Every single scientific theory has to be based upon sound methodology and must then undergo brutal peer review, before it goes into school textbooks. It is absurd that creationists feel they do not need to participate in this system.
Without the academic approach the claims they make are void. How can they not see that?!
I Design? don't make me laugh. if there was intelligence in my design, my balls would be protected and wouldn't be forever choking with laughter when a creationist tries to sell us god.
This is bad stuff. First of all this country was developed on Christian beliefs and now since everyone knows the truth they want to not believe. The only reason people argue against the truth is that they know it's true. Gather those marbles you spilled and have some common sense.
The Supreme Court has ruled on this already, and you are wrong. Superstitious nonsense does not have the same standing as accepted science, and the process of understanding accepted science is called education, not indoctrination. To equate one with the other on any level is just an expression of ignorance.
@CdesignProponentsist you are a moron if you teach one without the other you dont give them a choice what to think and then you make it look good enogh to get even creationists to believe this bullshit that is indoctrination
@CdesignProponentsist I suppose it would be fine to teach creationism in a class about mythology, but being that it has been proven false several times it should never be taught in a scinece class.
@sixwingproductions We do not need religion in today's society. Haven't you people done enough mental damage to the past? We'd like to finally have a FUTURE now please, thanks.
@sixwingproductions I suppose it would be fine to teach creationism in a class about mythology, but being that it has been proven false several times it should never be taught in a scinece class.
@cheomire science will never see god because its like trying to see your eye ball with your own eye ball. your the god people seek my friend. we use tools like micro scopes and telescopes to see creation..totally unaware that we are looking at our own reflection! because in the end its really all in your head..without you there would be no objective reality. this is why religion and mysticism is about introspection.
@jacobromu Because there is no "out there" and when you take yourself out of the equations then nothing makes sense...this is why most things taught in school are theories and not facts...theories that agree with the powers that be... they know who you are and what your capable of...so they suppress truth from you and replace it with education. its worked to the point that most people don't even understand what i'm saying.
@NWM11Bravo religion is about introspection, which feeds the ego. all religions speak of a uniqueness, of how god has blessed us and not the others. science shows how we are all amazing, not just a select few.
@cheomire true science does expose creation as amazing. and just like religion science is divided into groups...and i guess im ticked off at establishment science because it almost seems like its geared toward proving that we really are not special..we are just a fluke in a meaningless universe. and a lot of famous scientists that contributed to our educational system all mention some sort of higher order..a higher power at work after delving into creation. but you never hear about that.
@NWM11Bravo and that fluke of nature is what makes us special. when we pick 6 winning numbers, those numbers on their own are not special. but together on a certain day with a certain lotto, makes a world of difference. that difference is what makes the human species, plus all other species special.
@cheomire you got a point I must admit that does make us special. but how did those numbers come about? someone had to make the game to pick the numbers right? how can something like math come out of nothing? it burst into existence and became highly ordered vibrations that became the matterial that became self aware... i'm not trying to dance around and confuse the topic but i wrestle with this one alot. im sorry if i sound kinda loose.
@NWM11Bravo i too wrestled with the concept of where did we come from and why am i here. through a long process of asking questions, and realising that maybe the why isn't as important as we think. life does not care whether we live or die. the old saying: life goes on is so true. life has no meaning, it just is. it is we that give meaning to life. when we leave the reasons why behind and focus on what we can do to make life better, i think we find out who we truly are.
@cheomire i can live with that cheomire...i guess if you spend all your time on a roller coaster trying to understand how it works and the physics involved you'll miss the entire ride and end up disappointed in the end. lol
@autocon2002 true. however, religion was a way of trying to solve those problems that arise such as: where did we come from, where do we go from here, and where do we go afterwards. i don't have an issue with asking questions about life. what i have a problem with is the idea that one particular sect has the answers. i want investigation over revelation. even science needs to be put under the bright light of investigation. not all science is benign, and not all religion is corrupt
@sculpt2live Que? Bit of a digression. What are you on about? Yes some ID and creation proponents are less than honest but so are many Evolutionists in fact it seems to be typical of Humanity. The dishonesty or otherwise of people doesn't effect the truth however. Thats your problem, you make your own bed and lie in it. Me? I enjoy the debate.
@anguspure The debate is not evolution vs creationism. It is simply the attempt to show those fantasy lala land for what it is. This is the truth. Reality reasoning. Creationism is a fantasy and reality is the truth that the fantasy is make believe.
@splicedenergy I am well aware of what the debate is about. I actually read the books surrounding it unlike most of the participants. The amount of double stepping, twisting, bumbling and outright lies involved in keeping the consideration of ID out of the mainstream, against the clarity and straightforward discussion from the likes of Behe and Meyers should lead one to beleive that it may not be a fantasy and in fact that these guys are onto something. We don't much like truth though do we?
@anguspure You are claiming that your opinions, beliefs, and speculation is truth. This is only true for you, this is not true in reality. Which apparently you are not aware of
Speculations of natural abiogenesis have the strong support of mainstream opinion and media/political influences, a Godless universe being the motivating factor this is true. However it is also true that specific complex information such as that found in DNA originates only by intelligent design. Furthermore alternatives to ID have more in common with discredited perpetual motion myths than observed reality in any sense.
@jacobromu Duh, I guess by 'real mathmeticians' you mean those who agree with you. Complexity alone does not prove the presence of intelligence, as mathmaticians have shown but specific information above a certain level of complexity has never been observed to arise by random means. How do you propose we should differentiate between random noise and an intentional message from and intelligent agent if not by this method?
The rejection of verifiable and falsifiable fact in order to eliminate the possibility of God may well be consistent with naturalistic science but it should not be confused with Truth. By the way is an absolute truth that truth is relative?
@sculpt2live Good on them for giving it a go but the M - U experiments and the like if anything display that greater intelligence than that posesed by bioligists is necessary for biogeneisis. These experiments were flawed and failed for an obvious reason. Intelligent foolishness.
@sculpt2live lets see...it happens to slow to be replicated in the lab..or to fast to leave a signature in the fossil record...birds have and will always be birds..reptiles have been and always been reptiles.what we see is horizontal mutations between animals that already existed.birds and reptile may resemble each other but so do we and the mouse...Mice are used in biomedical research as models of human beings in order to understand the human body.
@sculpt2live ok then...can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen increasing the information of the genome?
or better yet how did the first dna strand come into being and how did it replicate itself using a standard evolutionary model.
@sculpt2live Name one process by which non-living matter may in a natural and unaided manner become biological. The avenues that have been explored such as the Oparin model, chance, hypercycles, Ev or Avida are all rubbish. Perhaps it is you are in that is in the dark. While I understand the need for individuals to be passionate about their pet theory, there is no need to be bigoted.
evolution is establishment science and is full of holes and assumptions...its not proven in the lab nor the fossil record. what people call evolution is really horizontal mutation of an already existing system..adaptation creates mutations in animals but birds have always been birds and reptiles have always been reptiles. and when the cycle comes full circle there is a massive shift in complexity..this is seen as the periods and eras of fossil records. layers of mass transformations
The video gives the legal arguments but still begs the question 'Is it true?'. Truth is not somthing the courts deal in, and naturistic science is primarily concerned with naturalistic explanations as opposed to true ones. If a true explnation could be found that was supernatural, naturalistic science would be unable to addres the explnation by definition. So while I can accept that ID implies a creator, and while I can accept that this is illegal under US law, I still can't tell you it's a lie.
The trial wasn't to determine the truth, it was to determine what the scientific consensus was and whether intelligent design was scientifically defensible. If it was a religious belief or unsupported by evidence then it wasn't to be taught in the science classroom. Since ID was touted as an alternative theory, implying first that it was a theory and second that it seriously competes with evolution in the scientific community, that was what was on trial.
Point taken, but what is the point of a system that does not care about the truth or otherwise of what it spouts? The point of science was originally connected to the search for truth and many scientific people still beleive that it is. However now we find that scientific "truth" is required to fall within the constructs of naturalism. This sort of "truth" is usually given another name: dogma, and is exactly why rationalists rejected religion. The ID'ers would appear to be the new Galileos.
