2:45 Actually, the bible calls the earth a circle in the passage he refers to, not a sphere. And centuries before the earliest records of the bible we have Anaxamander described the earth as a sphere, and the pathagoreans carried on this position, along with the erroneous belief that it was also fixed in space. The bible makes this false claim as well.
this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
It's called FAITH for a reason and I understand that but if there was really this large entity then he would want us to have proof but "god" gave us none
Russell you are a role model. I am a 12 year old who just became an atheist and your explanation "We don't believe in God because there COULDN'T be those things, but because we have no evidence."
Old Earth Creationists are either the biggest conspiracy theorists ever or monumentally conceited. Possibly both. You can't believe this lunacy without dismissing the the life's work of the preponderance of the evidence in almost every field of science. To dismiss all of those findings you're either assuming a conspiracy the size of god's nads, or else think yourself smarter than 98% of scientists from every top university on the planet. Yet you believe Kent Hovind's thesis. Astounding hubris.
Atheists position is based on a number of learned concepts. Atheists have taken the time to consider things like the nature of reality and what constitutes evidence and logic. Believers are absent these concepts because they have always just accepted "god done it". Atheists have to try and think back to how limited the conceptualization abilites are of the believer they are talking to. This guy was just completely uniformed as we were at one time also.
What's dishonest about the creationist approach and listing things like Mt Etna example (which was half legit) is that these were examples that led to a greater understanding of radiometric dating and in which scientists now take into account for issues that can arrise out of dating things under certain circumstances that might alter results. It's like the science behind DNA matching, there are certain eliminators that can dismiss a sample, but it doesn't mean that DNA testing is all bunk.
@dallased25 The problems they find with the radiometric dating is that they act as if the tool is not good for all things than it is useless. What they do is tantamount to picking up a hammer, making a big show about how badly it is at turning screws and painting, so they suggest it's a useless tool. Yet if the tool is used properly, in the way we know it will work, it is very effective.
Such a sad display. Theists should be taught not to "play" with science.....you know...like the way we teach children to not play with fire....the end result is they get burned.
I love listening to this show but I can only stand stupidity for so long, unfortunately I rarely make it through the whole episode before having to shut it off. It amazes me that some of these callers can actually operate a telephonic device!
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
After getting all his points to proof creationism with scientific methots debunked, he turns around and sais that it doesn't matter, since God created everything with age...
So if he really believed that than all the proof he tried to bring up before would even by him be considert to be not valit...
Typical case of making stuff up because he wants to believe...
The carbon dating "mismatch" from Mt. Etna speaks to the core of being an intelligent person. That's not to say religious people can't be intelligent. However, intelligent people do not accept data if they don't know the source, even if it agrees with everything they think. This person doesn't know whose measurement showed the basalt was 21,000 years old or who said it was 25 million.
Being able to form ideas is core to intelligence, and without facts, there is no basis for that.
I love how his number one proof for God begins with "I believe..."!
I don't care what he says after that, if he has to begin his proof by stating that "he believes", he's already lost. You don't prove things with belief.
...For after all the great religions have been preached and expounded, or have been revealed by brilliant scholars, or have been written in fine books and embellished in fine language with finer covers, man, - all man - is still confronted by the Great Mystery.
For the claim that if people proved the earth is 6 thousands years old. Who would prove this? Scientists? No, we can't trust them unless they agree with their view. So if Scientists came out and said the Earth was 6 thousands, these Creationist would say "See they say its so, so it must be true. Follow our God. For Jebus"
Same problem with Faux News watchers. If Faux News says its true then it is. If the bible says its true then it is. If my creationist website says its true then it is. Damn the facts. Damn checking other sources.
I want to know how many questions can possibly be asked. With this information I can finally find all the answers, then kill myself. Here is the thing, I "hope" that I never find all the answers to all the questions, because then I would lack the reason for my existence, thinking. I "hope" that if there is a God that he/she/it never makes itself tangible within existence, that kind of knowledge would be overwhelming and would in fact answer all questions, and destroy my purpose for existing.
I think the christian view that the world is so mathematically designed that it can't exist without a created is true, I think that Athieists over simplify when they say that there is no god only science. Mathematics is not a cycle, one thing doesn't always lead to another.. A god or some higher force or power must exist. However, to deny all scientific evidence just because there is a higher being watching us is ignorant as hell. We are all based on evolution, the earth isn't 6000 years old.
@xcbond101 I respect that you are a believer yet still logical, world needs more believers like you. I'm a Atheist and cant stand when someone christian shoves scientific fact to the side :p
@xcbond101 Why dose a god or higher power MUST exist? Everything that science has explained thus far does not require any divine presence. How are you getting to that conclusion that there must be a god?
I didnt like how they handled the point about Mt Etna, dismissing it simply because it came from a creationist. Knowing the motivation for a claim isnt the same as debunking it..
@messakg123 i understand what you are saying, but the problem is creationists keep pumping out their shitty articles every week, and do you expect the busy scientists to go over each of those articles and write out why ti's wrong? no! they're already so busy as it is! If creationist wants to be taken seriously, they need to submit to actual scientific journals, and have it peer-reviewed there!
@messakg123 You can't write a paper, post on some website, and say "ok, go ahead and debunk me". That's not how science works. If you have a research that you want to report, you submit it to a journal, and have it peer-reviewed by other experts in the field. The problem with creationists' articles isn't because of their motivation. We all have our own motivation to bear. The problem is they are bypassing the whole peer-review system, which is critical in science!
@Casshyr ok, that's fair enough, but the thing is that their response was to say"Who's a young earth creationist" dismissively when the caller mentioned the guy's name, rather than saying what you said. But yeah, you're right, i totally agree
"Dating aside, it doesn't matter because god made things with age."
AHAHAHAHA!!! God made everything six thousand years ago, but made it LOOK 13.7 BILLION years old. This is the logical equivalent of hanging off a cliff by your little finger a thousand feet over some pointy boulders. What a facile and childish last bastion of defence this is :D:D:D.
Fuck me - I've heard Kent Hovind make that idiotic claim about population density (and the fact that the Moon would have had to have been inside the Earth at some point in the past).
Carbon dating geologic strata is like using a clock to time a glacier's flow - the clock is only going to show between zero and twelve hours no matter how many times it goes around.
I heard a good analogy the other day about the whole "carbon dating doesn't work argument". It's like trying to pick up a copper penny with a magnet, and saying "this magnet wont pick up this penny, therefore, this magnet doesn't work."
@gnomefro I didn't say human history is not 6,000-7,000 years, I said the earth, I believe humans are only that young. The earth we don't know. Has science proved the earth is billions of years old? And let me ask a question. Are you an Evolutionist? If yes, I have another question for you.
