"...you can't take a poodle and breed it back into a wolf."
I disagree. I bet if you put a colony of poodles in an isolated area and came back in a few generations they would look less like poodles and more like wolves than the founder poodles. Dog breads are maintained by humans. This is done by only letting individuals with the desired characteristics of the breed mate. No magic "loss of information" occurs locking it in as a poodle for eternity.
A Christian asking for evidence? Isn't that just a waste of time? You can present them all the evidence they want, but they still will deny it...So what is the point?
I take umbrage on your use of a picture of Pope Benedict alongside Hovind and Hamm. Benedict accepts evolution, so he at least deserves that credit. He should be propped next to pictures of slugs and worms, not something so vile and nasty as Hovind and Hamm.
@alphaenemy was it difficult to decide whether The Poop or the creatards deserved more of your derision? When I read this comment, I pictured myself paused in uncertainty about that decision if I were the one writing it.
@trueleroix I'm just having a little fun, but actually, regarding science, certainly the Poop deserves more credit. However, concerning human rights and morality, I'd actually have to give the dumb dumb twins the credit. Yeah, they lie, but they don't go telling AIDS riddled Africans that condoms are the Devil, to my knowledge.
TheLivingDinosaur: There is no way to reconcile science and theistic belief, none whatsoever.
Something can not "exist" in nothing, therefore there can't be any god "before" time/space. And god can't sure as hell create something in nothing. The only scenario that contains not one contradiction zip/nil/zero/null, is infinite time/space. Meaning time and space has always existed. Every single theistic claim of creation contains a mountain of contradictions/logical fallacies/errors.
I don't understand the point of being agnostic to a self-contradictory principle. Gods by their current definition are logically impossible, therefore being agnostic on them is irrational.
Seriously, God must have made this video, because only She would have access all these images! (I didn't count, but there must be at least 200 in this video alone.)
Of course the most profound irony is that as society has changed over millenia, as a rule we are becoming less defined by our religious views and more my the tenets of what used to be called "natural philosophy" and now just the catch all "science" . In effect, the Creationists who deny evolution will eventually be eliminated from Society at large due to a process of "social evolution" in which the strong (rationalists) survive and the weak (theists) die out.
I love you mate! I wish I could stay as calm as you or thunderf00t when debating those deluted tards. :D I always lose me temper :( Cheers fot the BRILLIANT vids mate. Cheerio!
this is the second video of yours I have seen. I completely agree with you. I could not have said it any better. you are the one of the best in this society I feel honored and extremely lucky that I have lived in your time of existence. I seam to find I am not alone in my thoughts. your the best
There was one particular creationist I knew who's name I can't remember so I'll just call her mrs braindead and she said (and i don't belive her) that if evolution were true apes would be talking. Personally I'd love to see you rip her views a new one.
@TheMutantlizardThey dont have brains as big as ours due, some people think, to the size of their jaw muscle. Because they have such a big muscle it pulls their skull together preventing the brain from expanding. Well that's one theory(not a scientific theory. just an idea). Theirs a video on here that goes into some detail sorry I cant remember which. Another reason and this could be combined with the first is that their vocal cords are not suited. Remember that these things are gene mutations.
@TheMutantlizard always fun to do but its all getting to easy. The sad thing is though that no matter how often you do it they are either to stupid or have to much invested in the lie for it to get through. They nod their head with that vacant gaze in their eye as they judge you for being amoral(as if). Best just to give up on her she sounds like she is beyond redemption.lol.
"A fucking psychologist"? .. I enjoy your videos and your general tone, however I felt slightly hurt about your comment regarding psychology. Why should the fact that an author has a degree in psychology in any way indicate that he shouldn't be trusted? I'll grant you that biology is only showed limited attention within psychology as a whole, however many fucking psychologists has more than a basic understanding of areas within biology because it's relevant to their research.
@THC1989 It was poorly phrased, I agree and was pointed out a long time ago in this comments section. As I explained there, my intent was to point out that his he was not exactly qualified to writing an article critiquing modern molecular biology. I should have been more precise with my wording.
@TheLivingDinosaur "...partly because I accept that I'm barely a layman in the areas of philosophy and theology..."
That line warrants a lot of respect. Idiots claim to have all the answers based on their limited understanding. A wise man knows that he is ignorant. I wish more people were like you.
Us psychologists working in the field of brain and behaviour, especially those fond of neuroscience, are very well versed in molecular biology.