It doesn't mean that truth isn't important, it just wasn't the function of the trial. But it did examine the evidence in order to make the best decision, and in so doing, relied heavily on science as a truth-seeking tool. Like you said, the court can't establish the truth of this, but it can weigh the evidence on both sides and establish that one is well supported and the other is not.
@AbbeyNormal These assertions may carry the force of the law but then so did the assertions of the Roman Church in Galileos time. Naturalistic abiogenesis lacks any model or theory let alone evidence in favour of it. Well supported? I think not. This judgement was made on the assumption that all science must be carried out within the naturalistic frame work, this assumption is dogmatic, baseless and only serves to exclude what is increasingly becoming obvious as more evidence comes to light.
Comparing the Roman Catholic church of Galileo's time to the Kitzmiller-Dover trial is like comparing the Spanish Inquisition to our modern legal system. There is no comparison.
Naturalistic Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory and is not taught as fact in the science classroom, so it's irrelevant.
And a natural framework is the only scientific framework by definition. If it includes the supernatural, the untestable, or the unfalsifiable, it isn't science.
@AbbeyNormal It is precisely naturalistic abiogensis that ID challenges. Why then the problem?
The naturalistic framework has been chosen for utilatarian reasons however if it is adhered to strictly it will be found that it conflicts with the ability of science to determine truth.
It is only in the field of biology however that we find such dogmatic adherence. Where other fields are called upon to speculate over the boundary there doesn't seem to be the same problem.
@AbbeyNormal Then why the problem with presenting ID as a possibilty? As long as it is not presented as fact it is no threat to secular abiogenisis as a theory of origin. It would be a good way of explaining the naturalistic dogma of science to students ie "Here is the theory of ID, but we do not accept it as valid because it might lead to the invocation of somthing that we don't want to think about in science."
@AbbeyNormal If there is no secular theory of abiogenisis, how did life begin in the universe? If it can be shown to begin through the design of an intelligence it would be scientifically significant, would it not? Most of the evidence would have to be reinterpreted in the light of this consideration. ID makes a legitimate inference to the only known source of complex and specific information in the same way any other historical science does to show the presence of intelligence.
1. How the hell should I know? Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean the other answer is automatically right.
2. Has this actually happened, and how has it been done? I have heard no news of it.
3. No it doesn't. It's inherently contradictory. A creative force would have to be complicated, and therefore must be the result of creation, by their thinking. "God was uncreated just because" is the best answer they have to this problem.
@anguspure NO, ID is not making any scientific claims at all, its pure assumptions. yes, if there was objective tangible evidence for a creator then it would be scientific but supernatural things cant be scientific because science by definition ONLY deals with natural things.
@patrickledford420 Of course the subject of beginnings is non-natural. There is no known process by which non living things may become living. By your definition any speculation as to how life began from non-life is not scientific. Rubbish. The ID discussion is over whether we will open our minds to allow all possibilities or into the discussion whether we will remain close minded and bigoted against them because of our precious atheistic sensibilities.
@anguspure i have no "atheistic sensibilities" i just want ID to stop because its all bullshit. evolution is fact GET THE FUCK OVER IT. no, we dont know how life formed but saying god did it doesnt solve anything it just causes another problem. im not bein bigoted, i simply think that pseudoscience can NOT go into real-science class rooms. now give me ONE piece of evidence supporting ID
@patrickledford420 The presence of complex and specific information in biological systems is evidence of the presence of intelligence in the design of these systems.
Biological information is unlike any other kind of naturally occuring information and is closely similiar to the kind of information that is commonly ascribed to intelligent agents. Intelligent design in biological forms is therefore the best explanation.
@anguspure i have no "atheistic sensibilities" i just want ID to stop because its all bullshit. evolution is fact GET THE FUCK OVER IT. no, we dont know how life formed but saying god did it doesnt solve anything it just causes another problem. im not bein bigoted, i simply think that pseudoscience can NOT go into real-science class rooms. now give me ONE piece of evidence supporting ID
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If Creation is too religious for publlic schools,THEN SO IS EVOLUTION, which is the basis for far MORE religions! Note a few of the religions which are structured aroun evolutionary theories: Buddhism,Toaism,Animism,Satanism,Unity, Mystisism,Hinduism,Occultism,Theosophy,Spiritism,Bahaism,Unitarianism,Jainism,Confucianism,Shintoism,Secular Humanism,liberal Judaism,Liberal Christianity,Liberal Islam. Basically 3 major groups hold to Creation: Conservative Judaism,Con. Christianity,Con.Islam! hmmm
Evolution is religious because you have to assume/believe in certain aspects of it since no one was there. No one was there when these organisms allegedly "evolved" into others; there are no transitional fossils. Even if there were, it only proves it died. You can't prove it had kids, different kids, or kids that reproduced. There has to be an assumption (unscientific)
Scientific method is based off of testable/observable evidence.
I don't know what you mean about religions structured around it
If no one was around to witness what is likely a murder, can you then say that it is impossible to prove that it was a murder? After all, no one was there to see it.
We, of course, have methods to investigate past events by looking at the surrounding environment and the body itself. The same goes for history and many fields of science, including Evolution. A single fossilized animal didn't have to have kids because Evolution works in populations, not individuals.
Evolution is not science no matter how loudly, or often you say it, it is a "religion" just as creation is. There is a point when evolution jumps out of science and into religion because at some point you need to 'assume' and 'believe' something happened.
And how do you know there were populations of certain creatures. australopithecus afarensis (ie Lucy) was only 1 skeleton and was a fraud. Are we to assume there were billions of these?
Lucy was neither a fraud nor the only specimen of its species. Most of the skeleton was formed from several individuals that were found miles apart. So how was it a fraud?
Like I said in my last comment; Lucy is not the specimen. The skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis was filled in with the bones of several individuals. This doesn't mean the Lucy fossil is false, just incomplete. We can infer from the the other bones since the femur and tibia are closer to human then not. To some slight extent the face was an artists reconstruction, but again, a general idea of what it looked like can be made from the bones that were found.
"Even if these were true, it is still useless and false."
How dishonest is that? even if it is correct it is still useless and false? that statement doesn't make sense and contradicts itself. If it is true then it cannot be false at the same time.
Just because they were in a population doesn't mean that they were the only kind living there. That's why it's false to assume that the knee they found is hers, if it was closer to Human than not, why is it not classified as human? It could very well be a child's leg.
As aforementioned, the skull was not very decipherable and lacked construction but they gave it a human-like face, and you say they can determine what it looked like from bones that were found? Doesn't make too much sense there.
i meant to say that she is not the only specimen in my last comment.
bones have telltale differences in shape, length, thickness, etc. that helps to identify what it came from. just saying that it could have come from a child isn't convincing because hominids grow in a very similar way and you can check the bone to give you a rough idea of the age of the animal.
being more closely related to one species then another is not the same as being the same species, or in this case, a genus or family.
like i said, there was some artistry involved to complete the face, but the position of the other bones, as well as their shape helped to guide the process along.
and if you don't mind could you please tell me how something can be true, useless and false at the same time?
"it could have come from a child isn't convincing because hominids grow in a very similar way"
Wow, go figure. It isn't convincing enough to say it came from a child because they grow in similar ways. Interesting, so by that logic it could very well be a childs leg.
If your saying that the "hominids" grow in a similar way, that's also faulty because what is there to compare it with? They never knew it existed until Lucy. There's only 1 skeleton from what I see.
what i meant was that since the growth patterns are similar in hominids (i should probably be saying apes since apes in general would grow the same) we can infer a general age by looking at extant species. a child's bones are different from an adults in that they are generally smaller, lower ring count, etc., which can be preserved in fossils.
