of course you know that is no concern to people that cannot grasp the concept of science. I don't even see why they attempt debating it since they are so "right" anyway, although I do understand why the intentional deceivers do it- they are in it for the money.
MrMonkeyThumbsticks 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it.
johnrainrules 4 weeks ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@Mogley52
No one wants to read your bullshit articles with your fabrications, blatant lies, deliberately falsified science, and old, tired straw man arguments.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
johnrainrules 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism 4
@Mogley52 "The supernatural cannot be proved by science "
Neither can Leprechauns, and for the exact same reason.
"science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe"
Your inability to come up with another option is not "scientific evidence", all you are doing is using special pleading because your faulty reasoning led you to an infinite regress. That is the exact opposite of science.
johnrainrules 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism 5
@Mogley52 Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it.
johnrainrules 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@Mogley52 "science points to a supernatural intelligence" <- Not unless you change the meaning of words by quite a bit.
"Intelligence", as observed so far in the cosmos, is an emergent (high-level) property of some biological systems reaching a certain complexity level. Reusing that word for the mechanisms that caused the universe to begin, is not reasonable. I would especially not call it scientific to misuse words in such a way.
0debug 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@Mogley52 "NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). "
I want an actual definition of "kinds" so that when you make this claim I can show Evolution by Natural Selection is predictive and creationism is silly.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
at 3:09 to 3:16 he admits that God might be true but states it can't be proven
It's clear this guy isn't a militant atheist he simply doesn't believe (nothing wrong with that) but he seems ok with open minded Christians (I for one have no problem with open minded atheists) . As a Catholic I really like this rant.
DonJohnofAustria 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@DonJohnofAustria
Finally a rational human being. AronRa is accused of being militant almost constantly.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@DonJohnofAustria this is actually the position that the majority of atheists hold... if you actually listen.
Pirate44444 1 month ago
@Pirate44444 never accused all or a majority of atheists of being militant i don't know why you said I should actually listen... I do in fact listen that is why i watch these videos and listen to my atheist and agnostic friends and they n turn listen to my beliefs with a respectful attitude as well
DonJohnofAustria 1 month ago
@DonJohnofAustria you didn't need to say it, you implied it.
Pirate44444 1 month ago
lol @ buddy christ
6:12
RippdUb 1 month ago
@RippdUb meh- 6:11
RippdUb 1 month ago
I wonder if teaching evolution is where we should start. By the fact that most don't seem to understand what science does or how it works perhaps that is what we should concentrate on teaching.Once you understand how science works and how the evidence is reviewed evolution becomes the obvious choice.
faircompetition1 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@faircompetition1
Willful ignorance is part of the problem here. The scientific method is covered in most public education, but before children enter school, creationist parents usually ingrain creationism as a special pleading fallacy...as if somehow the scientific method doesn't work for evolution, but works for everything else.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew It seems to me,and it is just an impression,that a great many people simply don't understand how science arrives at answers. Many think peer review is like kids listening to their peers.This is why they don't realize peer review is important, this is why they think that if scientists debate a theory the theory is invalid. True willful ignorance is out there but many are fooled because they lack the knowledge to understand how information is analysed and those we can help
faircompetition1 1 month ago
@faircompetition1 It is easy actually. If you want more people to get science and especially evolution, you must fight against the false idea that to believe in science you must dismiss God.
As long as there are nasty foul mouthed atheists claiming that somehow believing in evolution disproves God, you will have automatic wilful ignorance about science by some.
Doesn't matter if you prove through peer review a million billion times.
redddbaron 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redddbaron
"you must fight against the false idea that to believe in science you must dismiss God."
The only ones perpetuating this idea are creationists.
"As long as there are nasty foul mouthed atheists claiming that somehow believing in evolution disproves God"
Like who? Your accusations are extremely misplaced. Even if these nameless "atheists" exist, they wouldn't if creationists were instead honest people.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Excellent video. Complete 10/10 for covering everything and using openmindedness to help the misguided actually realize how they've been brainwashed.
Gex9z 1 month ago in playlist Evolution vs. Creationism
7.03 looks like a scene from "The Walking Dead".
lewisner 1 month ago in playlist AronRa, the Texas Tank
This is the real dagger in the heart for evolution deniers: There isn't a biologist/zoologist alive that wouldn't LOVE to disprove evolution or prove creationism or the existence of God. Any of those are paradigm-shifting events and would make them the Einstein of their time, make them world famous and rich and garner them a Nobel Prize or two. There is no way the "scientific community" could accept evolution so vigorously if it weren't true and inarguable fact. Next.
RockBanned 1 month ago 10
@RockBanned "There is no way the "scientific community" could accept evolution so vigorously if it weren't true and inarguable fact. Next."
Of course you're right. But saying "Next" at the end is like making one attempt at shaking shit off a blanket and thinking you're done with it.
8^)
There's no limit to how vehemently a determined Creationist can lie and ignore evidence to hang on to their delusion. Shameful in the 21st century, I mean REALLY!!!
warren52nz <