I think what you can pay most attention to is the type of degree someone obtained. Some universities still grant master of arts for psychology, these tend to be qualitatively far beneath the master of science - science-wise at least.
the fine tuning argument is verifiable scientific evidence supporting the idea of a creative personal immaterial timeless all powerful God. Quite in line with the Judeo Christian God and out of line with the Gods of other religions.
@TheJohnVandivier The only thing your comment demonstrates is that you don;t know the meaning of the word "scientific". Either that or that you're a joking.
@TheLivingDinosaur If you are implying that "scientific" means testable, which it SHOULD, you must realize that modern science has gone far past this definition. The big bang? Multiverse? Macroevolution? These are accepted as "science."
In comparison to these, the fine tuning argument is a much better scientific argument indeed. Run a computer program testing this theory and generate some random big bang like events. Or mix some shit in water and see if it self assembles.
@TheJohnVandivier As I read your response I was planning on responding until I got to "Or mix some shit in water and see if it self assembles" and realized that you're the kind of unreasonable and unreachable person I gave up debating in text comments. The only thing I can say to someone like you is, fuck off and have a nice life.
The only thing I can say to someone like you is, fuck off and have a nice life.
I must say you are quite the nasty ass hole
are you always so rude and vile when people speak to you?
One thing you would have if you submitted your life to Jesus is love for your fellow man .Do you hate and curse and anyone who dares to have and opinion your obose?
@TheLivingDinosaur My life is great, you wish you could, and you only got mad because you know scientists have tried and it doesn't work. Thanks for your unintelligent response!
@TheJohnVandivier You should at least have an idea of what is going on in the world of dna if you are going to make comments about 'mixing shit in water'. No-one who has any idea about these things has ever made such a claim and if they have its been to over-simplify it. Google search this. Their are experiments where using a natural clay and some water and the other chemicals needed and recreating as near as poss the conditions of the time self replicating very basic cells formed spontaniously.
@TheLivingDinosaur here here. Personally I wouldn't have even answered his first comment in your position. You have quite clearly shown how these things have evidence that points toward them if not proves them which it cant with the multiverse etc. Not only that no-one in their right mind would claim to know these things without clear testable evidence. But your comment was spot on he is lost to the dark side Luke.lol. Love your channel just watching this series just now v good.
@TheLivingDinosaur I have a question about the point Matt made in this video. He said that dogs were bred from wolves and you couldn't reverse the process and come up with a wolf. Isn't that untrue? I seem to recall a project (in the 70's maybe) that bred modern domestic horses back to an extinct horse that was the predecessor of modern horses.
Couldn't that be done with dogs? Is is possible to selectively breed dogs back into wolves?
@ciaochowbella As LD said (and of course he can correct me) but he clearly pointed out that all dogs are in fact still wolves in the same way that man is still an ape.
We could conceivably reverse the process of "selective breeding" which led to poodles in the first place, until we have "recreated" a wolf-like offspring (no guarantee it will be 100% though).
Even without that, they are still wolves already...with cottonball butts :)
@ciaochowbella@OkamsRazer OkamsRazer summed up what would have been my answer. Of course, in typical creationist style, Matt makes a brazen assertion with no evidence to support it. In this case, it could actually be tested, though, but I doubt that any creation "scientists" are doing the actual experiment, either because they're scared that the result will disprove their assertion and/or because it's easier and cheaper to just talk shit. AS for the horse, Google "Heck horse",
I was familiar with the Tarpan (Heck horse) and it is indirectly responsible for my "fall from grace" and leaving Christianity. I was a staunch and uninformed and ignorant as ol' Mattie....but as you see, things can change. The Tarpan showed me that evolution was not only true, but provable. That was the beginning of my questions. Unlike Matt, when I wanted answers, I went to the experts, not the apologists.
I was familiar with the Tarpan (Heck horse) and it is indirectly responsible for my "fall from grace" and leaving Christianity. I was a staunch and uninformed and ignorant as ol' Mattie....but as you see, things can change. The Tarpan showed me that evolution was not only true, but provable. That was the beginning of my questions. Unlike Matt, when I wanted answers, I went to the experts, not the apologists.
I was familiar with the Tarpan (Heck horse) and it is indirectly responsible for my "fall from grace" and leaving Christianity. I was a staunch and uninformed and ignorant as ol' Mattie....but as you see, things can change. The Tarpan showed me that evolution was not only true, but provable. That was the beginning of my questions. Unlike Matt, when I wanted answers, I went to the experts, not the apologists.
@TheJohnVandivier "Run a computer program testing this theory" We can't. Carbon based life, perhaps, but life needn't be carbon based. There might be vortices in the atmosphere of Jupiter who have concluded that there is no atmosphere on any other planet in our solar system that is sufficiently dynamic to support life.