So you can prove that bats are not mammals they are birds, and that π = 3.0, don't be shy enlighten us all, just a little help for you if you're going to say a giants cubit is larger than a mans cubit, that makes no difference, PI is a ratio not a size
I'll spare you that embarrassing explanation of bats being mammals if you look it up yourself, if you cannot find it then I will explain to you, but do look it up first.
Where exactly in the Bible (verse please) does it mention "Pi?"
Ok, lets start, shall we, with the 2 primary things you need to know. First, the Bible does not classify things the way science is today. They don't care about what Kingdom or Phylum something is. If it flew, it was a bird or an insect.
Second, the Hebrew word "Opwh" I believe, simply means "owner of a wing" when they translated the Bible to English, they simply changed it to "fowl" which is similar to convey the point.
Yes, to goat herders, but the bible is meant to be the inerrent word of god, he should know the differece between birds and mammals! and as it's the word of god how dare we call them mammals when god himself calls the birds?
His reasons are His own, He's already thought of putting science in the Bible but it's possible He leaves it out to make it more understandable so anyone can read it, that's just my opinion. Your questioning an infinite being with finite questions. Does it ever occur to you the nothing occurs to Him? He's already thought of every possible thing and seen the outcome. If you think He could've done something better, know this, He's thought of it first, and beyond that.
but you just proved the bible isn't 100% correct, because as you say bats are not birds they are "owners of wings" the translation is LESS than perfect, making the bible you own LESS than perfect
That is a scribal error, not even an error really, just a misunderstanding. However, this is not Biblical. If the original Bible said "fowl" then, first of all it still wouldn't be a flaw because that's the first point I mentioned, then I could see your point. However your looking at it the wrong way. This is not Biblical, it is Scribal, huge difference. Something that's 2000 years old is bound to have a few after translations.
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness,
I'll help you out, he can't be both, if using his omniscience he chooses to tell you the date of my death, he then can't change the date of my death using his omnipotence without being wrong when he told you the date of my death in the first place ... simples
You need to stop bouncing around youtube, I'm getting a headache with your 100's of posts with 1 sentence.
Your thinking way too hard. He's not telling you the date of your birth in the first place. Yes He knows when your going to die, but He's not changing it in any way through His actions.
"You need to stop bouncing around youtube, I'm getting a headache with your 100's of posts with 1 sentence"
I'm sorry but you were the one boasting that you could proof the bible was 100% true, I'm just asking, and you admitted there are mistakes in translation by scribes, you have no idea how many mistakes, yet you still maintain the bible is 100% the word of god, that makes no sense whatsoever.
That has nothing to do with your numerous 1 sentence posts.
And I can, however your pointing out scribal errors not Biblical errors. You and everyone else I debate on this topic say this exact same thing and scribal errors are not what I"m referring to. If you have a point where the Bible contradicts itself or is a flaw (gravity is opposite) then I'm all for hearing it.
That's a silly question, I just answered that. There are none, only scribal. However, the original transcripts in hebrew are the original Bible, I'm unaware of their whereabouts.
"That's a silly question, I just answered that. There are none, only scribal. However, the original transcripts in hebrew are the original Bible, I'm unaware of their whereabouts"
How can that possibly be a silly question, you say the "original" bible is the inerrent word of god, no one has access to the original, all we have are flawed copies of flawed copies, you have no idea how flaws, yet you still maintain it's 100% true ... sheesh, there in lies madness
OK, what did Jesus say on the cross, "my god why have you forsaken me" giving the impression jesus doesn't know what's happening, or "truly I say today you will be with me in paradise" giving the impression he does, does that count as contradictory?
From Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to English, every single time translated by unknown scribes with unknown abilities with unknown agendas, you have no idea what was left out or what was added, these are inarguable facts, why would an all powerful god give us a book then let people translate and interpret it? and you STILL maintain it's 100% true
Because God promised to preserve his word. Not our language, but the Bible. There have been no flaws in it and that is why I believe the preceding statement in the Bible.
Daniel's tree was "so tall" it could be seen from every kingdom of the world, and the devil took Jesus up a mountain that was "so high" you could see every kingdom of the earth, both suggest the earth is flat, the bible refers to the "circle" of the earth, a circle is a two dimensional geometric shape (flat) Orb, Ball, Sphere, Globe, would all have been better words
The Bible never refers to the shape of the earth, In Isiah it refers to "the circle OF the Earth" not "the circular Earth." It is not defining what the shape is, you can't say "He sat on the orb of the earth" because you would have to sit on the entire "orb" of the earth (everywhere) if your sitting on the circle of the earth, you are in 1 latitude/longitudinal area.
However that's just my interpretation. I don't believe it's giving any definition of the shape of the earth in much aspect.
Well maybe "face of the earth" would have been less confusing, but I seem to remember a line in the bible that says something like "the earth hangs on nothing in space" which of cause it doesn't, it only appears that way if you know nothing of gravity, god would have known about gravity and it's his book! And forgive me if I sound rude, but who are you to "interpret" the word of god? I hope you're not saying "what god meant to say was.....!!"
What's confusing to one is not confusing to all. That's not even worthy of bringing up if you ask me. It's just stating that he sat on the ground. It went into a little more detail than that. It's not going to have all the formulas of science or geology because the Bible is not a science book. However, I find it interesting that it can still hold up to science and be correct.
Your the one who asks for the facts, if "read the Bible" isn't a good enough answer, then I have to go into details.
What about it? He created the earth and hung it on nothing, it "floats" on it's own through space is what I'm getting from that. What are you comprehending from that?
Again, I specifically said the Bible is not a science book. It wont have formulas for light travelling through space.
"What about it? He created the earth and hung it on nothing, it "floats" on it's own through space"
It's not hung on nothing, uneducated goad herders may have thought that, but WE know better and so would a god, there is an extremely good reason the bible doesn't mention gravity or the speed of light, it's because the people who wrote the bible knew nothing about gravity or the speed of light, there are no pandas or kangaroos in the oldest texts either, I wonder why?
Yup me and the Pope (Oh! and every credible scientist on the planet) so if you're a "no death in the garden of eden" believer, did god design chameleons? because I can't quite work out why a chameleon would need a two foot long spring loaded sticky tongue to eat leaves, why does it have to take leaves by surprise? and it can't have evolved that way, according to you
Majority does not mean it's right, everyone on earth can think gravity is gravy, does it mean they're right? Personally I think those scientists haven't heard what I have to say, if they did, I guarantee you that number would change.
"it can't have evolved that way, according to you"
"Personally I think those scientists haven't heard what I have to say"
Wow I didn't realise I'd stumbled upon the second coming, Oh! and by the way pride is a sin, and contrary to your inane rambling in most cases the majority IS right, that's why more people get killed by cars on the road rather than the pavement
That's absolutely true, it isn't a science book. But if creationists keep pushing their agenda through the public school systems (unconstitutional, btw), it will be.
And why shouldn't the Bible mention the speed of light? Forgive me for making this assumption, but it's almost as if the Bible was INVENTED by PEOPLE who had no knowledge of the esoteric nature of light.
It took God a whole day to make light, but made the universe's stars (which produce light) as an afterthought, four days later??
No it wont, it will just be an accurate understanding for the beginning, wrapped with science which supports it. It's not "all bow down to the Bible, it is the only truth." There are many things we can't know from the Bible, it doesn't mean it's wrong though.
You need to read Job 38 & 39 if you want to see what knowledge they "didn't have."
Yes, that's representation of how powerful He is. He doesn't need something to create light, He can make it from nothing, that's the point of the sequence.
As for the tree and mountain. Your making an assumption here.
Now, you assume that the kingdoms are all around the globe and I believe they were close by the Euphrates river. This would be plenty of distance for anything to see.
@lordwindowlicker dna cant be explained by a Darwinian theory..the amount of energy and information to create a single strand of DNA out of random acidic reactions is ridiculous..sunlight only creates more chaos and entropy. just look into DNA and you cant deny the insane amount of organization and coordination it takes to produce protein..noway it could have been done randomly. it had to be like this from the very start..it didn't evolve like this.
