Rabbi Shmuley Debates Richard Dawkins - Part 3

[SomeUser9753]

Shut up rabbi, stop scaring folks like this, say what's good about being religous, soulless types

[SomeUser9753]

I'm sick, atheists r wrong.

[SomeUser9753]

Anyway those jews are deceived, they perverted judaism and wanted to remove christianity. Being a christian is the real deal

[SomeUser9753]

The hexagram is satanic symbol associated with black magic not with jewry , read your books stupid. This rabbi is the hoax.

[reddoscar1]

listening to Shmuley has made me forget the debate topic. . . and made me deaf.

[scar504]

Peter Atkins is a genius, perhaps the greatest mind of the 21st century. A modern day Aristotle.

[mystisme]

he surely win thr price for is humoristic acting performance but lose the debate he mist the point largely

[zech48]

synopsis:

RA RA RA

[theapeman10]

this rabbi does serious damage to your ear drums, he's saying religion is the only way to define morals . Well lets take FoX's presenter Bill O'Reilly who acts like a jerk, bullies people, editing the interviews, censoring the news, facts and Bill is a christian, so we've seen videos of him swearing ranting on the outtakes on the internet. Emmm so Bill is the face of US TV. Everyone outside of the US, sees US TV as dumbed down with only christian views,So Religion denies free speech I think

[Damienf77]

Rather than making valid points, he is talking loudly, acting flamboyant and making jokes to try and win over the audience who apparently care more about being entertained than looking at the issues anyway. What a joke.

[arithine]

lol, he described atheism as the lack of belief. Atheism=without Theism Theism=the belief in a personal god Atheism=without the belief in a personal god. How could he make such a simple mistake?

[DaGavinX]

What a joke, that rabbi is. WLC is the only decent theist debater.

[FactNotFaith]

holy shit, this jew yells too much. FYI yelling does not mean you are proving a valid point.

[figure8productions]

he used the fat Buddha joke ten years later again about Hitchens. he is funny but makes no point worthy of defending religion.  also, he does know he has a mic?

[figure8productions]

he used the fat Buddha joke ten years later again about Hitchens. he is funny but makes no point worthy of defending religion.

[BloodOfRayne]

At least I can hear the Rabbi!

[mystisme]

is a clown yep but f if murder is not rationalhis god is not rational he kill thousand of people in the flood or with sodom and gomorea e pst acommandment not to killyrt he sens flower to irradicate cities even children and babies or exepte to man kill a woman not to be virgiin her night of wedding,killing killing it is all about it in the old testament

[wardzer]

shmuley is such a joke, appeal to emotion to solve a scientific dispute? All his points have been refuted by Dawkins in his books and repeatedly in other interviews/debates. he should get a fucking clue

[ak99uk]

Don't give up your day job, Schmuley.

[LovingScrubbies]

The rabbi certainly comes off more mentally healthy than mr. atkins.

[Xigano1]

Shmuley is such manipulative ass.

[bpwaddell]

listening to him years later, his style of speech has a certain appeal, and one has to accept Boteach is talented.

but one thing I cannot credit him with, is accuracy in his statements. when pitted against Hitchens or say Harris, his style of delivery fails to persuade.

[Slacktoo2010]

at least this guy yells like a dumbass so we can hear him instead of the people coughing....

[thatsbalone]

shmuley is such a joke...a high schooler could easily refute all of his points, as the ones that aren't just emotional appeal are completely false and misconstrued.

[ignatei]

He always humiliates and ridicules his opponents.

[kaiser1977ful]

this rabi is more a stand up comidiant as a thinker, he could make very funny jokes, but all that he say is just samoke a mirrows, distract tha atention to the fact that he have`n reason, so full hes time whit joke, the only thing that is missing to him is a red and big nose

[BillKiernan]

I see Shmuley is going to try to win on charm.

[captainbloodloss]

I really can't stand this guy. I actually thought he had a few good points in this video, but they all just fall to the ground when he's screaming and acting like a total village idiot... Acting like this is just demeaning and insulting to his audience. I am completely repulsed by his way of debating and public "speaking".

[MattHunX]

Shmu(k)ley is shouting again like an idiot. What a surprise.

[slavicman09]

@MattHunX ANTISEMITIST?

[MattHunX]

@slavicman09

Who, Boteach?

[sk8progression]

Does this loon ever make an objective point? As if anything he's said validates God.

[admoonhermiz]

lololololol, that atheist ownd.

[Falloutmoon]

Can rabbi Rabbi Shmuley stop screaming when he gives speeches?