@TheJohnVandivier First off, the "fine tuning" argument had be debunked. A LOT.
Second, if it hadn't, the fine tuning presumption would actually be more in line with the creation story from Hinduism and Asatru than the Judeo-Islamo-Christian deity.
Third, it is not obvious that you've not studied cosmology, physics of any sort, or even the most basic of comparative theology.
Your lack of knowledge can be addressed. You just have to get your info from the sources, not apologists.
Dumpling, when you make a request, please be specific. There is a LOT in the world that has been debunked and I can't know which particular bit of folderol you believe.
@ciaochowbella Did you just call me a dumpling? I was being quite specific - ANY! I have heard several very stupid easily refutable attempts to debunk the fine tuning argument and all have failed.
i love it how whenever anyone makes a video disproving creationist they get almost all likes, but when creationist make their little videos they get all red.
@kimihiro111 that is because most theists are a weight of ignorance shackled to our ankles. when they state personal opinion as fact, and try to get this nonsence back in the classrooms they deserve all the rankor they reap!
I'm officially sending you a friend request! Your vids are AWESOME! =) ... Oh wow !!?? SuperTruthlover is spunking all over your comments section again! lol! ... I'm very tempted to start.
Wow so many of the people who didnt do so well in intellectual classes at school are now wanting to join in with intellectual discussion. I find the very idea of creationists as intelligent thinkers as ridiculous, I can't put it into words in such a short comment the dishonesty that this particular twisting of the word intelligence! Furthermore they are fuckin disgraces to the last 400 years of the advancement of human knowledge, and/or lying shit bags!
@MrOmniblast xD He wasn't insulting psychologists, just saying it's not probbale a psychologist made a scientifically valid peer reviewed paper on evolutionary biology...as that's not their field. /soothe
PS. Dr. BC, You mentioned certain religious people having an agenda, which you may very well be right. I do wonder though if you might have an agenda as well and, if so, what it might be. It would be interesting to find out.
Dear Dr. Biochemist.. sorry, I couldn't resist tossing some sarcasm since you dish so much out. I've watched a few of your videos & you complain that creationists don't offer an intelligent debate. I've been looking for you doing that, but I can't seem to find it. I would love to debate you, but I should warn you, I won't as easy as theists. You see, I have no label as I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's irrelevant to me. I defend religion & the right to express & teach their beliefs.
That of course is not allowed in the narrow atheist world.
Because atheism does not allow anything outside of the material to exist, atheists have been forced to come up with the idea of an infinite number of universes. The theory being that with an infinite number of universes, one such as ours could come into existence -
. without a natural cause (current evidence says nothing natural existed)
@SuperTruthlover Why do you think that a 'multiverse' is not a scientific theory? Because there's no evidence for it. Same with God. If you want to believe that God created the universe, you go on doing that. But don't bother those who don't.
you are correct in regard to there not being a multiverse scientific theory! only militant atheist try to promote things that have no evidence in know science and at the same time deny God when the evidence leads us to the answers that defy known science. There must be a cause for the big bang out side on natural occurring science. You want to reject God and have the free will to do so giving to you by God. God will not MAKE you believe. Anyone who wants to repent finds God
no luck for you it seems as Dawkins and many others militant atheists like Ricky Gervais have said there is a theory that multi universes exist as a explanation to the formation of this universe sans God
@SuperTruthlover If you assert this, then back this up by proving they say that there is evidence in favour of this idea, and that they say that it is an accepted theory in science.
The human body is certainly not alone in its complexity. You can take anything present today for example and see purpose and complexity in it. A blade of grass has cells as the human body does. All living things do. Atoms that make up everything are complex and there are things about them we still do not know. Everything is made of up electrons, protons, and neutrons that give matter its different properties. Kind of like all the information stored in a computer called assembly code
Because the evidence so strongly supports a supernatural explanation for the universe, people like this atheist and better known atheists like Ricky Gervais (very funny man) and Richard Dawkins have been reduced to positing an infinite number of universes to explain the why and how of our universe.
Why have they done that?
Because according to current evidence, the only way to explain the why and how of this universe is a supernatural cause
@SuperTruthlover There is no evidence, therefore no theory. You really need to stop thinking that atheists will do anything to make everything fit in a certain view. Any intelligent atheist will cease being one the moment they have enough reason to.
do you think life just happened? I have learned a bit about it (my major being in Computer Science). You would be amazed at how many pages of one's and zero's it takes to output simple messages to the screen. I'll spare you the details. In the same way, atoms are the building blocks of our universe. If you thought the trillions of cells in the body was a large number, the number of atoms in the body is roughly equivalent to the number grains of sand along a several mile long beach.