@drche420 Let me ask you something. Did science prove the earth is billions of years old? And by the way, I'm open to all sides of an argument, and I'm looking to learn from this.
What the fuck dude? "Inaccurate... Inaccurate" Dipshit, when you assume everything that disclaims something in the bible is wrong, you can't act like you know it's inaccurate. And to the guy who said the woman saying "I believe what geologists claim" was having blind faith, that's simply not true. She only said she believe what they claim because she didn't want to lecture him about it.
I'm a Christian, and I enjoy these videos because they are intriguing, and I wanna be prepared for arguments in my future. Now this guy that called, he was very unprepared. And even though I'm a Christian, I don't believe the earth is necessarily 6,000-7,000 years old, we don't know how old the earth is.
@CrappyHumorOnPiano "And even though I'm a Christian, I don't believe the earth is necessarily 6,000-7,000 years old, we don't know how old the earth is."
And it doesn't bother you that you disagree with the scientific consensus when you claim we have no idea how old the earth is? Have you stopped to consider just how much of natural science you have to declare is false to make such a claim?
@CrappyHumorOnPiano Anyway, surely you must believe that human history on this earth has lasted roughly 6-7000 years, given that the genealogy of Jesus in Luke includes Adam. It would seem to me that you'd very quickly have to admit that the authors of NT lied about stuff if you don't, and texts written by people who made stuff up don't seem to be a proper grounding for a belief that magic is real.
@CrappyHumorOnPiano If you commit to a short human history though, you're wide open to a lot of the arguments that destroy people claiming that all of nature is young. It's not a comfortable position to be in in a debate. =)
YOU might not know how old the earth is. People who keep up with what our species has learned in the last 2000 years know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Btw, being prepared won't help. No amount of preparation can help an ignorant person who is convinced they are right.
"I believe what the geologists claim happened" She's as bad as any blind creationist. Don't these people understand anything beyond their sensory perception?
@Underhill182 ""I believe what the geologists claim happened" She's as bad as any blind creationist."
Not really, because we know Geology produces a range of useful predictions about reality. I don't have to actually be a geologist to know that their field produces useful results, so I have good reasons to trust their expertise. With creationists the situation is entirely different. The very idea that it's not natural law, but the will of God that governs things makes it incapable of prediction
@Underhill182 This is what makes the field entirely unscientific, and it's what makes creationists unable to gain credibility. In addition they do not even apparently produce any useful results, making them irrelevant to everything. As far as "understanding things beyond sensory perception" is concerned, it's hard to know what you're talking about. How on earth would anyone gain knowledge about external reality without using sensors?
@Gnomefro I get so frustrated with these atheists who believe that nothing goes on beyond our five senses. I know that empirical scientific evidence is the best we have to work with, but I can't understand how people expect that these findings necessarily represent reality. Why should we expect that our observations accurately represent what is there? "I believe what the geologists claim happened" is a big leap to make when we can't even be certain that the universe is as we perceive it.
@Underhill182 How else would you suggest we gather observations about reality? We utilize the best tools we have available to us, and using those tools, we make observations, develop hypotheses, and continually test, retest, and attempt to falsify the claims that are made from the observations. Nobody is claiming absolute knowledge of anything, it is simply the best available way to explain everything.
@solitaryman098 People aren't claiming absolute knowledge of everything, but to say 'This scientifically gathered information gives accurate details about the past' also implies a complete dependence on ones' sensory faculties, however, it is impossible to tell whether ones' powers of sensory apprehension are accurate. This renders all conclusions made through empirical evidence inconsequential, so to 'believe' to (to accept is as truth) is essentially an act of blind faith.
@Underhill182 So, you're argument is one of universal skepticism with respect to the senses. This argument, by the way, fails from the start because you are trying to make it using communication, which we cannot trust if the senses are so unreliable. In order to get your argument off the ground, you must first assume that you are senses are perceiving things properly in order to argue that your first assumption was without justification, which mires you in a hopelessly absurd contradiction.
@Stallkyr You've straw manned me. I didn't say that the senses are unreliable. I said that it is impossible to know whether or not we accurately perceive reality. Simply put; we can draw no conclusion about whether we accurately perceive reality as we would require our sensory functions to make such a judgement. It is impossible to know whether a god exists, but it is also impossible to know whether anything at all exists, and so a scientist has no more ground to stand on than a creationist.
@Underhill182 How did I strawman you? You just admitted that we never know if we accurately perceive reality, but how else do we perceive it if not for our senses? If saying that isn't the equivalent of saying that our senses are unreliable, then what is it? It's exactly the same thing. You even admitted that we "require our sensory functions to make such a judgement." Therefore, if we cannot trust our perception of reality, we cannot trust our senses, ergo our senses must be unreliable.
@Stallkyr You strawmanned me (a few times now) by saying "our senses are unreliable". Everything you are arguing is against that statement which is not my opinion at all. I am saying "our senses MAY BE unreliable, we can't be certain". These are very, very different conclusions, be careful here. I am most certainly not a solipsist or a nihilist, there is a possibility that you do exist and that this is a worthwhile debate and I am here taking that chance.
@Underhill182 Secondly, and perhaps more telling, is your last statement that includes the following: "...but it is also impossible to know whether anything at all exists, ..." So, you're a sollipsist? If so, why are we even having this discussion? I mean, for all you know, you're arguing with yourself in your own mind, as I am simply a figment of your imagination. Your argument, once again, fails from the start because you are using your senses to make it. But how can you trust them?
@Stallkyr Conclusion: What's important to remember is: this (aforementioned) chance is fundamentally no different from the chance you might take in trusting your ability to sense reality, or the chance someone might take in believing in a higher power. These are all steps of 'blind faith' - we can't prove them (or disprove them), but we believe in them anyway, just for our own peace of mind.
@Underhill182 No, not even close to the conclusion. There are so many things I want to say in response. I'll try to organize them. First of all, I don't see how you think that simply saying "our senses MAY BE unreliable, we can't be certain" doesn't make you a solipsist. Your entire argument hinges on this concept, that we can never be certain whether our senses are providing an accurate perception of reality, and I submit that this puts you in the realm of universal skepticism. To be cont'd
@Underhill182 In order to argue that our senses may be unreliable is to argue that a) there is a reality out there, and b) unfortunately we can never see it because we have eyes, we can never hear it because we have ears, etc. Your statement implies that the senses cannot be trusted because "we can't be certain." I am being very careful. If we can't be certain, then logically our senses are unreliable. Simply saying, no they just MAY BE unreliable doesn't get you off the hook. Cont'd ...
@Underhill182 You are still making a claim that the senses cannot be trusted. This entire argument, once again, rests on the prior assumption that you are in fact accurately perceiving my words on this page. Otherwise, you wouldn't engage in this discussion. To then argue that you can't be certain is simply absurd. If I didn't know if I was accurately perceiving the words on this page, I would stop right there, primarily because I don't engage in foolish behavior, like arguing with myself.