It's like he functions under the motto "the louder ...the truer"

[foxpawz]

all preachers do.

[AntonBatey]

LOL!!!!!!!!! This is the same Rabbi that got pwned by Christopher Hitchens!!

He seems like a really nice guy though.

[emekonen]

i thought that rabbi beat him up for most of the debate, the hitchens debate, but hitchens attacked him at the end pretty good, but the rabbi wasnt able to respond.

[raelko]

that rabbi is an idiot.

if there is a god and uses idiots like him to promote himself, than I think I will go back to the god of my ancestors ZEUS and THOR, instead of this bullshit comedian god.

At least ZEUS had his thunders and lightening doing the work for him, not an idiot

[AntonBatey]

@LovingScrubbies

Haha only when they are debating about the Iraq War.

[mystisme]

he got pwned by dawkins too and do you know why because logic and science can not stand before some illogicalreligious belief cause religious belief just stand on emotion or psychologic thing which cant ever stand to reason cause as we say in french ,reason as reason that the hart do not understand in other way emotion does not go with reason and logic.religion is all about emotion or our psychological state

[1navyseal1962]

@AntonBatey link pleaz

[MattHunX]

@AntonBatey

Of course, he does. And I'm sure he is, as a person, minus his rants about religion. And many of them surely are.

[magnusjsolberg]

@AntonBatey Whaaaaat? This guy's a dick.

[AntonBatey]

@magnusjsolberg

Yes, when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but other than that...

[CutieBabe25]

He is trying to distract them with comedy so he can say his irrational arguments a second later. Putting lipstick on a pig isn't going to work.

[ComingSoon1984]

This is not a comedy show. He was supposed to say something funny at the beginning just not to bored his viewers.

But he just goes on, on and on. All he does is ridicule and make jokes. It's almost impossible to catch his thesis.

[cmmndrblu]

this guy is an entertaining nutjob but completely out of his depth.

Homosexual consenting adults do not equate with incest/rape/or cannibalism. They equate with heterosexual consenting adults. Homosexual incest would equate with heterosexual incest, homosexual rape with heterosexual rape and so on and so forth.

The point is that sexuality itself should not be an issue. The moral questions over rape/incest/paedophilia/necrop­hilia still hold regardless of the sexuality of the adults involved.

[Bristolblenheim41]

I hope you all realize that a "straw man" is a legal term meaning someone who is a front for another. I don't think you are using it right.

[rofyle]

No, straw man is not a legal term for "a front for another." First, straw man is not even a legal term, it's an argumentative position. Second, straw man is an attempt to ignore a person's position by substituting a distorted position exactly as Akomola did, and much the same as you are doing.

[Bristolblenheim41]

rofyle, I'm afraid "straw man" is a legal term. See below.

straw man n. 1) a person to whom title to property or a business interest is transferred for the sole purpose of concealing the true owner and/or the business machinations of the parties. Thus, the straw man has no real interest or participation but is merely a passive stand-in for a real participant who secretly controls activities.

[rofyle]

Nope. Straw man is a logical fallacy. Google it my friend, if you don't believe me. It's an attempt to misrepresent one's arguments with the logic that if the misrepresentation (or straw man) is defeated, then the original argument is itself also defeated.

[Zeefooo]

His jokes are pathetic, he's too loud and his sarcasm is crude and mean. Still though, he's the one who claims to be the religious one. Ironic.

[stucerocks]

Haven't seen that debate. I'm not Jewish, nor do I always agree with him, but still think he's a good orator

[ateap0tist]

should switch to stand up :)) he is a terrible debater but somewhat funny

[stucerocks]

Shmuley is normally a fierce and great debater . See some other of his videos. He was more like a comic here :)

[adknerr]

Fiercly ignorant yes :)

This is coming after I watched his 'debate' against Chritopher Hitchens. It not only has better quality video/audio, but the arguments are clearer and more interesting.

The rabbi also gets it handed to him resoundly.

[PorkScratchins101]

"totem worshipper"

They worship a lump of wood he says... How hollow is that!!

What a sad way to make yourself and your culture feel self important.

[playsetman]

atheist are simple,lack common sense-these are the same people that claimed through science the world was flat,though the bible says its a sphere-dawknis denied this debate ever took place

[PorkScratchins101]

Go ride your ark to another plane of existence!

[playsetman]

still believe the world is flat?still believe like darwin that cells are simple?life burst forth?blacks are the missing link?cromagnon man evolved from neanderthal man?yes in fact,there is another plane of existance-our soul leaves our body-you deny the soul-when you look in the mirror what do you see,yourself?no you see the body

[PorkScratchins101]

Sorry, I thought you were joking with that name.