Lack of evidence, lack of evidence, That is always the parroted refrain of atheists. What evidence would you expect?
What are you looking for? What would you consider as evidence? ev·i·dence (v-dns) 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
for example: if a god were real would you expect to see evidence of worship by the faithful?
Where did the laws come from? Who/what gave matter, energy, void, sound, and time its properties? In this case you've got two choices. Either this all was a colossal blunder that science can somehow explain (it can't), or that we came from a divine power that is not subject to the rules of our dimension such as time and the fact that everything here must have an origin and an end, and therefore was able to violate all these laws to bring energy, time, sound and void into existence.
@SuperTruthlover I see you really wish everything to have a clear purpose, a reason that explains how and why things are the way they are. Is this correct?
if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it, given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do, and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist.
@SuperTruthlover If the evidence is clear enough, they would want to examine it. If there is enough evidence it would change their mind.
An atheist cannot know 'all things', yes, but they do not need to prove a negative. Also, there are plenty of things explained by scientific theories that we all assume to be true, even though we have not examined every aspect of it.
If the evidence is clear enough, they would want to examine it. If there is enough evidence it would change their mind.
Do you think there would be enogh evidence to convince a man who rejects God because he wants to do as he pleases? Would you turn from the life you now live and obey God is you saw the evidence that Jesus really did walk the earth? What evidence would you accept (within reason) as enough to change your mind? if you don't know than how would you know if you saw it?
@SuperTruthlover atheist don't hold thei position just so they can do as they please. that is the christian model. an atheist would live with the consequences of their actions, where a xian would just ask for forgivenes. Is that the reason why christians are so hypocritical about the morals they preach? one can only wonder.
@SuperTruthlover I know because every atheist who state their why they are atheists, do it for completely other reasons. If you don't believe that asking god to forgive you sins, mean that you are forgiven, then you are not a christian. Sorry to break the truth to you, but maybe you should read the bible for once. Being able to ask for forgivenes and then be absolved from sin, means that christians can do what they want. Your argument is just as failed as your understanding of your belief.
you say the is no evidence for God so do you believe there is no God or do you merely claim you LACK belief in God?
In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly remain atheists.
@SuperTruthlover atheism by definition is a lack of belief in gods. If believers could provide ANY evidence, then they could attack that position, but they rather just go around the same old tired and debunked bs.
The evidence for God is so clear only about 6% of the people don't believe in God.
How can you assert there is no evience?
How would you know if people saw evidence and you are too blind to see it.
Your position is illogical since you can't know about all the evidence that exist in the universe for God and yet you say there is not God. I have evidence while you only have your love of darkness and your faith.
@SuperTruthlover if the evidence is so clear, then please provide it. Instead you comit the fallacy of argument ad populum. Not once have a christian provided any evidence and you continue that trend. Come on, what is your evidence?
So what is this position of lack of belief really about?
In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly remain atheists.
@SuperTruthlover Quietly remain atheists? you must be kidding me.
I lack a belief in gods, if you can demonstrate to me that this is not the case, please do so, otherwise, don't resort to screaming, "Coward!"
See, the DEFAULT position of any claim is disbelief until reasonable evidence is given to believe.
For any god that's ever been defined to me, I've found them to be utterly useless in any sort of explanatory value, as well as completely undemonstrated. so, I remain in my default.
Stating your atheism is simply a default position, doesn't make it so. I am simply using your position and your actions together to see if they are consistent. You tell me that you don't believe in gods as an atheist .You see, if you defend yourself, you do so because you have a position. You don't defend non positions. But since defend yourself I am simply working with the very basics of your position to see if it is consistent with your actions. I don't think it is.
@SuperTruthlover Who ever said I don't have a position? My position is that lack a belief in gods because theistic arguments have failed to provide a reasonable reason to believe.
the attacks on my atheism consist of telling me I'm wrong to not believe as other believers do, which requires me to debunk theistic arguments.
It's a simple fact that not believing something until evidence is presented IS the default state, because the other option, belief until disproven, is internally incoherent.
if the evidence is so clear, then please provide it
What is the evidence you base you world view on?
Atheist deny God on blind faith alone.
Having non-beliefs and behaving that you have a belief by defending your position is the reality of your action. That is not consistent with having no belief about something. Also, it is very debatable about how logical it might or might not be to believe or not believe in the extraordinary. The whole topic is open to discussion.