@ranchopatriot no dumbass, evolution is NOT a religion its just that some of those religions (some are NOT religions) think evolution is real because there not complete morons that have no brain cells. go look at the definition of religion then go read the definition of biological evolution then read the definition of science theory then STFU
It's too bad in America there is freedom of religion. Being an non-theist nation was the only thing the U.S.S.R. had right. It has shown how communism does not work in the long run, but I would love to see what a nation could do with freedom, but with an accepted absence of religion. Oh, well, just another fairy tale with all the stupid non thinking bible munchers out there, but can't a guy dream?
Some people say that the beauty and complexity of Nature proves there must be a Creator. It is clear to me that nature is far too beautiful and subtle and complex for YHWH to have made it. He's so simple minded: This sin? Kill 'em! That sin? Kill 'em! Worship the wrong god? Kill 'em! Belong to the wrong tribe? Kill 'em! What a one-track mind. No creativity or complexity there.
i am talking about apologetics being the Antithesis of how the scientific method operates. The scientific method cannot Tolerate religious favoritism. As a result science is a Agnostic process. so your phrase "Atheistic scientific assumptions" is nonsense.
You likely are only calling it that because Methological naturalism fails to make the assumptions you want it to.
"You likely are only calling it that because Methological naturalism fails to make the assumptions you want it to."
No, I'm actually quite joking. I'm pretty much a naturalist, but I don't make a strong claim about the God question. I just don't have a perticular belief in one.
"But i am just as hard on creationism and other types of fundamentalism as strong atheists."
Same. I call myself an atheist just because it's more philosophically clear, but for practical purposes I'm an Agnostic. I've pressured myself with the God question to no avail.
Evolution is a conclusion from facts. That is what makes a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not what you'd think of as a theory.
Evolution is, in laymans terms, fact. There is staggering evidence in support, and over 150 years not a single opposing piece of evidence has been found.
If an evolutionists could present to me just even one fact of evolution theory, then, i will surely follow and adhere evolution. But where is that hard fact????
Human races are mixing. Maybe in many years there are no black or white or asian people. There will just be a mixed race. So this is an example for "mini-evolution" because of poputation-fusion. Will christians say in the future: "God created mankind like it is now. That means brown-skinned and black-haired"???
Everything is changing at any time, THAT is evolution! (Hope this american sect don't get to much influence in europe)
Every single scientific theory has to be based upon sound methodology and must then undergo brutal peer review, before it goes into school textbooks. It is absurd that creationists feel they do not need to participate in this system.
Without the academic approach the claims they make are void. How can they not see that?!
Floortjahh 2 months ago
I Design? don't make me laugh. if there was intelligence in my design, my balls would be protected and wouldn't be forever choking with laughter when a creationist tries to sell us god.
fourbabies1 9 months ago
This is a debate on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution held at the largest public high school in the state of Illinois.
nroys 9 months ago
@Dansharpjr
This country was not developed on Christian beliefs. I refer you to the article at atheists.org entitled "Founding Fathers".
Scurvebeard 9 months ago
The transitional fossil between the creationism and the Intelligent design is the cdesign proponentsists evolution has a new evidenece
00VRV5F41070 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus is the way the truth and the life.
Dansharpjr 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus is the way the truth and the life.
Dansharpjr 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus is the way the truth and the life.
Dansharpjr 10 months ago
This is bad stuff. First of all this country was developed on Christian beliefs and now since everyone knows the truth they want to not believe. The only reason people argue against the truth is that they know it's true. Gather those marbles you spilled and have some common sense.
Dansharpjr 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO REMEMBER JUST HOW STUPID AND DANGEROUS YOU HAVE TO BE TO BELIEVE MAGIC
hank1212100 10 months ago
un constitutionle to teach one without the other and that is indoctrination and that is un constitutional
sixwingproductions 1 year ago
@sixwingproductions
The Supreme Court has ruled on this already, and you are wrong. Superstitious nonsense does not have the same standing as accepted science, and the process of understanding accepted science is called education, not indoctrination. To equate one with the other on any level is just an expression of ignorance.
CdesignProponentsist 1 year ago 11
@CdesignProponentsist you are a moron if you teach one without the other you dont give them a choice what to think and then you make it look good enogh to get even creationists to believe this bullshit that is indoctrination
sixwingproductions 1 year ago
@CdesignProponentsist I suppose it would be fine to teach creationism in a class about mythology, but being that it has been proven false several times it should never be taught in a scinece class.
BEOWULF9965 9 months ago
@sixwingproductions We do not need religion in today's society. Haven't you people done enough mental damage to the past? We'd like to finally have a FUTURE now please, thanks.
liquidthex 9 months ago
@sixwingproductions I suppose it would be fine to teach creationism in a class about mythology, but being that it has been proven false several times it should never be taught in a scinece class.
BEOWULF9965 9 months ago
That's deep dude. Now maybe I can have a discussion with my religious friends. Thanks.
Sleeko11 1 year ago
religion is based on belief, or faith, not proof. those who try to prove god's existence, is in fact going against their own beliefs.
cheomire 1 year ago
@cheomire science will never see god because its like trying to see your eye ball with your own eye ball. your the god people seek my friend. we use tools like micro scopes and telescopes to see creation..totally unaware that we are looking at our own reflection! because in the end its really all in your head..without you there would be no objective reality. this is why religion and mysticism is about introspection.
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
@NWM11Bravo Well, then I have to ask. How do you know?
jacobromu 1 year ago
@jacobromu Because there is no "out there" and when you take yourself out of the equations then nothing makes sense...this is why most things taught in school are theories and not facts...theories that agree with the powers that be... they know who you are and what your capable of...so they suppress truth from you and replace it with education. its worked to the point that most people don't even understand what i'm saying.
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
@NWM11Bravo religion is about introspection, which feeds the ego. all religions speak of a uniqueness, of how god has blessed us and not the others. science shows how we are all amazing, not just a select few.
cheomire 1 year ago 4
@cheomire true science does expose creation as amazing. and just like religion science is divided into groups...and i guess im ticked off at establishment science because it almost seems like its geared toward proving that we really are not special..we are just a fluke in a meaningless universe. and a lot of famous scientists that contributed to our educational system all mention some sort of higher order..a higher power at work after delving into creation. but you never hear about that.
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
@NWM11Bravo and that fluke of nature is what makes us special. when we pick 6 winning numbers, those numbers on their own are not special. but together on a certain day with a certain lotto, makes a world of difference. that difference is what makes the human species, plus all other species special.
cheomire 1 year ago
@cheomire you got a point I must admit that does make us special. but how did those numbers come about? someone had to make the game to pick the numbers right? how can something like math come out of nothing? it burst into existence and became highly ordered vibrations that became the matterial that became self aware... i'm not trying to dance around and confuse the topic but i wrestle with this one alot. im sorry if i sound kinda loose.
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
@NWM11Bravo i too wrestled with the concept of where did we come from and why am i here. through a long process of asking questions, and realising that maybe the why isn't as important as we think. life does not care whether we live or die. the old saying: life goes on is so true. life has no meaning, it just is. it is we that give meaning to life. when we leave the reasons why behind and focus on what we can do to make life better, i think we find out who we truly are.
cheomire 1 year ago
@cheomire i can live with that cheomire...i guess if you spend all your time on a roller coaster trying to understand how it works and the physics involved you'll miss the entire ride and end up disappointed in the end. lol
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
@NWM11Bravo amen! life is to be lived, and enjoyed.
cheomire 1 year ago
@NWM11Bravo Drivel.
acme181169 1 year ago
@cheomire Not all religions even mention a god.
autocon2002 3 months ago
@autocon2002 true. however, religion was a way of trying to solve those problems that arise such as: where did we come from, where do we go from here, and where do we go afterwards. i don't have an issue with asking questions about life. what i have a problem with is the idea that one particular sect has the answers. i want investigation over revelation. even science needs to be put under the bright light of investigation. not all science is benign, and not all religion is corrupt
cheomire 3 months ago
@cheomire except christianity. Have you ever read 1 Peter 3? Christians are supposed to be able to prove this shit somehow. it ain't working.
jacobromu 1 year ago
@jacobromu of course it aint working, because trying to prove god, is like trying to prove love.
cheomire 1 year ago
@sculpt2live perhaps...