Wow Darwin the racial divider! You actually read all that into science?

[adknerr]

LOL give me where in the bible it says the world is SPHERICAL.

You have no idea what you are talking about here. The religious fought having the earth being round, not being the center of the solar system, and even that stars were celestial bodies of gas until it was embarrassing to not give in an comporise, all the while threatening death, excommunication, and any other form of intimidation to those views all along the way.

[rofyle]

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7

"It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Isaiah 40:22

The Catholic Church fought science, not the religious. Now be quiet straw man, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[adknerr]

Those are perfect quotations... to prove MY point.

CIRCLE != SPHERE

Please close the bible and open a geometry book.

[rofyle]

Oh, I know. The Bible wouldnt be good enough for you even it said: For those who shall cometh in the far future, I now hereby pauseth my story for absolutely no good reason other than to inform those whom shalt cometh in the many future generations hence, that the Earth is a globe, a three-dimensional circle whats that? Yes, I knoweth thee canst not separate globe from circle for thou speaketh Hebrew, a poetic language, and therefore circle and globe are redundant and definenith

[rofyle]

by their context, but verily put aside thy confusion for a moment whilst I talk as though I speaketh not to you, but to some far flung generation so that I may definineth orbit. What? Yes. Yes, I knoweth thee have a problem with orbit as well.  Why not just stateth the moon doth circle the earth, you say? Because if I didst that, then the merest of the illiterate and most stubborn of that far flung generation wouldst then citest circle as notteth an orbit,

[rofyle]

and then wouldst sayon second thought, though knoweth what. Lets just forgeteth this whole thing and instead returneth to the story.

Please, I beg you. I beg you with all my heart. Learn to listen with some common sense and artistic integrity. Just once, please. At least just that much. Itll do everybody a greater good, I promise.

[adknerr]

Haha ok if aramaic doesnt have the words to distringuish between 2D and 3D shapes then god most certainly picked the worst possible way to spread his word. If there's a hole in THAT simple translation, think about how many others there are, so how much can trust the rest of it?

Still you are using your own reason and logic to parse symbolism and story telling out of LITERALLY word. If you dont take it literally you are just using some other independent criteria. That's fine... JUST USE THAT.

[rofyle]

So what you're saying is that when viewing abstract art for instance, one must take the painting at face value...literally?

Number one, Job was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic. Second, Hebrew is a picture language. If my aim is to get as many points across as I can by using a picture, how is that a "worst possible way."

You have thee choices: Islam, Christianity, or Nihilism. Naturalism is nihilism with a mask on. You have no basis for morality. There is something, or there is nothing.

[adknerr]

Invalid analogy because no one in their right mind ever argues to take a peice of art as an objective and concrete explanation for anything.

The vast majority of people that take the bible as being true, also claim it to be a set of rules for morality and end-times judjement.

If you dont take the bible literally, then fine. However, once again, if you do NOT, then you are using something else (reason) in your brain to determine what to learn from it. Fine, just USE THAT from the get go.

[akamola]

Religion, by definition, is unscientific !!!!! Believing and propogating something ,which doesn't have a shred of evidence to back it up, is the hallmark of a lazy and unscientific people.Not only that, religious assholes like you make their claims with utmost conviction, as if they have a hotline with "god". Religion will never enhance scientific enquiry, because according to religion, the answer to everything is GOD DID IT !!!!

[akamola]

And if you just look at history, you will see that advancement in science has nothing to do with religion. Blaise pascal, the creator of the theist's MPA, the pascal's wager, was at the peak of his scientific ingenuity when he was NOT a christian. Newton was an unorthodox liberal christian at best when he was at the peak of his scientific carreer. Some even called him a heretic. Galileo and Coppernicus couldn't even publish their work without being chastised by their on people.

[akamola]

Of course there are a few exceptions here and there, like Abdus Salam, but the majority of all scientists will agree that religion has nothing to do with their science, and in many cases, it is detrimental to science and rationality. Science actually flourished in Iraq, but religious loonies, who thought the invasion by the mongols was a punishment from god,started banishing scientists,scholars and intellectuals. history shows that religion is a dead-weight for humanity,and it must be discarded.

[rofyle]

Stop lying, straw man. Majority of scientists? This is a bald-faced lie.