@SuperTruthlover Then please demonstrate that fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, ghosts, vampires don't exist and I'll use your method to show how your god doesn't.
Although I would agree with Dawkins that human beings seem to have an innate proclivity towards belief in God, I would suggest that there is different reason why so many people seem to have an innate awareness of God.
no one belives in the things you want me to prove are not real so you are being ridiculas my friend. God bless you
@SuperTruthlover It doesn't matter whether or not people believe in them (and many, by they way, do believe in faeries). You can't prove they don't exist. So asking someone to prove your god doesn't exist is equally pointless. The point is that you can't prove that a god does exist and that he is your particular god and until you can, I see no reason to believe in one.
The way to believe in unicorns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically, the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way.
@SuperTruthlover Just like you have blind faith all the other gods you don't accept and anything else supernatural? Same thing. I can fly and if you don't believe me then you have blind faith that I can't. No, I made a claim so I have to prove it. You are making a claim so you have to prove it, so please don't invoke logic, you don't know how to use it. I went to catholic schools and stopped believing in god when it was clear that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that one exists. Simple as that.
so do you believe God does not exist or do you not know if God exsits
I mean your right is you are not claiming that no gods exist than you don't have to prove your position . I thougt you were an atheist saying there is no God which is a claim one would have to prove to be value.
@SuperTruthlover Of course I haven't looked at all the evidence in the world. But I have looked. I went to catholic schools till the age of 16. If there is some evidence out there that demonstrates a god then I will change my mind. But as far as I know, there isn't. And even if there is, there isn't any to demonstrate that it is your god.
If there is some evidence out there that demonstrates a god then I will change my mind
But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through... and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?
@SuperTruthlover Anything that can't be explained through natural means. A miracle. The laws of physics being suspended. It is a tough question, what evidence one would accept to be evidence of god/supernatural, because in many instances it is impossible to predict what evidence is going to be found. But it is important to state here, I do not claim there is definitely no god. There may be. I just do not believe that there is.
@SuperTruthlover When you say eye witness accounts of Christ do you mean at the time, in his day or at any point in time during their own experiences? I assume the former, but there are no decent texts agreeing with the accounts in the bible. Even if the accounts of people witnessing Jesus are real, that only confirms his existence and not his divinity.
The atheist must logically admit there could be evidece for God he has not yet seen! This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence, which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
@SuperTruthlover if you bothered opening your ears, then you wouldn't needlesly state nonsens. I've yet to come across an atheist who isn't an agnostic-atheist. TLD even state it in THIS video! But until you provide some evidence for a god, the only logical position is to assume none-existance. The reason xians are attacked is because they want us to accept their unfounded bs. If they kept it to them self without trying to dumb down the rest of us - they wouldn't get it stuck to them!
Atheists often imply that reason is best used by them and not by Christians who, as many say, need psychological help for believing in God. This condescending attitude is a fountain for derogatory comments. I get the impression from atheists that they are so convinced they have the truth that no other options are available to them, and that if you don't agree with them, you're not smart. Of course, they will deny this and say I am crazy, but this is what I have observed -- right or wrong.
@SuperTruthlover if you don't apply the same principles to your god as to any other god, then you are intelectual dishonest. Belief can come from many sources, ignorance is among on of them and from the arguments presented it's a pretty common cause. If you hear voices in your head I'd say you need a shrink, if you just get the warm feeling when you pray or attend a sermon, you are just unaware of why this is.
you think atheists will become believers if that see evidnce for God?
Sometimes atheist assert that there is no proof God exists. The only problem is that an atheist cannot logically make that claim.
In order to state there is no proof for God's existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence.
Because the evidence so strongly supports a supernatural explanation for the universe, people like this atheist and better known atheists like Ricky Gervais (very funny man) and Richard Dawkins have been reduced to positing an infinite number of universes to explain the why and how of our universe.
Why have they done that?
Because according to current evidence, the only way to explain the why and how of this universe is a supernatural cause; a cause that operated outside of nature.
What this atheist (atheists are those who believe that our's was the first intelligence to arise) doesn’t understand is that while the details (Greek mythologies) have been wrong, that in no way takes away from the Christian doctrine of Creator God. This doctrine states that the universe with its exquisitely finely tuned constants and qualities could not and did not come into being from nothing apart from the willed initiation and design of Creator God.
This atheist has stated, “It's interesting to point out that throughout the entire history of scientific investigation, not one supernatural explanation has ever been confirmed as true.” Besides Zeus and Thor, he doesn’t give any examples, but let’s give him the benefit of doubt. I’ll be the first to admit that Christians have said some pretty stupid things - things admittedly said in ignorance.