@Underhill182 And who is strawmanning who here? You have set up a false dichotomy by equating the chance taken by believing in a higher power to the "chance you might take in trusting your ability to sense reality." My "chance" taking as you call it is no such thing. I am not taking a chance that my senses are accurately perceiving reality on "blind faith." Blind faith is belief without evidence. I have evidence - my sense data. Cont'd for the last time. lol
@Underhill182 Is it possible that my senses are perceiving reality incorrectly? No. My senses don't perceive reality, I do through my senses. I may incorrectly interpret the data my senses give me, but my senses are incapable of deception or giving me "false positives." My brain might misinterpret the data provided (i.e., a mirage), but there is no doubt that light waves have hit my eyes in such a way that my brain processes as an oasis in the middle of a desert. I lied, one more cont'd.
@Stallkyr 3. If I were to suggest that by merely perceiving things, we altered their actual state, and so our perception of reality was seriously warped, how would you go about disproving this? The possibility that you taint things just by perceiving them makes all evidence useless (in the sense of proof) At some point you might say "there's no way to prove my senses are accurate, but I choose to believe them anyway" which is fine, we all do this. But it is an act of 'blind faith' essentially.
@Underhill182 The only way to be certain if there truly is an oasis is to appeal to more sense data, not claim my eyes have deceived me. The bottom line is I can only go with the available data provided me which I receive via my senses. Your claim that this is "blind faith" is simply not true. Our only means of perception are our senses. Simply saying "I may be mistaken" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is to engage in navel-gazing solipsism. Good luck with that.
@Stallkyr 1. I am not a solipsist because solipsists believe in the existence of their own consciousness, which I believe it is impossible to be sure of. Universal scepticism, however is something I do identify with. These labels are beside the point.
@Stallkyr 2. You need to understand this: I am not making a claim that the senses cannot be trusted, you have established this due to your own requirements for trust. I only say that we cant be certain that we can trus our senses (this means that there is a potentially equal chance that we do and don't accurately perceive reality) whereas you have inferred that we definitely cannot trust our senses (this means that there is no chance that we accurately perceive reality). See the difference now?
@Underhill182 Actually, now you're mislabeling my belief. I do not definitively say that our senses cannot be trusted. I actually think that our senses are incapable of deception. It's not our senses that deceive us - we deceive ourselves subconsciously by misinterpreting the sense data our sense organs provide. Your semantic argument that there is an equal chance that we do and don't accurately perceive reality is nothing more than making an assertion without evidence.
@Underhill182 ARE you suggesting that by merely perceiving things we alter their actual state? If so, do you have any evidence that suggests this is the case? Once again, you make claims without providing any sort of evidence other than simply saying "it is possible." And to top it off, you're making conclusions based on these unsupported assertions - IF it is possible, then that makes all evidence useless. But you have yet to prove that it is possible other than to assert it.
@Underhill182 It appears that we are arguing from two different starting points. Your claim that evidence is impossible because perception is possibly inaccurate is without a rational foundation. If I assert that it is possible for a mouse to give birth to an elephant, does that truly make it "possible" in any real sense? No. There has never been an instance in the history of this planet where such an event has occurred, yet because I can make the statement it must be possible?
@Underhill182 There is no foundation for me to make such an assertion other than my own vivid imagination. However, because you've made this claim, my demand for evidence has been trumped because evidence is impossible in your worldview. We have vastly different views of the world. Mine is based in reality as I perceive it, and yours is based in not trusting anything you perceive. I know, that's not what you're saying, but you're just playing semantics. 50/50 is a concession.
@Stallkyr Discussing this over youtube comments is exhausting, and neither of us are really getting our point across. You have misunderstood a few things I've just said (not your fault) and this whole clarification process is really slowing things down a lot. I do appreciate your comments alot though. Thanks man.
Our sensesare how we observe the natural world, environment, and to our limited ability, the Universe. "Supernatural" by its very definition, is beyond the range of the natural, and thus cannot be observed, nor interacted with. Knowing this, the supernatural can be ignored because it cannot be observed, nor does it interact with our natural universe in any perceivable way.
Again, by it's definition, it's outside reality. So it's irrelevant.
@acr08807 i guess there is something which you really wished to happen in ur life but it didnt, thats y? It has made u where u stand now..well what would you call that if you see a blind getting back his vision just by taking shower in a holy river, i guess that would be" THE ONE- GOD", believe it or not but one day all atheist will, its just ppl get angry at GOD for some reason n try to forget him but u cant. It's IN YOU N WILL BE FOREVER.....
I don't see why humans can't just say, "Oh wow, that's something I really had no knowledge about and created false ideas regarding. I see that you know a great deal about it and now I am not so ignorant. Thank you for your time." And be done.
Incredible that Christians spends their time on making stuff in the bible accurate, and therefore true, and noth studying the Big Bang Theory etc. Which has logic in them.
@16sideswipe Wonderful question. Because some people care about their beliefs being true. Truth is rather inherently testable. If you cannot test it, if there is no evidence to support it, then there is no reason to believe it. Faith is not a virtue, it's a mark of gullibility. It's saying "well fairies haven't been disproved and zombie puppets paint the rainbows" are as valid as each other and as valid a claim as god existing and science to be true is intellectually dishonest and bogus.
One thing I've noticed TAE doesn't seem to think of is the bible says (at least in one passage) the earth is a circle... Something can be flat and be a circle. All other passages in the bible that talks about the earth compares the earth to being flat.
"Communism - All Masonic Lodges - Socialists - Atheists - Anarchists - Labor Unions - Etc. these organizations were all successfully infiltrated by the Society of Jesus to bring about a one world government" - Dr. Alberto Rivera
I'm an atheist and love this show, but I have to side with the caller on a lot of this. The caller is not articulating in any sense at all what his argument is, but in general he wants to make some sort of argument about historicity of the Bible. If you could put together an overwhelming number of instances of historically accurate statements, then we could consider the Bible a fairly accurate historical document whose claims about Jesus should be taken somewhat seriously.
@PainefulMass (cont) Those claims would then still need to be examined on their own terms, but at least we would have reason to consider them. I know the caller didn't have the brain power to articulate this, but it is a common enough (and sound enough) argument that I'm surprised the hosts kept pressuring him on "why does this show anything" when that was a little beside the point.
@PainefulMass I cannot agree - remember that the authors wrote about things around them, about historic events that are known - and it really has nothing to do with scientific claims about Earth age, or any other scientific claim. Even if the whole book is right about simple truths, that doesn't mean, that is correct in regard to reasearch findings ( which show completely different results). Sory for bad english.