Problems with the Big Bang alone:

1. Redshift dilemmas, not all galaxies are redshifted, a great many are in fact blueshifted.

2. Dark matter/dark energy does not exist.

3. The halt/re-expansion of space defies Newton's first law of motion

4. Quanta need quantum laws to fluctuate, why should there be laws before there are quanta?

I'm out of room, but u get the point. Who's calling attention to these? SCIENTISTS!

[akamola]

What ?? How uneducated are you ??? More than 90 % of all scientists in the national academy of science are agnostic/atheist and 93 % of all royal society members are agnostic/atheist. I can't believe how retarded you are, the blueshift expansion of certain galaxies and expansion of the universe only shows that dark matter exists. The force exerted by dark matter is causing these phenomenon you dumb fuck !!!!! Goons like you shouldn't be allowed to post non-sense .

[mizantrop12]

1. Of course not all galaxies are red shifted. Why would they be? Expansion is not the only effect in the universe.

[mizantrop12]

2. Dark matter has nothing to do with the Big Bang directly. This question assumes that there is no red shift dilemma, as the concept of dark energy was invented to explain it's acceleration.

Both of these terms (higher mass of galaxies than that of their visible matter and accelerating universe) basically for something which is unknown. So what you're saying is, in other words: "Something we don't know doesn't exist." Which is an ontological problem not a scientific one.

[mizantrop12]

3. Which applies to only one object. The universe is, believe it or not, not a single object. For many objects this law generalizes to the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. Neither of which is violated.

[mizantrop12]

4. This is just gibberish. I gather that you also have a problem with quantum physics, which has nothing to do with the big bang theory directly. If you do I suggest that you stop using your computer as it is obviously not working because of well tested laws of quantum physics upon which solid state phy and transistors are based upon but because satan has control over them.

[rofyle]

You employ circular logic. I'll prove it. Quanta need quantum laws to fluctuate. But why should there be quantum laws before there are quanta? From whence comes the quantum vacuum? Your so called well-tested laws are indeed in trouble. They exist for no purpose whatsoever, not even for the existence of quanta, for before quanta "pop" into existence, they don't exist, meaning the vacuum and all its laws exist for no purpose or reason, further meaning you should never have discovered it.

[mizantrop12]

I will retort to to your first couple of statements sentence by sentence because I can't follow the train of logic between them.

You said: "Quanta need quantum laws to fluctuate."

Quanta are just a fancy way of saying numbers multiplied by integers (as in, quanta of energy), or that is at least the meaning of the term I was taught here in the backwaters of Eastern Europe. Maybe in the US it has a different meaning in which case, feel free to correct me. cont.

[mizantrop12]

Basically, it's an archaic term which comes from the old quantum theory and is seldom used in modern formulation. Mostly taught for didactic reasons.

Anyway numbers multiplied by integers can fluctuate regardless of any physical law.

That's why I said that the statement is gibberish.

Let's assume that you meant to say something similar which does make sense: cont.

[mizantrop12]

"Physical quantities, which are quantized, can only fluctuate if the laws of quantum physics hold." And the short answer is that you're right! On the other hand, I don't really understand how this disproves QP or shows circular logic.

Quantum physics is the best tested theory in the whole world. You're testing it every time you use a computer.

cont.

[mizantrop12]

The Schrodinger equation, describing quantum particles, when solved in certain cases only permits states of non-zero energy to exist, i.e, for the mathematics to make sense no state with zero energy can exist. This lowest energy state is called the vacuum state.

cont.

[mizantrop12]

In your other statements (which I won't quote for the sake of brevity) you mention the fluctuations of the vacuum. They exist, are related to what I mentioned above, thought through a much more subtle and powerful theory of quantum fields (note that one deals with particles, and the other with fields) which have been proven by the Casimir effect, experimentally.

[mizantrop12]

On a related note, the validity of QP or any other scientific theory has no bearing on the existence of G-d, or any other metaphysical entity. Why so many religious people feel it necessary to attack science in order to "prove" the existence of G-d is beyond me. It's just, for want of a better word, stupid.

If anything the only convincing argument for the existence of G-d comes from the incredible fine tuning of parameters in physical law which allow life to exist. I'm still an atheist however.

[mizantrop12]

It seems to me that these religious apologists implicitly validate the atheist's argument that since G-d is an unknown and since the set of thing which are unknown gets smaller as science progresses it is highly unlikely that G-d exists. cont.

[mizantrop12]

They then proceed to attack science, which is idiocy. Instead it would be much more intelligent to attack the argument itself, which is weak, with something like: the set of things that are unknown will always be infinite, therefore the size of the set of things which is known is irrelevant.