We give them way too much by granting that any theist has a belief that can be compared to another theist such that they agree about what the word god even means. They can't even do that much, let alone provide evidence to a rationalist that would stand scrutiny. Faith is without limits. The contents of what can be activily believed is not limited by anything but the believer. Faith is subjectivity. See Soren Kierkegaard.
@TheLivingDinosaur: First, I LOVE the videos, keep them coming. A small nitpick though:
You say you are an Agnostic, but seem to misunderstand the words meaning. If your response to the question "Do you believe in a god" is anything but a solid "yes", then you are an atheist. Atheist just means not a theist. So you may mean "I don't claim there is no god" when you say agnostic, but such is the same for atheism. EVERYONE is an agnostic, as no one can KNOW if there is a god at this point.
I love it. Comparing computers to living multicellular organisms is not even comparing apples to oranges, it's rather like comparing apples to coke cans. It's not remotely rational, it's insane.
Where is moral obligation? There is no such thing at all! Be kind to your neighbor, or don't. Help people and try to be a good person in any way you can, or don't. If you really need god to tell you that killing and hurting are bad, then there is more wrong with you than you know. The only moral obligation comes from within, from a personal commitment to be a good person, whatever that means to you.
What he DOES do it point out scientific innacuracies and flawed reasoning, while being very sure to back up everything he says with empirical evidence and observations. Also, he included 'moral' when he was covering the 'agendas', which he has never done at all in any of his videos in any way.
You are free to disagree with him, but you must realize that without actually finding empirical observable evidence, nobody will take you seriously.
I hope ferntube isn't fucking serious, I mean really if aliens come here long after we are dead and find any of our left over tech of course they will know that someone built it because they would have an understanding that inanimate objects are created by sentient beings while living beings evolve to their present form over time...facepalm!
I get it when you're an Atheist you are God! You can and will come to any conclusion on everytihing like without any proof;except what you want. Yet even in your video you say that something must have made that computer the aliens found on a dead earth. Why would they ever think that? It's far less complex than what they are made of? Let's face it this computer just evolved and those Chinese should remove their names from the label.
"I get it when you're an Atheist you are God!" - ad hominem attack
"proof" - Science does not prove ANYTHING.
"et even in your video you say that something must have made that computer the aliens found on a dead earth..." - Can a computer reproduce with slight changes? Is it able to operate spontaneously? Does it react to stimuli? Is a computer capable of obtaining energy by itself? Hmm...NO.
Nice job on the video also you're very articulate. well I disagree with the things you said I found myself very entertained. that's not to be disrespectful your video was put together for information as well as entertainment that's what I meant. maybe I'm showing myself to be stupid or naive but I have a question and I'm sure you been asked this before but I just don't know the answer. what do you say about dreams and memories and self actualization? is there any proof for those things?
it's a minor sound issue. it's just your videos are made so nicely, very professional. I thought I'd point it out, as I'm sure many people already have.
@urantivirus Thanks for the tip. Actually, I worked out the correlation a few weeks ago and started taking it off for the last few videos and was coming to the conclusion that that was the cause. Cheers for validating. I'd never heard of cell phones interfering with mikes/speakers like that, so it never occurred to be until recently.
@TheLivingDinosaur Its seems to be the way that cell phone receive signal create this issue. I play guitar and if my amplifier is on, it will make a hard to describe sound just before my phone rings, if I get a phone call or text message.
want proof then why aren't they agnostics since if there was proof they would believe so aren't they agnostic,belief is not proof and agnostics to not believe but we will not dismiss it as fact because there is no fact at least yet i confess not sure though how one can be both agnostic and atheist as(another word game)seems like atheist would not believe even with proof,but since they want truth and most have open mind would that not mean they are agnostic,ok will get off soap box now :)
@johndebbra "i confess not sure though how one can be both agnostic and atheist"
That's because you don't understand what either of them are. The same goes with punctuation. It's funny you call yourself an agnostic yet have no clue what agnosticism is. I bet you're an atheist as well. Tell me, which god do you believe in? Don't tell me you don't know, because I'm not asking what you know.
"meant the word proof not belief"
When? You use both words in almost every... well though out your comment
@urantivirus by the way learn how to spell"I never maid any argument, except I said Sarah Palin looked like a whore in the "Sarah Palin 1995 Video - With Her Husband" ..now go back in your trailer and count your food stamps.