@PainefulMass I agree with you. If we had archaeological or other independent verification of the stories in the Bible, that would give them some credence as histories--albeit a set of contradictory histories--rather than as legends. I'm still waiting for the validating evidence, though.
basalt rock is VOLCANIC rock. mt.Etna is a VOLCANO. ->moron1 went to a VOLCANO to look for COMPOSITE rock (mixed) and then was 'surprised' when all the carbon atoms were out of whack. that is obviously PROSPEROUSLY DECEPTIVE! he knows how it works, doesn't work, and sets out to misuse it for bad results! DAMN! this really pissed me of.
both partys just piss me off. it's sad that im from the same town as this kid. the kid had no argument to what he was saying, nothing to back it up. and just some athiest piss me off. idk whatever, im christian and im proud of it. i dont care if people like or not. it's what i believe and it will not change.
@tonyriotIPW well there is your problem. you wouldnt be here if everyone in the world said "it's what i believe and it will not change." you have completely lost any argument by default before it even starts when you say that. that would be like saying i believe that 2+2=5 and nobody can prove me wrong because my beliefs are my beliefs and they will never change.
I live in a small southern town full of people just like the caller. It feels like i live in an insane asylum. I despair at the absolute lack of reasoned thought daily displayed.
Fuck!!! I love this show!!!!!!
infinightsky 7 hours ago
My goodness, this is painful.
How can grown adults be as ignorant as this?
Don't you have schools in the U.S.?
SLME14 13 hours ago
2:45 Actually, the bible calls the earth a circle in the passage he refers to, not a sphere. And centuries before the earliest records of the bible we have Anaxamander described the earth as a sphere, and the pathagoreans carried on this position, along with the erroneous belief that it was also fixed in space. The bible makes this false claim as well.
GallusSapien 15 hours ago
Religion: an amusing hobby for the simple-minded.
mikefromwa 1 day ago
hosts - Your arguments are wrong, here is the evidence. Guy on phone - No, I don't believe that!
FockerTheLopper 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
chauncyhead 5 days ago
How much you want to bet that that old measurements at Mt. Aetna are of inclusions, which have been shown to give inaccurate dates?
Naiant 1 week ago
It's called FAITH for a reason and I understand that but if there was really this large entity then he would want us to have proof but "god" gave us none
XXXTheHOPEprojectXXX 1 week ago
I say, what EVIDENCE do we have that god exists? And they say THE BIBLE! Any nut job could have written the bible!
XXXTheHOPEprojectXXX 1 week ago
Russell you are a role model. I am a 12 year old who just became an atheist and your explanation "We don't believe in God because there COULDN'T be those things, but because we have no evidence."
XXXTheHOPEprojectXXX 1 week ago
Lol at least this guy isnt all aggressive, hes just dumb.
69Poonhunter 1 week ago
Old Earth Creationists are either the biggest conspiracy theorists ever or monumentally conceited. Possibly both. You can't believe this lunacy without dismissing the the life's work of the preponderance of the evidence in almost every field of science. To dismiss all of those findings you're either assuming a conspiracy the size of god's nads, or else think yourself smarter than 98% of scientists from every top university on the planet. Yet you believe Kent Hovind's thesis. Astounding hubris.
rrpostalagain 1 week ago
Atheists position is based on a number of learned concepts. Atheists have taken the time to consider things like the nature of reality and what constitutes evidence and logic. Believers are absent these concepts because they have always just accepted "god done it". Atheists have to try and think back to how limited the conceptualization abilites are of the believer they are talking to. This guy was just completely uniformed as we were at one time also.
booksRbad 2 weeks ago
I'm seriously impressed with the patience the hosts are showing. The caller is so willfully ignorant that I would have a hard time keeping my cool.
Pokiehl007 2 weeks ago
What's dishonest about the creationist approach and listing things like Mt Etna example (which was half legit) is that these were examples that led to a greater understanding of radiometric dating and in which scientists now take into account for issues that can arrise out of dating things under certain circumstances that might alter results. It's like the science behind DNA matching, there are certain eliminators that can dismiss a sample, but it doesn't mean that DNA testing is all bunk.
dallased25 2 weeks ago
@dallased25 The problems they find with the radiometric dating is that they act as if the tool is not good for all things than it is useless. What they do is tantamount to picking up a hammer, making a big show about how badly it is at turning screws and painting, so they suggest it's a useless tool. Yet if the tool is used properly, in the way we know it will work, it is very effective.
rrpostalagain 1 week ago
I like the way this guy gets all 'hominahominahomina' every time they debunk... LOL !
robcgraphx 2 weeks ago
Awwwwww yeeeeeeeeeeh
DrTheKay 2 weeks ago
Thumb up number 666 i feel naughty
Thehellfireclan 2 weeks ago
This is really unfair. To balance the argument we should hear an intelligent, articulate creationist fielding questions from a really dumb scientist.
robnlew 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
based on the battle between evolution and creation, check out our new sci fi movie EVOLUTION CREEK decide for yourself!
chauncyhead 3 weeks ago
Such a sad display. Theists should be taught not to "play" with science.....you know...like the way we teach children to not play with fire....the end result is they get burned.
TheOutzman 3 weeks ago 3
ANOTHER "STUPID CREATIONIST"
The Earth 6000 years old?????
flightkiller09 3 weeks ago
I don't know what to do about u Sam cry, laugh or get mad ur sooooo fkd up man
idare2talk 1 month ago
What a fucking idiot.
chinopisces 1 month ago
This is ridiculous...
Zendrig 1 month ago
"actual medical term disease type thing" err.... yeah.....
charleswolfman 1 month ago
Intelligent design is one of the most illogical and baseless arguments out there. This was so sad.
DerNoziroh 1 month ago
"those 8 guys must have been pretty busy..."
LOGICandREAS0N 1 month ago
Lol religious ppl are so weird and delusional, its kind of sad
bobo42024 1 month ago 3
i love you guys so much. this is brilliant!
ebcthatsme 2 months ago 2
I love listening to this show but I can only stand stupidity for so long, unfortunately I rarely make it through the whole episode before having to shut it off. It amazes me that some of these callers can actually operate a telephonic device!
jimbocidman 2 months ago 3
@jimbocidman haha! I know what you mean! I couldn't watch the entire video because I was embarassed for the guy...
Anouk475 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 2 months ago
:-D
I love his last argument...
After getting all his points to proof creationism with scientific methots debunked, he turns around and sais that it doesn't matter, since God created everything with age...
So if he really believed that than all the proof he tried to bring up before would even by him be considert to be not valit...
Typical case of making stuff up because he wants to believe...