[rofyle]

SCIENTISTS WHO ARE NOT RELIGIOUS, BUT DON'T BUY INTO EVOLUTION EITHER!!!

Your logic is fraudulent. Nothing does nothing. If you have nothing in your hand for example, nothing in your hand will do nothing. Only something can do something. Therefore, to presuppose that the imaginary "ylem" came from nothing is preposterous.

Insanity: In the beginning there was nothing, which then exploded.

Sanity: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

How's that, straw man?

[akamola]

And there isn't a single respectable scientist who denies evolution, you name me one and I will cancel my account !!!! And you have the audacity to say that my logic is fraudulent ? Bitch, YOUR LOGIC IS NON-EXISTENTIAL !!! You are so stupid that you don't realise that, at best, your stupid arguments only point towards the existence of the non-interventional pantheistic god of Spinoza. You don't have a shred of evidence to prove the existence of a judeo-christian god !!!!

[rofyle]

Temper temper, straw man. I've produced four clear cut scientific evidences for why the Big Bang is false, and yet you - claiming to be scientifically minded - have yet to challenge so much as a single one of them. Your ad hominems and empty boasts are no more than a show of fear. Why accuse, straw man? If you're so smart, let's see it.

I repeat:

1. Redshift fallacies. Not all galaxies are redshifted. A great many are in fact blueshifted (the Andromeda Galaxy being one of them).

[rofyle]

2. Redshift fallacies again. Why are so many quasars greatly redshifted, why the galaxies they're associated with have greatly reduced redshifts?

3. Redshift fallacies even more. If space is expanding, galactic redshifts will themselves be distorted by the same expansion.

4. There exists no way to accurately measure the Hubble Constant, meaning no one has any idea how young or old the universe may or may not be. We don't even know how near or far our closest star may be. (HC relates to #3)

[akamola]

3) Your argument about the hubble's constant is pathetic.Hubble's constant was considered to be quite uncertain, back when there was no information on cosmic background radiation.The hubble telescope has been used to estimate that it should be between 70 and 80 roughly. But even if it was considered to have it's lowest or highest probable values estimated using emperical observations (50-100), the age of the uni. would range between 8-20 billion years. So either way, creationists lose !!!

[rofyle]

First my dear straw man, it is not "hubble's constant," it is "the Hubble Constant." And I'm not quite certain you know what the Hubble Constant is. You do realize a telescope can't measure it, right? You do realize it's an unknown value that occurs in the difference between the Hubble Flow and galactic redshifts, right?

As far as CBR goes, astronomers have predicted the cause for this temperature in space to be the result of all heat sources in the heat universe. This has been true

[akamola]

And how can a bottom-feeding mongol like you call anybody 'straw man' ?? People like you are a disgrace to humanity. I don't have a problem if assholes like you keeping your beliefs to yourself, but once you start slandering science, which strives towards truth and rationality, in a manner that is just unworthily condescending and arrogant in the face of astounding ignorance, it just makes my blood boil !!!! Show us the evidence of a judeo-christian god, or else just fuck off !!!!

[rofyle]

Ad hominem. Your refusal to address the problems I stated is a show of fear. Address the issues, not the man.

Science strives towards truth and rationality? I just gave you four proofs that it doesn't. You don't address those proofs however. You resort to ad hominems instead. I will now give you a fifth to leave you stumped and stupefied even further -

The fabulous fabrication of...  GLOBAL WARMING!

The straw man goes up in flames.

[akamola]

You are either really inbred or really brain dead. You are obviously to stupid to read anything properly, so let me spoonfeed it to you :

1) Science does travel towards truth and rationality. As far as the uncertainty involved with the big bang goes, there is a reason why it is called a THEORY. A THEORY is someting that can never be tested and it is never claimed to be the ultimate truth aka A LAW, like newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics. A law is different from a theory ...

[akamola]

Any scientist who talks about a theory such as the big bang will never say that there is a 100 % chance that it happened, he/she will always say that until it is proven, it will remain uncertain. But if they believe in it, that is a totally different thing. They belive in the big bang based on the data and the facts that are available to them. No seriosu scientist has ever called it a BIG BANG LAW, it is the BIG BANG THEORY, you better shove that through your thick skull !!!!

[akamola]

2) You can give me all the bullshit about "something cannot come from nothing" and "where did we all come from" and "the universe has a certain set of parameters" etc., the only thing that you can prove, at best, is a pantheistic non-interventional Spinoza's god who set's the rules and then just sits back and doesn't do anything. You will never, and I mean never ever EVER, find a single shred of evidence that can prove a kind and caring interventional judeo-christian god who cares about us.