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
@sculpt2live Que? Bit of a digression. What are you on about? Yes some ID and creation proponents are less than honest but so are many Evolutionists in fact it seems to be typical of Humanity. The dishonesty or otherwise of people doesn't effect the truth however. Thats your problem, you make your own bed and lie in it. Me? I enjoy the debate.
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure The debate is not evolution vs creationism. It is simply the attempt to show those fantasy lala land for what it is. This is the truth. Reality reasoning. Creationism is a fantasy and reality is the truth that the fantasy is make believe.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy I am well aware of what the debate is about. I actually read the books surrounding it unlike most of the participants. The amount of double stepping, twisting, bumbling and outright lies involved in keeping the consideration of ID out of the mainstream, against the clarity and straightforward discussion from the likes of Behe and Meyers should lead one to beleive that it may not be a fantasy and in fact that these guys are onto something. We don't much like truth though do we?
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure You are claiming that your opinions, beliefs, and speculation is truth. This is only true for you, this is not true in reality. Which apparently you are not aware of
splicedenergy 1 year ago
Speculations of natural abiogenesis have the strong support of mainstream opinion and media/political influences, a Godless universe being the motivating factor this is true. However it is also true that specific complex information such as that found in DNA originates only by intelligent design. Furthermore alternatives to ID have more in common with discredited perpetual motion myths than observed reality in any sense.
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure all that sepcified complex information jargon is debunked by real mathematicians.
jacobromu 1 year ago
@jacobromu Duh, I guess by 'real mathmeticians' you mean those who agree with you. Complexity alone does not prove the presence of intelligence, as mathmaticians have shown but specific information above a certain level of complexity has never been observed to arise by random means. How do you propose we should differentiate between random noise and an intentional message from and intelligent agent if not by this method?
anguspure 1 year ago
The rejection of verifiable and falsifiable fact in order to eliminate the possibility of God may well be consistent with naturalistic science but it should not be confused with Truth. By the way is an absolute truth that truth is relative?
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure can you name one ?
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@anguspure Who are you kidding?
jacobromu 1 year ago
@sculpt2live Good on them for giving it a go but the M - U experiments and the like if anything display that greater intelligence than that posesed by bioligists is necessary for biogeneisis. These experiments were flawed and failed for an obvious reason. Intelligent foolishness.
anguspure 1 year ago
@sculpt2live lets see...it happens to slow to be replicated in the lab..or to fast to leave a signature in the fossil record...birds have and will always be birds..reptiles have been and always been reptiles.what we see is horizontal mutations between animals that already existed.birds and reptile may resemble each other but so do we and the mouse...Mice are used in biomedical research as models of human beings in order to understand the human body.
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
@sculpt2live ok then...can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen increasing the information of the genome?
or better yet how did the first dna strand come into being and how did it replicate itself using a standard evolutionary model.
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
@sculpt2live Maybe the gradeschool questions are what says it all.. like how science proves we all came from one female in Africa
yet you will not accept that it was Eve
just how there are extremist in religion.. christian extremist, muslim extremist and so on, you are an extremist in science
a new breed
quite frankly I am happy I never spent months of my life reading on evolution to end up like you. a ton of knowledge for no good
THERE IS NO WAR BETWEEN SCIENCE AND GOD STOP CREATING ONE
B12SRDET 1 year ago
@sculpt2live Name one process by which non-living matter may in a natural and unaided manner become biological. The avenues that have been explored such as the Oparin model, chance, hypercycles, Ev or Avida are all rubbish. Perhaps it is you are in that is in the dark. While I understand the need for individuals to be passionate about their pet theory, there is no need to be bigoted.
anguspure 1 year ago
so why are there monkeys and humans???
why are they not all humans since its been millions of years monkeys on earth???
why are there not some monkeys from all the species 99.999999999 % evolved to humans????
in fact then there should be in all individual species evolution at 0 to 100% all existing...
THERE IS NO WAR BETWEEN SCIENCE AND GOD... STOP CREATING ONE....
IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN SCIENCE ONLY, WELL GREAT.....
WE BELIEVE IN WHAT SCIENCE HAS TO OFFER AND IN GOD
B12SRDET 1 year ago
evolution is establishment science and is full of holes and assumptions...its not proven in the lab nor the fossil record. what people call evolution is really horizontal mutation of an already existing system..adaptation creates mutations in animals but birds have always been birds and reptiles have always been reptiles. and when the cycle comes full circle there is a massive shift in complexity..this is seen as the periods and eras of fossil records. layers of mass transformations
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
The video gives the legal arguments but still begs the question 'Is it true?'. Truth is not somthing the courts deal in, and naturistic science is primarily concerned with naturalistic explanations as opposed to true ones. If a true explnation could be found that was supernatural, naturalistic science would be unable to addres the explnation by definition. So while I can accept that ID implies a creator, and while I can accept that this is illegal under US law, I still can't tell you it's a lie.
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure
The trial wasn't to determine the truth, it was to determine what the scientific consensus was and whether intelligent design was scientifically defensible. If it was a religious belief or unsupported by evidence then it wasn't to be taught in the science classroom. Since ID was touted as an alternative theory, implying first that it was a theory and second that it seriously competes with evolution in the scientific community, that was what was on trial.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
Point taken, but what is the point of a system that does not care about the truth or otherwise of what it spouts? The point of science was originally connected to the search for truth and many scientific people still beleive that it is. However now we find that scientific "truth" is required to fall within the constructs of naturalism. This sort of "truth" is usually given another name: dogma, and is exactly why rationalists rejected religion. The ID'ers would appear to be the new Galileos.
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure IDers the new Galileos? Galileos championed mathematics, astronomy and physics.. IDers merely crap all over legitimate science with lies.
TheBigMclargehuge 1 year ago
@anguspure
It doesn't mean that truth isn't important, it just wasn't the function of the trial. But it did examine the evidence in order to make the best decision, and in so doing, relied heavily on science as a truth-seeking tool. Like you said, the court can't establish the truth of this, but it can weigh the evidence on both sides and establish that one is well supported and the other is not.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
@anguspure
...cont
But no, IDers are not the new Galileos. For that to happen, they'd have to actually have a shred of a case.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
@AbbeyNormal These assertions may carry the force of the law but then so did the assertions of the Roman Church in Galileos time. Naturalistic abiogenesis lacks any model or theory let alone evidence in favour of it. Well supported? I think not. This judgement was made on the assumption that all science must be carried out within the naturalistic frame work, this assumption is dogmatic, baseless and only serves to exclude what is increasingly becoming obvious as more evidence comes to light.
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure
Comparing the Roman Catholic church of Galileo's time to the Kitzmiller-Dover trial is like comparing the Spanish Inquisition to our modern legal system. There is no comparison.
Naturalistic Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory and is not taught as fact in the science classroom, so it's irrelevant.
And a natural framework is the only scientific framework by definition. If it includes the supernatural, the untestable, or the unfalsifiable, it isn't science.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
@AbbeyNormal It is precisely naturalistic abiogensis that ID challenges. Why then the problem?
The naturalistic framework has been chosen for utilatarian reasons however if it is adhered to strictly it will be found that it conflicts with the ability of science to determine truth.
It is only in the field of biology however that we find such dogmatic adherence. Where other fields are called upon to speculate over the boundary there doesn't seem to be the same problem.
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure " It is precisely naturalistic abiogensis that ID challenges. "
I repeat that as Abiogenesis is not taught as fact in the science classroom there is no reason at all to challenge its teaching in the classroom.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
@AbbeyNormal Then why the problem with presenting ID as a possibilty? As long as it is not presented as fact it is no threat to secular abiogenisis as a theory of origin. It would be a good way of explaining the naturalistic dogma of science to students ie "Here is the theory of ID, but we do not accept it as valid because it might lead to the invocation of somthing that we don't want to think about in science."