TheTruggsess 2 months ago
The carbon dating "mismatch" from Mt. Etna speaks to the core of being an intelligent person. That's not to say religious people can't be intelligent. However, intelligent people do not accept data if they don't know the source, even if it agrees with everything they think. This person doesn't know whose measurement showed the basalt was 21,000 years old or who said it was 25 million.
Being able to form ideas is core to intelligence, and without facts, there is no basis for that.
joshtube9 2 months ago
mmmmm... hash...
TheUberAtheist 2 months ago
"many chariots and stuff" - finally some compelling evidence.
HyperSchmizzle 2 months ago
Physics Schmisics. I'm calling the show! I have irrefutable claims!!
alachabre 2 months ago
Chemistry Schmemistry.
alachabre 2 months ago
Geology Schmeology.
alachabre 2 months ago
12:52, If he had said "Problem?" afterwards I would have laughed myself out of my chair. These episodes are just too funny.
OnlySemiCoherent 2 months ago
Much love to Atheist Experience!
Is it just me or is Russel pulling a reverse Dillahunty with that hair ;P
Mestilf22 2 months ago
the world is 6000 years old an jesus made it read the bible morons
daveywhippet 2 months ago
@daveywhippet .... insanity personified
Ipowne3g 1 month ago
these guys time and time again tackle similiar topics at creationism and continue to make creationists look stupid
hockeyhary 2 months ago
I love how his number one proof for God begins with "I believe..."!
I don't care what he says after that, if he has to begin his proof by stating that "he believes", he's already lost. You don't prove things with belief.
FrankLightheart 2 months ago
...For after all the great religions have been preached and expounded, or have been revealed by brilliant scholars, or have been written in fine books and embellished in fine language with finer covers, man, - all man - is still confronted by the Great Mystery.
---Chief Luther Standing Bear - Oglala Sioux
bozolazic 3 months ago
lol, man this jeezer is reachen as hard as any.......
parkert51 3 months ago
Comment removed
RRConghaile 3 months ago
Creationists don't realize citing a source that is not PEER-REVIEW doesn't count as evidence!!!
Casshyr 3 months ago
For the claim that if people proved the earth is 6 thousands years old. Who would prove this? Scientists? No, we can't trust them unless they agree with their view. So if Scientists came out and said the Earth was 6 thousands, these Creationist would say "See they say its so, so it must be true. Follow our God. For Jebus"
Cujoh 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
Same problem with Faux News watchers. If Faux News says its true then it is. If the bible says its true then it is. If my creationist website says its true then it is. Damn the facts. Damn checking other sources.
Ignorance is bliss.
djkoch65 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want to know how many questions can possibly be asked. With this information I can finally find all the answers, then kill myself. Here is the thing, I "hope" that I never find all the answers to all the questions, because then I would lack the reason for my existence, thinking. I "hope" that if there is a God that he/she/it never makes itself tangible within existence, that kind of knowledge would be overwhelming and would in fact answer all questions, and destroy my purpose for existing.
Johnnyblazedanketch 3 months ago
lawl Kent Hovind
Keitaro2011 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
I think the christian view that the world is so mathematically designed that it can't exist without a created is true, I think that Athieists over simplify when they say that there is no god only science. Mathematics is not a cycle, one thing doesn't always lead to another.. A god or some higher force or power must exist. However, to deny all scientific evidence just because there is a higher being watching us is ignorant as hell. We are all based on evolution, the earth isn't 6000 years old.
xcbond101 3 months ago
@xcbond101 I respect that you are a believer yet still logical, world needs more believers like you. I'm a Atheist and cant stand when someone christian shoves scientific fact to the side :p
SaiyanPrincess18 3 months ago
@xcbond101 Why dose a god or higher power MUST exist? Everything that science has explained thus far does not require any divine presence. How are you getting to that conclusion that there must be a god?
PullyElbow27 3 months ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@xcbond101 "I think that Athieists over simplify when they say that there is no god only science." Which atheists say this?
IEatGods666 3 months ago
It's his show..
sweetmovie07 3 months ago
I didnt like how they handled the point about Mt Etna, dismissing it simply because it came from a creationist. Knowing the motivation for a claim isnt the same as debunking it..
messakg123 3 months ago
@messakg123
Nah, they dismissed it because it came from a person who has been debunked so often that it isn't even funny.
shihouka 3 months ago 16
@shihouka Thats a fact, not one aurgument this chump put forward is anything new. Every one of his points has been debunked....
parkert51 3 months ago
@messakg123 i understand what you are saying, but the problem is creationists keep pumping out their shitty articles every week, and do you expect the busy scientists to go over each of those articles and write out why ti's wrong? no! they're already so busy as it is! If creationist wants to be taken seriously, they need to submit to actual scientific journals, and have it peer-reviewed there!
Casshyr 3 months ago
@messakg123 You can't write a paper, post on some website, and say "ok, go ahead and debunk me". That's not how science works. If you have a research that you want to report, you submit it to a journal, and have it peer-reviewed by other experts in the field. The problem with creationists' articles isn't because of their motivation. We all have our own motivation to bear. The problem is they are bypassing the whole peer-review system, which is critical in science!
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr ok, that's fair enough, but the thing is that their response was to say"Who's a young earth creationist" dismissively when the caller mentioned the guy's name, rather than saying what you said. But yeah, you're right, i totally agree
messakg123 3 months ago
Every time these religious nuts open their mouths they provide yet met proof of how truly retarded they are...
tool2342 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALLAH asking the atheist these questions in the QURAN in chapter 52 verse 35:
"Were they created of nothing,
or were they the creators [of themselves]? 35 "
=> for more type in google "TheDeenShow"
akeello 3 months ago
Dilladummy's mommy didn't hug him enough or maybe his dad beat on him. Whatever the case that is one angry ,bitter,lonely fella.
sweetmovie07 3 months ago
@sweetmovie07 Matt isn't even in this video..?
IAMjakeonfiree 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALLAH asking the atheist these questions in the QURAN in chapter 52 verse 35:
"Were they created of nothing,
or were they the creators [of themselves]? 35 "
=> for more type in google "TheDeenShow"
akeello 3 months ago
oneness
Hamporkcheese 3 months ago
X-D
"Those guys must have been pretty busy!"
X-D
TheTruggsess 3 months ago
Life in the Universe may not be as rare as we think. It's just we haven't looked very far yet. Neil Degrasse Tyson explained this topic brilliantly.
sihsobhk 3 months ago
Reference to 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' is priceless.
sihsobhk 3 months ago
Good bloody gods. It's like a stupid parrot was on the telephone.
Desertphile 3 months ago
Sorry, I just had to make another comment.
"Dating aside, it doesn't matter because god made things with age."
AHAHAHAHA!!! God made everything six thousand years ago, but made it LOOK 13.7 BILLION years old. This is the logical equivalent of hanging off a cliff by your little finger a thousand feet over some pointy boulders. What a facile and childish last bastion of defence this is :D:D:D.