[akamola]

3) The only reson you bring up Ad-hominem and the anger in my rhetoric is because you don't have any proper arguments to refute me and you know you will never win this battle. That's what all religious people do, they start attacking the rhetoric and the "ad hominem" in an argument when they themselves don't have any arguments !!!

4) Religion is a dead weight for humanity and it creates more problems than it solves !!! If you don't realise that, then you can just FUCK OFF !!!!!!!

[rofyle]

5. An early expansion, halt, then re-expansion of the universe defies Newton's first law of motion.

6. Dark matter/dark energy does not exist. It was supposed to fix #5, but the only way it could was if it proved to be the stuff that held all galaxies together. Dr. Creze however, in 1998, proved the Milky Way has no dark matter/dark energy. Oops.

The list goes on, straw man. Turns out I'm not quite the push-over you're used to. Challenge the arguments if you dare.

[akamola]

Wow, the idiocy has returned. Let me break it down for you FOR THE LAST TIME FUCKWAD !!!! 1) The universe has never halted after the big bang, it has constantly expanded. I don't know whose ass you pulled that out of.

2) Research is still going on when it comes to dark matter, so until significant information hasn't been collected, buffons like you, who have no background in science and have done negligible research in this area, should just shut the fuck up and let the pros do their job.

[akamola]

I don't know which science journals you read and I don't know which scientists you listen to, all I can say is, get a decent education.

3) Your argument about the andromeda galaxy is total rubbish. The reason there is blueshift is because it is close enough to the milky way in order to have a gravitational attraction which can overcome the universal expansion. Of all the billions of galaxies observed, only a couple of hundred or so are blue shift, most of which are pretty close to the milky way.

[akamola]

4) I don't want to waste my time with the rest of your bullshit arguments, so I will end my correspondance with you with this. Suppose that you have, by some highly unlikely means, determined that an entity breathed life into the universe i.e. created "something from nothing", at best, you will only prove the existence of a non-interventional Spinoza's god and there is no way, I repeat, no, no, no*infinity way, that you will be able to prove the existence of a judeo-christian interventional god.

[akamola]

You can use all the bloated rhetoric and pesudo-intellectual arguments that you like, there is no way you will be able to prove Yaweh !!!! If you wanna live by believing in Spinoza's god, that's fine. Just don't go about claiming that you have proven the existence of a kind caring god who listens to your prayers, cause that is a blatant lie !!!!

THE END,GO FUCK YOURSELF !!!!!!

[rofyle]

as far back as 1896 when Guillaume calculated a value of 5 Kelvin. Eddington calculated 3.18 in 1926. Regener 2.8 in 1933. The first big bangers? 50K. That's right, 50K. The actual measurement turned out to be 2.6K. Hmm. Sumthin wrong there, ain't it?

And by the way, "should be" is entirely different than "is." Should be is how frauds like you have continued to fool the public for so long. Try again, straw man.

[akamola]

3) You don't seem to understand that back when Guillaume and Eddington made their predictions solely based on thermal radiation, without accounting for background microwave radiation, sine background radiation wasn't discovered until 1946. And as far as the distinction between "should be" and "is" goes, you can take that distinction and shove it up your big fat mongol ass !!!! Only people who have run out of sound arguments bring up tired shit like that.

[rofyle]

Any argument to check the validity of another argument is itself an argument that might be wrong.

Am I use to mind to test the validity of evolution? How can I, if my mind is a product of that which I'm trying to test?

Meticulous observation? A product of my mind. Scientific enquiry? A product of my mind. Theoretical development? A product of my mind. Trusting your mind to validate your mind is circular logic.

Oh my straw man, you are stumped now, aren't you? You bore me. Goodbye.

[akamola]

Ok, I wasn't going to reply to your bullshit arguments, but I just can't help it !!! Here we go again !!!

1) I can't believe I have to actually say this to you, but Hubble's constant and Hubble constant are the same thing. Even a little child wouldn't make a mistake with something as simple as that. Are you sure you are literate ? Are you sure you don't have a trained monkey typing this for you ?

2) Did you just say telescopes can't measure hubble's constant ??

[akamola]

Not only do you lack the basic understanding of science, but you don't even know how to fact-check properly."The Hubble Key Project used Hubble space telescope to establish the most precise optical determination in May 2001 of 72 ± 8 (km/s)/Mpc, consistent with a measurement of H0 based upon Sunyaev-Zel'dovich observations of many galaxy clusters having a similar accuracy." You don't have to read a fancy journal to learn that. You just have to google it ,and you can't even do that properly !!