@johndebbra Did you read the comment above the comment with the spelling mistake? You fucking retard. Now go pick up a dictionary so you can properly use the English language. You don't even know what agnosticism is, yet you call yourself one. And btw, answer my fucking question. Which god do you believe in? It's funny how I comment on your punctuation failure, and you go sifting through my channel to find a mistake. And it's one I corrected. Good job, champ. And you still fail with punctuation.
@johndebbra It's also funny how I provided an argument against your comment followed by a question and the only thing you addressed was my criticism of your complete lack of punctuation. You must be one smart fella.
@chambasa2006 i agree though one thing i do not understand is the part of being both atheist and agnostic as i thought they are different atheism seems like the do not believe no matter what is shown but agnostics as i consider myself and speaking for myself i do not believe what story books like the bible koran,morons,umm i mean the mormons book.The reason i am agnostics because simply put there is no proof that there is no God (or better word may be higher intelligence)and that is what i
@johndebbra GNOSTICISM is different from THEISM. Gnosticism speaks to a knowledge based system while theism is a belief based system. Agnostic-Atheist means that a person BELIEVES there is now god, however does not make a definite statement that is 100% accurate because he is still AGNOSTIC and believes that knowledge of god is probably unknowable. I hope that cleared it up .
do not understand atheist want proof agnostics want proof (to play a word game)the only thing that separates us is the word proof as a lot of atheist have comments and vids that go something like being agnostics is like going on a bus without a ticket which makes no sense since like them we want proof talking to a religious person is like a blind man talking to a deaf man no matter what is said or shown a religious person will not hear or see anything but what they want,atheist say they they
This video is soo great! Even the first 1:40 is enough to settle ANY debate because it is the most logical, most rationalist position anyone can take (theists and athiests alike), regardless of whatever is true or untrue.
"...you can't take a poodle and breed it back into a wolf."
I disagree. I bet if you put a colony of poodles in an isolated area and came back in a few generations they would look less like poodles and more like wolves than the founder poodles. Dog breads are maintained by humans. This is done by only letting individuals with the desired characteristics of the breed mate. No magic "loss of information" occurs locking it in as a poodle for eternity.
dlhitch2007 3 days ago
Proof that god exists is also proof that it can be made to stop existing.
I can't *wait* until they prove their god to me. I need to know where to set the charges.
zEropoint68 6 days ago
As soon as I hear someone say without god we can't have moral values I label him as a person who lacks of intelligence and common sense.
radelgratereaux 1 week ago
A Christian asking for evidence? Isn't that just a waste of time? You can present them all the evidence they want, but they still will deny it...So what is the point?
fablesergio 2 weeks ago
I take umbrage on your use of a picture of Pope Benedict alongside Hovind and Hamm. Benedict accepts evolution, so he at least deserves that credit. He should be propped next to pictures of slugs and worms, not something so vile and nasty as Hovind and Hamm.
alphaenemy 4 weeks ago
@alphaenemy was it difficult to decide whether The Poop or the creatards deserved more of your derision? When I read this comment, I pictured myself paused in uncertainty about that decision if I were the one writing it.
trueleroix 4 weeks ago
@trueleroix I'm just having a little fun, but actually, regarding science, certainly the Poop deserves more credit. However, concerning human rights and morality, I'd actually have to give the dumb dumb twins the credit. Yeah, they lie, but they don't go telling AIDS riddled Africans that condoms are the Devil, to my knowledge.
alphaenemy 4 weeks ago
@alphaenemy Yeah, I had some similar thoughts. It's a tough call, but The Poop, for abuse of power, gets my vote as well.
trueleroix 4 weeks ago
TheLivingDinosaur: There is no way to reconcile science and theistic belief, none whatsoever.
Something can not "exist" in nothing, therefore there can't be any god "before" time/space. And god can't sure as hell create something in nothing. The only scenario that contains not one contradiction zip/nil/zero/null, is infinite time/space. Meaning time and space has always existed. Every single theistic claim of creation contains a mountain of contradictions/logical fallacies/errors.
baldurus1 1 month ago
that. was. mother. fucking. epic.
benny600 1 month ago
Where does the phrase ,,Olympian dishonesty,, come from.Greek mythology or smth else?
alhimal 1 month ago
I find it amusing that Matt considers being ass fucked by a mythological maniac constitutes a relationship.
Kailoa36 1 month ago
I can't help but wonder if there aren't more descriptive images you can paste on your videos. Or at least mix them around with different sexes.
CrimsonRefractions 1 month ago
I don't understand the point of being agnostic to a self-contradictory principle. Gods by their current definition are logically impossible, therefore being agnostic on them is irrational.