JMUDoc 3 months ago
Fuck me - I've heard Kent Hovind make that idiotic claim about population density (and the fact that the Moon would have had to have been inside the Earth at some point in the past).
Carbon dating geologic strata is like using a clock to time a glacier's flow - the clock is only going to show between zero and twelve hours no matter how many times it goes around.
JMUDoc 3 months ago
I heard a good analogy the other day about the whole "carbon dating doesn't work argument". It's like trying to pick up a copper penny with a magnet, and saying "this magnet wont pick up this penny, therefore, this magnet doesn't work."
Mattm1986 3 months ago
Just hang up already!!!
lzoli18B 3 months ago
This caller is the perfect example of what happens to your brain through creationism. This is your brain on creationism. Any questions?
InvisibleSkyDaddy 3 months ago
@gnomefro I didn't say human history is not 6,000-7,000 years, I said the earth, I believe humans are only that young. The earth we don't know. Has science proved the earth is billions of years old? And let me ask a question. Are you an Evolutionist? If yes, I have another question for you.
CrappyHumorOnPiano 3 months ago
@drche420 Let me ask you something. Did science prove the earth is billions of years old? And by the way, I'm open to all sides of an argument, and I'm looking to learn from this.
CrappyHumorOnPiano 3 months ago
What the fuck dude? "Inaccurate... Inaccurate" Dipshit, when you assume everything that disclaims something in the bible is wrong, you can't act like you know it's inaccurate. And to the guy who said the woman saying "I believe what geologists claim" was having blind faith, that's simply not true. She only said she believe what they claim because she didn't want to lecture him about it.
Bech6m 3 months ago
I'm a Christian, and I enjoy these videos because they are intriguing, and I wanna be prepared for arguments in my future. Now this guy that called, he was very unprepared. And even though I'm a Christian, I don't believe the earth is necessarily 6,000-7,000 years old, we don't know how old the earth is.
CrappyHumorOnPiano 3 months ago
@CrappyHumorOnPiano "And even though I'm a Christian, I don't believe the earth is necessarily 6,000-7,000 years old, we don't know how old the earth is."
And it doesn't bother you that you disagree with the scientific consensus when you claim we have no idea how old the earth is? Have you stopped to consider just how much of natural science you have to declare is false to make such a claim?
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@CrappyHumorOnPiano Anyway, surely you must believe that human history on this earth has lasted roughly 6-7000 years, given that the genealogy of Jesus in Luke includes Adam. It would seem to me that you'd very quickly have to admit that the authors of NT lied about stuff if you don't, and texts written by people who made stuff up don't seem to be a proper grounding for a belief that magic is real.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@CrappyHumorOnPiano If you commit to a short human history though, you're wide open to a lot of the arguments that destroy people claiming that all of nature is young. It's not a comfortable position to be in in a debate. =)
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@CrappyHumorOnPiano
YOU might not know how old the earth is. People who keep up with what our species has learned in the last 2000 years know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Btw, being prepared won't help. No amount of preparation can help an ignorant person who is convinced they are right.
drche420 3 months ago
"I believe what the geologists claim happened" She's as bad as any blind creationist. Don't these people understand anything beyond their sensory perception?
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Underhill182 ""I believe what the geologists claim happened" She's as bad as any blind creationist."
Not really, because we know Geology produces a range of useful predictions about reality. I don't have to actually be a geologist to know that their field produces useful results, so I have good reasons to trust their expertise. With creationists the situation is entirely different. The very idea that it's not natural law, but the will of God that governs things makes it incapable of prediction
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@Underhill182 This is what makes the field entirely unscientific, and it's what makes creationists unable to gain credibility. In addition they do not even apparently produce any useful results, making them irrelevant to everything. As far as "understanding things beyond sensory perception" is concerned, it's hard to know what you're talking about. How on earth would anyone gain knowledge about external reality without using sensors?
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@Gnomefro I get so frustrated with these atheists who believe that nothing goes on beyond our five senses. I know that empirical scientific evidence is the best we have to work with, but I can't understand how people expect that these findings necessarily represent reality. Why should we expect that our observations accurately represent what is there? "I believe what the geologists claim happened" is a big leap to make when we can't even be certain that the universe is as we perceive it.
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Underhill182 How else would you suggest we gather observations about reality? We utilize the best tools we have available to us, and using those tools, we make observations, develop hypotheses, and continually test, retest, and attempt to falsify the claims that are made from the observations. Nobody is claiming absolute knowledge of anything, it is simply the best available way to explain everything.
solitaryman098 3 months ago
@solitaryman098 People aren't claiming absolute knowledge of everything, but to say 'This scientifically gathered information gives accurate details about the past' also implies a complete dependence on ones' sensory faculties, however, it is impossible to tell whether ones' powers of sensory apprehension are accurate. This renders all conclusions made through empirical evidence inconsequential, so to 'believe' to (to accept is as truth) is essentially an act of blind faith.
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Underhill182 So, you're argument is one of universal skepticism with respect to the senses. This argument, by the way, fails from the start because you are trying to make it using communication, which we cannot trust if the senses are so unreliable. In order to get your argument off the ground, you must first assume that you are senses are perceiving things properly in order to argue that your first assumption was without justification, which mires you in a hopelessly absurd contradiction.
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Stallkyr You've straw manned me. I didn't say that the senses are unreliable. I said that it is impossible to know whether or not we accurately perceive reality. Simply put; we can draw no conclusion about whether we accurately perceive reality as we would require our sensory functions to make such a judgement. It is impossible to know whether a god exists, but it is also impossible to know whether anything at all exists, and so a scientist has no more ground to stand on than a creationist.
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Underhill182 How did I strawman you? You just admitted that we never know if we accurately perceive reality, but how else do we perceive it if not for our senses? If saying that isn't the equivalent of saying that our senses are unreliable, then what is it? It's exactly the same thing. You even admitted that we "require our sensory functions to make such a judgement." Therefore, if we cannot trust our perception of reality, we cannot trust our senses, ergo our senses must be unreliable.
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Stallkyr You strawmanned me (a few times now) by saying "our senses are unreliable". Everything you are arguing is against that statement which is not my opinion at all. I am saying "our senses MAY BE unreliable, we can't be certain". These are very, very different conclusions, be careful here. I am most certainly not a solipsist or a nihilist, there is a possibility that you do exist and that this is a worthwhile debate and I am here taking that chance.
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Underhill182 Secondly, and perhaps more telling, is your last statement that includes the following: "...but it is also impossible to know whether anything at all exists, ..." So, you're a sollipsist? If so, why are we even having this discussion? I mean, for all you know, you're arguing with yourself in your own mind, as I am simply a figment of your imagination. Your argument, once again, fails from the start because you are using your senses to make it. But how can you trust them?