[akamola]

And I find it so surprising that you treat science with such scrutiny and skepticism,yet you haven't made a single skeptic comment about the validity of organised religion,which has absolutely no evendential foundations to back up it's claims and which relies upon ignorance and superstitions to a much greater extent than science does.Why aren't you skeptical about the existence of Jesus ? Why aren't you skeptical about the claims about heaven and hell ? Why aren't you skeptical about miracles ?

[akamola]

And you haven't even addressed my argument which pertains to the astonishing lack of evidence in favor of a Judeo-Christian god. And you have the audacity to call me a "straw man" ?? You know what, GO FUCK YOURSELF !!!!!!

[rofyle]

No no, strawman.  I said you bore me. Now go play with Kitty.

[akamola]

Haha, you can't even come up with a decent comeback !!!!

Once again, the atheists have won intellectually !!!!!

[rofyle]

to ask whether youll be forced to deal with another believer moren ready to call your bluff so that he might encourage his brothers and sisters. (Oh my, you thought my comments were directed exclusively for your sake, didnt you? Tee-hee.) 

Good day now Agent, take your parting shot, there will be no further communication. All replies will be deleted unread.

In the beginning there was nothing, which then exploded.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

?Faith?

[akamola]

Yawn, you are boring me with this gibberish. You are such a sore loser. You have once again failed to adress the validity of a judeo-christian god and your convolutedm and baseless logic is definitely not helping. I did not state at any point that I am intellectually superior, I just stated that I base my judgements on facts, whilst you based yours on The Matrix !!! Anybody who assumes that something that our minds cannot grasp has to have a creator is an intellectually lazy buffon !!!

[akamola]

Not only do I think that you are an oblivious religious drone, I think you have some kind of superiority complex that is causing you to think that your logic is absolutely flawless and that others will get intimidated by you. I can only say one thing, get some medication for you megelomania complex !!!! And I don't care about your opinion, but I do care about defending whats right and what's wrong. Religion has done more harm to this planet than good, and so has god.

[rofyle]

is insurmountable. You dont wish to hear any of it though, youre gentle little mind is already made up. Youd rather build upon a mountain of assumption instead, starting with the assumption you hold a superior intellect, which you so clearly and evidentially do not. Oooh, I bet you wish with all your might you never would have thrown your little quip my way, dont you? Thatll teach you. Maybe next time, before you decide to take a shot at someones comment, you might pause long enough

[rofyle]

is the answer to yours.

How shall I know the truth of either myself or the universe? Only by revelation from outside.

Much like Neo needed Morpheus to first step into the Matrix so that he might discover the true nature of the Matrix, so we need revelation from someone outside the processes of evolution in order that we might discover the truth or falsity of evolution. Otherwise, were employing no more than circular reasoning; using our minds to validate our minds.

The evidence for this

[rofyle]

I answered you, Straw Man. As customary however, you chose to ignore it.

Any argument to check the validity of another argument is itself an argument that might be wrong.

Am I use to mind to test the validity of evolution? How can I, if my mind is the very product of that which Im trying to test?

Meticulous observation? Product of my mind. Scientific enquiry? Product of my mind. Theoretical development? Product of my mind.

The answer to the question Straw Man,

[akamola]

So you're trying to say that everything we observe is a product of our minds and our mind is a product of everything we observe, therefore everything we observe or devise isn't necessarily true ? In that case, 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 right ? And the sun doesn't rise in the east right ? And the earth is not necessarily round, since our brains are also round and we are pre-disposed to think that the earth is round.

[akamola]

And when we observe that the earth revolves around the sun, that is also quite wrong.Because god reveals in the bible that the earth doesn't move and everything moves around it right ? Stupid Galileo, why didn't he just listen to god's revelation, his mind was so imperfect, how could he say that the earth revolves around the sun, which is scientifically true, and science is imperfect, he should have listened to god right ? Your logic is making my head hurt, and possibly killing my brain cells.

[akamola]

ATHEISTS WIN !!!!!!!!!

[mizantrop12]

Actually, Creze, M., et al. showed that there can be no DISK SHAPED component of dark matter in ONE galaxy. arxiv. org/abs/astro-ph/9709022

This is an disingenuous argument, which is typical of creationists.