Are naturalists afraid of presenting truth?
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure
You're not reading what I wrote.
1. There is no "secular theory of abiogenesis" as previously stated.
2. Science class is for teaching science, not alternatives to science.
3. Saying there's no evidence for special creation or divine intervention is not dogma.
4. Come off it. Nobody's afraid of ID.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
@AbbeyNormal If there is no secular theory of abiogenisis, how did life begin in the universe? If it can be shown to begin through the design of an intelligence it would be scientifically significant, would it not? Most of the evidence would have to be reinterpreted in the light of this consideration. ID makes a legitimate inference to the only known source of complex and specific information in the same way any other historical science does to show the presence of intelligence.
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure
1. How the hell should I know? Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean the other answer is automatically right.
2. Has this actually happened, and how has it been done? I have heard no news of it.
3. No it doesn't. It's inherently contradictory. A creative force would have to be complicated, and therefore must be the result of creation, by their thinking. "God was uncreated just because" is the best answer they have to this problem.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
@anguspure NO, ID is not making any scientific claims at all, its pure assumptions. yes, if there was objective tangible evidence for a creator then it would be scientific but supernatural things cant be scientific because science by definition ONLY deals with natural things.
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 Of course the subject of beginnings is non-natural. There is no known process by which non living things may become living. By your definition any speculation as to how life began from non-life is not scientific. Rubbish. The ID discussion is over whether we will open our minds to allow all possibilities or into the discussion whether we will remain close minded and bigoted against them because of our precious atheistic sensibilities.
anguspure 1 year ago
@anguspure i have no "atheistic sensibilities" i just want ID to stop because its all bullshit. evolution is fact GET THE FUCK OVER IT. no, we dont know how life formed but saying god did it doesnt solve anything it just causes another problem. im not bein bigoted, i simply think that pseudoscience can NOT go into real-science class rooms. now give me ONE piece of evidence supporting ID
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 The presence of complex and specific information in biological systems is evidence of the presence of intelligence in the design of these systems.
Biological information is unlike any other kind of naturally occuring information and is closely similiar to the kind of information that is commonly ascribed to intelligent agents. Intelligent design in biological forms is therefore the best explanation.
anguspure 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anguspure i have no "atheistic sensibilities" i just want ID to stop because its all bullshit. evolution is fact GET THE FUCK OVER IT. no, we dont know how life formed but saying god did it doesnt solve anything it just causes another problem. im not bein bigoted, i simply think that pseudoscience can NOT go into real-science class rooms. now give me ONE piece of evidence supporting ID
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@anguspure
"Truth is not somthing the courts deal in"
I keep trying to tell you that.
"naturistic science is primarily concerned with naturalistic explanations as opposed to true ones. "
Science is naturalistic by definition. If it weren't, it would be religion.
"...I still can't tell you it's a lie."
Personally, I think when somebody has to lie to get others to agree with them, it implies they don't really believe what they say.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
Of course, if you're a creationist you could just say this video is propoganda being put out by "the liberal media."
AggressiveAtheist 2 years ago
cdesign proponetsist ... I believe the deadly sin is called sloth. Too lazy to even change their doctrine.
MateiAlexandruBogdan 2 years ago
<3 george carlins bumper sticker idea. "I've found him... I have jesus in the trunk"
ShadowofProclimaton 2 years ago
religion, intelligent design = pure shit
FlawedUniverse 2 years ago
What the hell is wrong with people?
INDOCTRINATE YOUR OWN KIDS; don't trust others with it.
TheLastCoolName 2 years ago
I came to this video to see "Cdesign proponentist," and was delighted to see that it was the name of the account that submitted it.
Bravo!
kungfro 2 years ago
evolution,
theory of relativity,
theory of quantum mechanics
are compatible with christianity and islam
pauman2121 2 years ago
The missing link! el oh el.
TheLastCoolName 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If Creation is too religious for publlic schools,THEN SO IS EVOLUTION, which is the basis for far MORE religions! Note a few of the religions which are structured aroun evolutionary theories: Buddhism,Toaism,Animism,Satanism,Unity, Mystisism,Hinduism,Occultism,Theosophy,Spiritism,Bahaism,Unitarianism,Jainism,Confucianism,Shintoism,Secular Humanism,liberal Judaism,Liberal Christianity,Liberal Islam. Basically 3 major groups hold to Creation: Conservative Judaism,Con. Christianity,Con.Islam! hmmm
ranchopatriot 2 years ago
could you explain why evolution is a religion, and how religions that were around BEFORE it are structured around it?
PikminDS 2 years ago 2
Evolution is religious because you have to assume/believe in certain aspects of it since no one was there. No one was there when these organisms allegedly "evolved" into others; there are no transitional fossils. Even if there were, it only proves it died. You can't prove it had kids, different kids, or kids that reproduced. There has to be an assumption (unscientific)
Scientific method is based off of testable/observable evidence.
I don't know what you mean about religions structured around it
PFC33 2 years ago
If no one was around to witness what is likely a murder, can you then say that it is impossible to prove that it was a murder? After all, no one was there to see it.
We, of course, have methods to investigate past events by looking at the surrounding environment and the body itself. The same goes for history and many fields of science, including Evolution. A single fossilized animal didn't have to have kids because Evolution works in populations, not individuals.
PikminDS 2 years ago
I was referring to an earlier comment that said that Evolution was the basis for religions that existed long before Evolution was around.
PikminDS 2 years ago
Evolution is not science no matter how loudly, or often you say it, it is a "religion" just as creation is. There is a point when evolution jumps out of science and into religion because at some point you need to 'assume' and 'believe' something happened.
And how do you know there were populations of certain creatures. australopithecus afarensis (ie Lucy) was only 1 skeleton and was a fraud. Are we to assume there were billions of these?
(out of room, detail later)
PFC33 2 years ago
Lucy was neither a fraud nor the only specimen of its species. Most of the skeleton was formed from several individuals that were found miles apart. So how was it a fraud?
PikminDS 2 years ago
3 reasons, 1 which you might find fault with since it was in a "population."
1) Lucy's knee was found a mile and a half away 200 feet deeper, it wasn't her knee (Nat. Geo.)
2) In her display she is depicted to be half human with human-like feet, but not a single foot bone was found, this is propaganda.
3) Her skull was in no means able to be deciphered of how it's face was structured. Yet they made it half human, half ape.
Even if these were true, it is still useless and false.
PFC33 2 years ago
Like I said in my last comment; Lucy is not the specimen. The skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis was filled in with the bones of several individuals. This doesn't mean the Lucy fossil is false, just incomplete. We can infer from the the other bones since the femur and tibia are closer to human then not. To some slight extent the face was an artists reconstruction, but again, a general idea of what it looked like can be made from the bones that were found.
PikminDS 2 years ago
"Even if these were true, it is still useless and false."
How dishonest is that? even if it is correct it is still useless and false? that statement doesn't make sense and contradicts itself. If it is true then it cannot be false at the same time.
PikminDS 2 years ago
Just because they were in a population doesn't mean that they were the only kind living there. That's why it's false to assume that the knee they found is hers, if it was closer to Human than not, why is it not classified as human? It could very well be a child's leg.
As aforementioned, the skull was not very decipherable and lacked construction but they gave it a human-like face, and you say they can determine what it looked like from bones that were found? Doesn't make too much sense there.
PFC33 2 years ago
i meant to say that she is not the only specimen in my last comment.
bones have telltale differences in shape, length, thickness, etc. that helps to identify what it came from. just saying that it could have come from a child isn't convincing because hominids grow in a very similar way and you can check the bone to give you a rough idea of the age of the animal.
being more closely related to one species then another is not the same as being the same species, or in this case, a genus or family.