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Stallkyr Conclusion: What's important to remember is: this (aforementioned) chance is fundamentally no different from the chance you might take in trusting your ability to sense reality, or the chance someone might take in believing in a higher power. These are all steps of 'blind faith' - we can't prove them (or disprove them), but we believe in them anyway, just for our own peace of mind.
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Underhill182 No, not even close to the conclusion. There are so many things I want to say in response. I'll try to organize them. First of all, I don't see how you think that simply saying "our senses MAY BE unreliable, we can't be certain" doesn't make you a solipsist. Your entire argument hinges on this concept, that we can never be certain whether our senses are providing an accurate perception of reality, and I submit that this puts you in the realm of universal skepticism. To be cont'd
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Underhill182 In order to argue that our senses may be unreliable is to argue that a) there is a reality out there, and b) unfortunately we can never see it because we have eyes, we can never hear it because we have ears, etc. Your statement implies that the senses cannot be trusted because "we can't be certain." I am being very careful. If we can't be certain, then logically our senses are unreliable. Simply saying, no they just MAY BE unreliable doesn't get you off the hook. Cont'd ...
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Underhill182 You are still making a claim that the senses cannot be trusted. This entire argument, once again, rests on the prior assumption that you are in fact accurately perceiving my words on this page. Otherwise, you wouldn't engage in this discussion. To then argue that you can't be certain is simply absurd. If I didn't know if I was accurately perceiving the words on this page, I would stop right there, primarily because I don't engage in foolish behavior, like arguing with myself.
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Underhill182 And who is strawmanning who here? You have set up a false dichotomy by equating the chance taken by believing in a higher power to the "chance you might take in trusting your ability to sense reality." My "chance" taking as you call it is no such thing. I am not taking a chance that my senses are accurately perceiving reality on "blind faith." Blind faith is belief without evidence. I have evidence - my sense data. Cont'd for the last time. lol
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Underhill182 Is it possible that my senses are perceiving reality incorrectly? No. My senses don't perceive reality, I do through my senses. I may incorrectly interpret the data my senses give me, but my senses are incapable of deception or giving me "false positives." My brain might misinterpret the data provided (i.e., a mirage), but there is no doubt that light waves have hit my eyes in such a way that my brain processes as an oasis in the middle of a desert. I lied, one more cont'd.
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Stallkyr 3. If I were to suggest that by merely perceiving things, we altered their actual state, and so our perception of reality was seriously warped, how would you go about disproving this? The possibility that you taint things just by perceiving them makes all evidence useless (in the sense of proof) At some point you might say "there's no way to prove my senses are accurate, but I choose to believe them anyway" which is fine, we all do this. But it is an act of 'blind faith' essentially.
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Underhill182 The only way to be certain if there truly is an oasis is to appeal to more sense data, not claim my eyes have deceived me. The bottom line is I can only go with the available data provided me which I receive via my senses. Your claim that this is "blind faith" is simply not true. Our only means of perception are our senses. Simply saying "I may be mistaken" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is to engage in navel-gazing solipsism. Good luck with that.
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Stallkyr 1. I am not a solipsist because solipsists believe in the existence of their own consciousness, which I believe it is impossible to be sure of. Universal scepticism, however is something I do identify with. These labels are beside the point.
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Stallkyr 2. You need to understand this: I am not making a claim that the senses cannot be trusted, you have established this due to your own requirements for trust. I only say that we cant be certain that we can trus our senses (this means that there is a potentially equal chance that we do and don't accurately perceive reality) whereas you have inferred that we definitely cannot trust our senses (this means that there is no chance that we accurately perceive reality). See the difference now?
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Underhill182 Actually, now you're mislabeling my belief. I do not definitively say that our senses cannot be trusted. I actually think that our senses are incapable of deception. It's not our senses that deceive us - we deceive ourselves subconsciously by misinterpreting the sense data our sense organs provide. Your semantic argument that there is an equal chance that we do and don't accurately perceive reality is nothing more than making an assertion without evidence.
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Underhill182 ARE you suggesting that by merely perceiving things we alter their actual state? If so, do you have any evidence that suggests this is the case? Once again, you make claims without providing any sort of evidence other than simply saying "it is possible." And to top it off, you're making conclusions based on these unsupported assertions - IF it is possible, then that makes all evidence useless. But you have yet to prove that it is possible other than to assert it.
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Underhill182 It appears that we are arguing from two different starting points. Your claim that evidence is impossible because perception is possibly inaccurate is without a rational foundation. If I assert that it is possible for a mouse to give birth to an elephant, does that truly make it "possible" in any real sense? No. There has never been an instance in the history of this planet where such an event has occurred, yet because I can make the statement it must be possible?
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Underhill182 There is no foundation for me to make such an assertion other than my own vivid imagination. However, because you've made this claim, my demand for evidence has been trumped because evidence is impossible in your worldview. We have vastly different views of the world. Mine is based in reality as I perceive it, and yours is based in not trusting anything you perceive. I know, that's not what you're saying, but you're just playing semantics. 50/50 is a concession.
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Stallkyr Discussing this over youtube comments is exhausting, and neither of us are really getting our point across. You have misunderstood a few things I've just said (not your fault) and this whole clarification process is really slowing things down a lot. I do appreciate your comments alot though. Thanks man.
Underhill182 3 months ago
@Underhill182 Fair enough. Thanks for the debate.
Stallkyr 3 months ago
@Underhill182
Our sensesare how we observe the natural world, environment, and to our limited ability, the Universe. "Supernatural" by its very definition, is beyond the range of the natural, and thus cannot be observed, nor interacted with. Knowing this, the supernatural can be ignored because it cannot be observed, nor does it interact with our natural universe in any perceivable way.
Again, by it's definition, it's outside reality. So it's irrelevant.
xenxander 3 months ago
Comment removed
Underhill182 3 months ago
@acr08807 i guess there is something which you really wished to happen in ur life but it didnt, thats y? It has made u where u stand now..well what would you call that if you see a blind getting back his vision just by taking shower in a holy river, i guess that would be" THE ONE- GOD", believe it or not but one day all atheist will, its just ppl get angry at GOD for some reason n try to forget him but u cant. It's IN YOU N WILL BE FOREVER.....
treasureman21 3 months ago
"There's no need to prove that stuff exists, right?" - Wrong. There most certainly is a need.
Underhill182 3 months ago
This video is the saddest thing. This guy is getting beat down left and right and still stammers bullshit arguments.
deejayfore 3 months ago
id love to see a christian scientist/bible scholar on that panel.
Mallaclllypse 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is one HUGE facepalm.