[rofyle]

Quit introducing the absurd as though you had something to ad hominem about. If DM doesn't exist in the MW's disk, and DM is supposed to account for 90% of the universe's mass, AND according to Creze, DM doesn't in fact exist in the MW's disk, than it throws a serious kink into the theory now, doesn't it? What, I'm supposed to pretend 90% mass excludes that material found in a galaxy's disk, because that galaxy happens to be the MW? I'm supposed to make like DM really has been discovered?

[mizantrop12]

Look, you got things backwards. Dark matter isn't a prediction of any theory, it's an experimental problem with existing theories. There is more mass in the universe than what we would expect from visible (i.e, detectable with modern measurements). matter Googling can verify the existence of such evidence. It is ludicrous of you to attack theories by denying the existence of a empirical problem with them (dark matter). It would be better for existing theories if there wasn't any dark matter!

[rofyle]

mizantrop12:

No, that's not quite right. There is more mass in the universe than we would expect from visible matter ACCORDING TO THE BIG BANG - INFLATIONARY MODEL. Rather than question whether the model itself is right however - shotgunned with canyon-wide holes as it is - we'd rather conjure up all sorts of imaginary stuff - even going so far as giving our stuff names - so that we might procure more funding and hopefully remake ourselves into superstars one day. Rock on, science!

[mizantrop12]

No, actually there is more mass than we would expect from visible matter according to every dynamical theory, including Newtonian mechanics. The velocities of stars in galaxies as a function of their distance from the center of the galaxy are different than those predicted by Newtonian mechanics.

This has nothing to do with the big bang , which is not a theory in the sense that it gives us specific laws of motion. Big bang is a consequence of general relativity.

[rofyle]

I'm tired of this 500-word limit. I'll message you.

[rofyle]

mizantrop12 (contd):

And no, I do not deny the existence of an empirical problem. Rather, I point out the existence of an empirical problem. As far as your claim that existing theories would work better without DM congratulations, youre starting to get the picture now. They not only work better without DM however, they work better without the BB-IM itself. Cosmic background radiation - gulp! dont ya jess luvs it. Rock on, science!

[r22k10]

This crackpot is a disgrace to Judaism!

[theoryac]

this rabbi is a fool of fools!

he is an example of why religion is ridiculous

god has nothing to do with these behaviors he mentions.

rabbis basic tenant is fear of god to behave correctly if there was no god then we can kill each other.

equal in religion? jews are chosen people of god so they think.

[mmontana]

...uh...duh...Rabbi Shmuley is funny, likable, and intellectually stunted. He tells jokes for five minutes and then tries to dismiss Dawkins as a "celebrity"...seems as if Shmuley is jealous...and since he has made a point of branding his name all over books, radio and television, his TRUE aims have become clear. He does not seek to promote god...he seeks to promote Rabbi Shmuley.

[bberntson]

He'd be more convincing if he yelled more and made dumber assertions.

[ncuphabuchopho]

Rabi is NUTS, really psychotic and mean.

[nagibson1]

the only thing these comments have taught me is that if I become an atheist, I'm going to be sure to not be so self-righteous, arrogantly condescending and mean.

[soldersucker]

NOTE, this is from 1996. Science has GREATLY advanced in the past 10 years and has further piled on factual evidence against the ignorant religious people.

[l3inaryl3urnout]

stop shouting you prick

[whiff1962]

This guy could easily be bi-polar.

[ColoradoMikeyS]

God is Santa Claus for adults.

[mortemdei]

for retarded adults

[ColoradoMikeyS]

Quite right! I should have been more specific.  Thanks for clarifying what I meant.

[RoDJ99]

To further add to my statement I made before, I think he yells to sound like an alpha-male, authoritarian and therefore correct. Dinesh D'Souza did the same thing when he debated Daniel Dennett.

[RoDJ99]

Rabbi Shmuley yells too much.

[niginit]

and he's a complete moron.

[sleepcity]

Agree with you both. Poor Richard having to even be on the same stage as enfeebled huckster. Boteach's 'debate' with Hitchens was just as embarrassing. Maybe he should stick to writing self-help books and corny one-liners. Leave discussions of philosophy, science, and reality to the grown ups.

[niginit]

well said.

I think that can be said of all religious figures.

give up the difficult queries to the deep thinking and mature intellectuals that society has labeled atheists.

[talitha00cumi]

niginit - funny you call deep thinkers atheists; it's my experience that underlying atheism is a very shallow level of thought.

For deep thinkers, listen to fellows like John Piper and Ravi Zacharias.

[niginit]

nice one..... until reality sets in.

take another swing at it. you might not miss completely this time.