PikminDS 2 years ago
like i said, there was some artistry involved to complete the face, but the position of the other bones, as well as their shape helped to guide the process along.
and if you don't mind could you please tell me how something can be true, useless and false at the same time?
PikminDS 2 years ago
"it could have come from a child isn't convincing because hominids grow in a very similar way"
Wow, go figure. It isn't convincing enough to say it came from a child because they grow in similar ways. Interesting, so by that logic it could very well be a childs leg.
If your saying that the "hominids" grow in a similar way, that's also faulty because what is there to compare it with? They never knew it existed until Lucy. There's only 1 skeleton from what I see.
Btw, how are they dating it.
PFC33 2 years ago
what i meant was that since the growth patterns are similar in hominids (i should probably be saying apes since apes in general would grow the same) we can infer a general age by looking at extant species. a child's bones are different from an adults in that they are generally smaller, lower ring count, etc., which can be preserved in fossils.
fossils are dated by way of radiometric dating.
and you still haven't answered my question.
PikminDS 2 years ago
"I can prove the Bible 100% true in every way"
So you can prove that bats are not mammals they are birds, and that π = 3.0, don't be shy enlighten us all, just a little help for you if you're going to say a giants cubit is larger than a mans cubit, that makes no difference, PI is a ratio not a size
hughjarrse 2 years ago
I'll spare you that embarrassing explanation of bats being mammals if you look it up yourself, if you cannot find it then I will explain to you, but do look it up first.
Where exactly in the Bible (verse please) does it mention "Pi?"
PFC33 2 years ago
I Kings 7:23-26, I don't wan't to read about bats not being mammals, I wan't YOU to tell me, you said you cold
hughjarrse 2 years ago
Ok, lets start, shall we, with the 2 primary things you need to know. First, the Bible does not classify things the way science is today. They don't care about what Kingdom or Phylum something is. If it flew, it was a bird or an insect.
Second, the Hebrew word "Opwh" I believe, simply means "owner of a wing" when they translated the Bible to English, they simply changed it to "fowl" which is similar to convey the point.
I'm still waiting on the "Pi" verse.
PFC33 2 years ago
" If it flew, it was a bird or an insect"
Yes, to goat herders, but the bible is meant to be the inerrent word of god, he should know the differece between birds and mammals! and as it's the word of god how dare we call them mammals when god himself calls the birds?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
His reasons are His own, He's already thought of putting science in the Bible but it's possible He leaves it out to make it more understandable so anyone can read it, that's just my opinion. Your questioning an infinite being with finite questions. Does it ever occur to you the nothing occurs to Him? He's already thought of every possible thing and seen the outcome. If you think He could've done something better, know this, He's thought of it first, and beyond that.
PFC33 2 years ago
"His reasons are His own"
Why didn't you say that earlier, well I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced!... :o)
hughjarrse 2 years ago
"translated the Bible to English"
Yes, funny things translations, "young woman" becomes virgin
hughjarrse 2 years ago
""Opwh" I believe, simply means "owner of a wing"
If we could find the word for owner of a leg we could just lump everything together, it would be much easier
hughjarrse 2 years ago
but you just proved the bible isn't 100% correct, because as you say bats are not birds they are "owners of wings" the translation is LESS than perfect, making the bible you own LESS than perfect
hughjarrse 2 years ago
That is a scribal error, not even an error really, just a misunderstanding. However, this is not Biblical. If the original Bible said "fowl" then, first of all it still wouldn't be a flaw because that's the first point I mentioned, then I could see your point. However your looking at it the wrong way. This is not Biblical, it is Scribal, huge difference. Something that's 2000 years old is bound to have a few after translations.
PFC33 2 years ago
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness,
hughjarrse 2 years ago
Cont: and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.
Any ideas on omniscient or omnipotent?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
What about it?
PFC33 2 years ago
While I have the ear of a bible expert, could you tell me if your god is omniscient or omnipotent?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
He's your God too, you just deny His existence. However, yes.
PFC33 2 years ago
"bound to have a few after translations"
so the bible you own isn't 100% accurate, is there a 100% acurate bible in existance?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
I'll help you out, he can't be both, if using his omniscience he chooses to tell you the date of my death, he then can't change the date of my death using his omnipotence without being wrong when he told you the date of my death in the first place ... simples
hughjarrse 2 years ago
You need to stop bouncing around youtube, I'm getting a headache with your 100's of posts with 1 sentence.
Your thinking way too hard. He's not telling you the date of your birth in the first place. Yes He knows when your going to die, but He's not changing it in any way through His actions.
PFC33 2 years ago
OK, we'll break it down, could your god (if he wanted to) tell YOU the date of MY death? if your answer is yes, you can fill in the rest
hughjarrse 2 years ago
"You need to stop bouncing around youtube, I'm getting a headache with your 100's of posts with 1 sentence"
I'm sorry but you were the one boasting that you could proof the bible was 100% true, I'm just asking, and you admitted there are mistakes in translation by scribes, you have no idea how many mistakes, yet you still maintain the bible is 100% the word of god, that makes no sense whatsoever.
hughjarrse 2 years ago
That has nothing to do with your numerous 1 sentence posts.
And I can, however your pointing out scribal errors not Biblical errors. You and everyone else I debate on this topic say this exact same thing and scribal errors are not what I"m referring to. If you have a point where the Bible contradicts itself or is a flaw (gravity is opposite) then I'm all for hearing it.
PFC33 2 years ago
"And I can, however your pointing out scribal errors not Biblical errors"
So where are the bibles with NO biblical errors?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
That's a silly question, I just answered that. There are none, only scribal. However, the original transcripts in hebrew are the original Bible, I'm unaware of their whereabouts.
PFC33 2 years ago
"That's a silly question, I just answered that. There are none, only scribal. However, the original transcripts in hebrew are the original Bible, I'm unaware of their whereabouts"
How can that possibly be a silly question, you say the "original" bible is the inerrent word of god, no one has access to the original, all we have are flawed copies of flawed copies, you have no idea how flaws, yet you still maintain it's 100% true ... sheesh, there in lies madness
hughjarrse 2 years ago
OK, what did Jesus say on the cross, "my god why have you forsaken me" giving the impression jesus doesn't know what's happening, or "truly I say today you will be with me in paradise" giving the impression he does, does that count as contradictory?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
That's like walking into a room with an expensive, broken vase and saying "what have you done?" They already know what they did, they broke the vase.
The other is like saying "I know our lives will be great" after a wedding. They're simple statements if I'm understanding you correctly.
PFC33 2 years ago
From Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to English, every single time translated by unknown scribes with unknown abilities with unknown agendas, you have no idea what was left out or what was added, these are inarguable facts, why would an all powerful god give us a book then let people translate and interpret it? and you STILL maintain it's 100% true
hughjarrse 2 years ago
Because God promised to preserve his word. Not our language, but the Bible. There have been no flaws in it and that is why I believe the preceding statement in the Bible.
PFC33 2 years ago
Daniel's tree was "so tall" it could be seen from every kingdom of the world, and the devil took Jesus up a mountain that was "so high" you could see every kingdom of the earth, both suggest the earth is flat, the bible refers to the "circle" of the earth, a circle is a two dimensional geometric shape (flat) Orb, Ball, Sphere, Globe, would all have been better words
hughjarrse 2 years ago
The Bible never refers to the shape of the earth, In Isiah it refers to "the circle OF the Earth" not "the circular Earth." It is not defining what the shape is, you can't say "He sat on the orb of the earth" because you would have to sit on the entire "orb" of the earth (everywhere) if your sitting on the circle of the earth, you are in 1 latitude/longitudinal area.
However that's just my interpretation. I don't believe it's giving any definition of the shape of the earth in much aspect.