TheStarvingSamurai 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
Some people cannot think for themselves, and sadly they probably never will!
ApricotArtLover 3 months ago
It was half painful/ half hilarious to listen to this poor creationist kid. I love the look on Jen and Russell's faces.
jenifaui 3 months ago
I don't see why humans can't just say, "Oh wow, that's something I really had no knowledge about and created false ideas regarding. I see that you know a great deal about it and now I am not so ignorant. Thank you for your time." And be done.
cdoggiefizzle 3 months ago 2
Incredible that Christians spends their time on making stuff in the bible accurate, and therefore true, and noth studying the Big Bang Theory etc. Which has logic in them.
TheLordHodne 3 months ago
good design? look how well the banana fits in my hand.
Silent33091 3 months ago
@Silent33091 or how well my hand fits my penis. :3
youtubian2500 3 months ago
@youtubian2500 It's true, youtubian2500 has extraordinarily large hands.
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 <_<
I see what you did there
youtubian2500 3 months ago
I don't understand this. Why do you need evidence to know something exists????? It's called faith.
16sideswipe 3 months ago
@16sideswipe
knowing and believing is different thing, ur believing that god exists, u dont know for sure.
Silent33091 3 months ago
@Silent33091 I don't wanna make it sound like I'm being smart or anything, but I do KNOW.
16sideswipe 3 months ago
Comment removed
Silent33091 3 months ago
Comment removed
Silent33091 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@16sideswipe
holy shit thats true? have u seen him? touched him? heard hes voice or know any1 that did.
even if god exists you havent seen any proof of it yet, thats why you dont know and just belive that he exists
or do you know any logical proof?
Silent33091 3 months ago
@16sideswipe Wonderful question. Because some people care about their beliefs being true. Truth is rather inherently testable. If you cannot test it, if there is no evidence to support it, then there is no reason to believe it. Faith is not a virtue, it's a mark of gullibility. It's saying "well fairies haven't been disproved and zombie puppets paint the rainbows" are as valid as each other and as valid a claim as god existing and science to be true is intellectually dishonest and bogus.
CodeSculptor 3 months ago
@16sideswipe Do you ever change your mind about anything? If so, why?
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 Yeah, I guess. Depends on the circumstances
16sideswipe 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@16sideswipe Do you ever change your mind because you see new evidence?
acr08807 3 months ago
One word, dinosaurs!
nhbiker1961 3 months ago
One thing I've noticed TAE doesn't seem to think of is the bible says (at least in one passage) the earth is a circle... Something can be flat and be a circle. All other passages in the bible that talks about the earth compares the earth to being flat.
SkepticStream 3 months ago
"Communism - All Masonic Lodges - Socialists - Atheists - Anarchists - Labor Unions - Etc. these organizations were all successfully infiltrated by the Society of Jesus to bring about a one world government" - Dr. Alberto Rivera
TheGuinnessboys 3 months ago
@TheGuinnessboys Dr. Alberto Rivera--is that Geraldo Rivera's dad?
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 He was a guy that disliked religion.
TheGuinnessboys 3 months ago
@TheGuinnessboys Then maybe he wasn't entirely off his rocker.
acr08807 3 months ago
I'm an atheist and love this show, but I have to side with the caller on a lot of this. The caller is not articulating in any sense at all what his argument is, but in general he wants to make some sort of argument about historicity of the Bible. If you could put together an overwhelming number of instances of historically accurate statements, then we could consider the Bible a fairly accurate historical document whose claims about Jesus should be taken somewhat seriously.
PainefulMass 3 months ago
@PainefulMass (cont) Those claims would then still need to be examined on their own terms, but at least we would have reason to consider them. I know the caller didn't have the brain power to articulate this, but it is a common enough (and sound enough) argument that I'm surprised the hosts kept pressuring him on "why does this show anything" when that was a little beside the point.
PainefulMass 3 months ago
@PainefulMass I cannot agree - remember that the authors wrote about things around them, about historic events that are known - and it really has nothing to do with scientific claims about Earth age, or any other scientific claim. Even if the whole book is right about simple truths, that doesn't mean, that is correct in regard to reasearch findings ( which show completely different results). Sory for bad english.
alekf 3 months ago
@PainefulMass I agree with you. If we had archaeological or other independent verification of the stories in the Bible, that would give them some credence as histories--albeit a set of contradictory histories--rather than as legends. I'm still waiting for the validating evidence, though.
acr08807 3 months ago
basalt rock is VOLCANIC rock. mt.Etna is a VOLCANO. ->moron1 went to a VOLCANO to look for COMPOSITE rock (mixed) and then was 'surprised' when all the carbon atoms were out of whack. that is obviously PROSPEROUSLY DECEPTIVE! he knows how it works, doesn't work, and sets out to misuse it for bad results! DAMN! this really pissed me of.
dothackyou 3 months ago
Really? this guy is obviously a troll and most likely that chris langan faggot. Is it not obvious to you people?
santosscribbles 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
CARBON DATING PROVES THE EARTH / UNIVERSE IS 6000 YEARS OLD!!!
>>BUT CARBON DATING DOESN'T WORK.
*facepalm*
DackIsBack 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
Comment removed
Dubstepsanta1 3 months ago
i like hot pockets...
DeathMetalMorty 3 months ago
religion is so 1009
get with da times ppl
DeadIslandTrailers 3 months ago
Sam should shut the fuck up and go eat his sausage roll.
yatter1 3 months ago
both partys just piss me off. it's sad that im from the same town as this kid. the kid had no argument to what he was saying, nothing to back it up. and just some athiest piss me off. idk whatever, im christian and im proud of it. i dont care if people like or not. it's what i believe and it will not change.
tonyriotIPW 3 months ago
@tonyriotIPW well there is your problem. you wouldnt be here if everyone in the world said "it's what i believe and it will not change." you have completely lost any argument by default before it even starts when you say that. that would be like saying i believe that 2+2=5 and nobody can prove me wrong because my beliefs are my beliefs and they will never change.
kiddhitta 3 months ago
@tonyriotIPW No one hates you because you are christian get over yourself. Second learn to spell atheist.
sonbrodersen 3 months ago
Why the christians always come back with Adam and Eve...
With only two humans, you can only make inbred after inbred after inbred...
Fucking nonsense
johnny1893 3 months ago 2
lol, this made me think of bush explaining himself:p
TheAllien111 3 months ago
It's kind of sad his question is, "how do you prove things exist?" Haaa!
Russell192Talks 3 months ago
I did a calculation that if the population doubles every 100 years you get 8.5 billion people before the 4000th year...
LolzAtMagicMuffins 3 months ago
I live in a small southern town full of people just like the caller. It feels like i live in an insane asylum. I despair at the absolute lack of reasoned thought daily displayed.
tapesquare 3 months ago