PFC33 2 years ago
Well maybe "face of the earth" would have been less confusing, but I seem to remember a line in the bible that says something like "the earth hangs on nothing in space" which of cause it doesn't, it only appears that way if you know nothing of gravity, god would have known about gravity and it's his book! And forgive me if I sound rude, but who are you to "interpret" the word of god? I hope you're not saying "what god meant to say was.....!!"
hughjarrse 2 years ago
What's confusing to one is not confusing to all. That's not even worthy of bringing up if you ask me. It's just stating that he sat on the ground. It went into a little more detail than that. It's not going to have all the formulas of science or geology because the Bible is not a science book. However, I find it interesting that it can still hold up to science and be correct.
Your the one who asks for the facts, if "read the Bible" isn't a good enough answer, then I have to go into details.
PFC33 2 years ago
"However, I find it interesting that it can still hold up to science and be correct"
Job 26:7 states that God hangs the earth on nothing.
not "very" scientific, and certainly doesn't "stand up" to science
hughjarrse 2 years ago
What about it? He created the earth and hung it on nothing, it "floats" on it's own through space is what I'm getting from that. What are you comprehending from that?
Again, I specifically said the Bible is not a science book. It wont have formulas for light travelling through space.
PFC33 2 years ago
"What about it? He created the earth and hung it on nothing, it "floats" on it's own through space"
It's not hung on nothing, uneducated goad herders may have thought that, but WE know better and so would a god, there is an extremely good reason the bible doesn't mention gravity or the speed of light, it's because the people who wrote the bible knew nothing about gravity or the speed of light, there are no pandas or kangaroos in the oldest texts either, I wonder why?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
I'm getting a sinking feeling, you're not a creationist are you?
hughjarrse 2 years ago
I as well, your not an evolutionist are you.
PFC33 2 years ago
"I as well, your not an evolutionist are you"
Yup me and the Pope (Oh! and every credible scientist on the planet) so if you're a "no death in the garden of eden" believer, did god design chameleons? because I can't quite work out why a chameleon would need a two foot long spring loaded sticky tongue to eat leaves, why does it have to take leaves by surprise? and it can't have evolved that way, according to you
hughjarrse 2 years ago
Majority does not mean it's right, everyone on earth can think gravity is gravy, does it mean they're right? Personally I think those scientists haven't heard what I have to say, if they did, I guarantee you that number would change.
"it can't have evolved that way, according to you"
You just answered yourself, God created it.
PFC33 2 years ago
"Personally I think those scientists haven't heard what I have to say"
Wow I didn't realise I'd stumbled upon the second coming, Oh! and by the way pride is a sin, and contrary to your inane rambling in most cases the majority IS right, that's why more people get killed by cars on the road rather than the pavement
hughjarrse 2 years ago
That's absolutely true, it isn't a science book. But if creationists keep pushing their agenda through the public school systems (unconstitutional, btw), it will be.
And why shouldn't the Bible mention the speed of light? Forgive me for making this assumption, but it's almost as if the Bible was INVENTED by PEOPLE who had no knowledge of the esoteric nature of light.
It took God a whole day to make light, but made the universe's stars (which produce light) as an afterthought, four days later??
kungfro 2 years ago
No it wont, it will just be an accurate understanding for the beginning, wrapped with science which supports it. It's not "all bow down to the Bible, it is the only truth." There are many things we can't know from the Bible, it doesn't mean it's wrong though.
You need to read Job 38 & 39 if you want to see what knowledge they "didn't have."
Yes, that's representation of how powerful He is. He doesn't need something to create light, He can make it from nothing, that's the point of the sequence.
PFC33 2 years ago
As for the tree and mountain. Your making an assumption here.
Now, you assume that the kingdoms are all around the globe and I believe they were close by the Euphrates river. This would be plenty of distance for anything to see.
Again, that's just my interpretation.
PFC33 2 years ago
"it is a "religion" just as creation is."
L.o.l. psychological projecting for the win.
TheLastCoolName 2 years ago
Evolution is pure science... backed by evidence such as DNA, fossils, etc.
You could elaborate on that, instead of just throwing religions out there.
lordwindowlicker 2 years ago 2
@lordwindowlicker dna cant be explained by a Darwinian theory..the amount of energy and information to create a single strand of DNA out of random acidic reactions is ridiculous..sunlight only creates more chaos and entropy. just look into DNA and you cant deny the insane amount of organization and coordination it takes to produce protein..noway it could have been done randomly. it had to be like this from the very start..it didn't evolve like this.
NWM11Bravo 1 year ago
@NWM11Bravo
(Sigh) Darwin's theory only explains what happens once life is already here. Perhaps you should read into it a bit more.
lordwindowlicker 1 year ago
Ranchopatriot, you dont know what your talking about, go do some research before you spit out any old nonsense
Mickcol 2 years ago 2
Ignorance breeds fear of science. Education is the cure.
CdesignProponentsist 2 years ago
@ranchopatriot no dumbass, evolution is NOT a religion its just that some of those religions (some are NOT religions) think evolution is real because there not complete morons that have no brain cells. go look at the definition of religion then go read the definition of biological evolution then read the definition of science theory then STFU
patrickledford420 1 year ago
It's too bad in America there is freedom of religion. Being an non-theist nation was the only thing the U.S.S.R. had right. It has shown how communism does not work in the long run, but I would love to see what a nation could do with freedom, but with an accepted absence of religion. Oh, well, just another fairy tale with all the stupid non thinking bible munchers out there, but can't a guy dream?
InteGrayting 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago 2
Darwin rocks!
bennysatini 3 years ago
"Darwin rocks!"
You Darwinist Neo-con atheistic Liberal fascists! Oh my gosh, I just realized I need to go to the doctors tommorow for a paternity test.
Atheistic scientific assumptions are dumb.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"Atheistic scientific assumptions are dumb. "
Not really. Apologetics is dumb though.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
"Apologetics is dumb though."
What? You don't like atheist apologetics either?
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
I am not talking about Atheism or theism.
i am talking about apologetics being the Antithesis of how the scientific method operates. The scientific method cannot Tolerate religious favoritism. As a result science is a Agnostic process. so your phrase "Atheistic scientific assumptions" is nonsense.
You likely are only calling it that because Methological naturalism fails to make the assumptions you want it to.
Cnidarious 2 years ago 5
"You likely are only calling it that because Methological naturalism fails to make the assumptions you want it to."
No, I'm actually quite joking. I'm pretty much a naturalist, but I don't make a strong claim about the God question. I just don't have a perticular belief in one.
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
cheers.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
Are you deist atheist or what?
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
I am a naturalist as well.
i don`t make assumptions about deities.
so i suppose i would count as Agnostic.
But i am just as hard on creationism and other types of fundamentalism as strong atheists.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
"But i am just as hard on creationism and other types of fundamentalism as strong atheists."
Same. I call myself an atheist just because it's more philosophically clear, but for practical purposes I'm an Agnostic. I've pressured myself with the God question to no avail.
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
We can't truly disprove a god, but it is so exceedingly unlikely - and unnecessary as an explanation - that there's no point in belief.
A religious god, however, is easy to disprove. The logical contradictions made that clear.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Many paleo lectures / classes online . More added monthly.
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"
flyingscience 3 years ago
What are conclusions from evolution?
Evolution is a conclusion from facts. That is what makes a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not what you'd think of as a theory.
Evolution is, in laymans terms, fact. There is staggering evidence in support, and over 150 years not a single opposing piece of evidence has been found.
NihilKrist 3 years ago 2
If an evolutionists could present to me just even one fact of evolution theory, then, i will surely follow and adhere evolution. But where is that hard fact????
et00et 3 years ago
Human races are mixing. Maybe in many years there are no black or white or asian people. There will just be a mixed race. So this is an example for "mini-evolution" because of poputation-fusion. Will christians say in the future: "God created mankind like it is now. That means brown-skinned and black-haired"???
Everything is changing at any time, THAT is evolution! (Hope this american sect don't get to much influence in europe)
Feanorfh 3 years ago
Evolution is changing from one species to another... you are talking about adaptation but no evolution. Monkey to man is evolution.
revsallen 3 years ago
Monkey to man has also been proven ;)
w00t, score one for genetics.
NihilKrist 3 years ago