CrimsonRefractions 1 month ago
dude!! your video imagery is AWESOME!! what program do you use I wanna be like you!!
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
(I forgot to mention the awesomeness of the content)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
Evolution is a myth. God is real.
SunnyLovetts 1 month ago
best closing comments ever
TheMutantlizard 1 month ago
@TheMutantlizard specifically at 19:45
TheMutantlizard 1 month ago
Seriously, God must have made this video, because only She would have access all these images! (I didn't count, but there must be at least 200 in this video alone.)
nahaymath 1 month ago
Of course the most profound irony is that as society has changed over millenia, as a rule we are becoming less defined by our religious views and more my the tenets of what used to be called "natural philosophy" and now just the catch all "science" . In effect, the Creationists who deny evolution will eventually be eliminated from Society at large due to a process of "social evolution" in which the strong (rationalists) survive and the weak (theists) die out.
OkamsRazer 2 months ago
I love you mate! I wish I could stay as calm as you or thunderf00t when debating those deluted tards. :D I always lose me temper :( Cheers fot the BRILLIANT vids mate. Cheerio!
geyza0711 2 months ago
Astonishing, the way you did this, it got me quite still for all the 20 mins. of video, bravo!
Panimate 2 months ago
this is the second video of yours I have seen. I completely agree with you. I could not have said it any better. you are the one of the best in this society I feel honored and extremely lucky that I have lived in your time of existence. I seam to find I am not alone in my thoughts. your the best
AngstromJohnny 2 months ago
There was one particular creationist I knew who's name I can't remember so I'll just call her mrs braindead and she said (and i don't belive her) that if evolution were true apes would be talking. Personally I'd love to see you rip her views a new one.
TheMutantlizard 2 months ago
@TheMutantlizardThey dont have brains as big as ours due, some people think, to the size of their jaw muscle. Because they have such a big muscle it pulls their skull together preventing the brain from expanding. Well that's one theory(not a scientific theory. just an idea). Theirs a video on here that goes into some detail sorry I cant remember which. Another reason and this could be combined with the first is that their vocal cords are not suited. Remember that these things are gene mutations.
seanieboy78 2 months ago
@seanieboy78 i just want to see her get her ass handed to her.
TheMutantlizard 2 months ago
@TheMutantlizard always fun to do but its all getting to easy. The sad thing is though that no matter how often you do it they are either to stupid or have to much invested in the lie for it to get through. They nod their head with that vacant gaze in their eye as they judge you for being amoral(as if). Best just to give up on her she sounds like she is beyond redemption.lol.
seanieboy78 2 months ago
12:14 ERGO PROXY <3
Oh yeah and nice video ;)
AMxPunk 3 months ago
Ah shit, your word program does that too?
biggingeryeti 3 months ago
"A fucking psychologist"? .. I enjoy your videos and your general tone, however I felt slightly hurt about your comment regarding psychology. Why should the fact that an author has a degree in psychology in any way indicate that he shouldn't be trusted? I'll grant you that biology is only showed limited attention within psychology as a whole, however many fucking psychologists has more than a basic understanding of areas within biology because it's relevant to their research.
THC1989 3 months ago 4
@THC1989 It was poorly phrased, I agree and was pointed out a long time ago in this comments section. As I explained there, my intent was to point out that his he was not exactly qualified to writing an article critiquing modern molecular biology. I should have been more precise with my wording.
TheLivingDinosaur 3 months ago 8
@TheLivingDinosaur "...partly because I accept that I'm barely a layman in the areas of philosophy and theology..."
That line warrants a lot of respect. Idiots claim to have all the answers based on their limited understanding. A wise man knows that he is ignorant. I wish more people were like you.
blackkakari 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur
Us psychologists working in the field of brain and behaviour, especially those fond of neuroscience, are very well versed in molecular biology.
I think what you can pay most attention to is the type of degree someone obtained. Some universities still grant master of arts for psychology, these tend to be qualitatively far beneath the master of science - science-wise at least.
CrimsonRefractions 1 month ago
@THC1989
Psychology is applied biology after all :)
CrimsonRefractions 1 month ago
the fine tuning argument is verifiable scientific evidence supporting the idea of a creative personal immaterial timeless all powerful God. Quite in line with the Judeo Christian God and out of line with the Gods of other religions.
TheJohnVandivier 3 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier The only thing your comment demonstrates is that you don;t know the meaning of the word "scientific". Either that or that you're a joking.
TheLivingDinosaur 3 months ago 10
@TheLivingDinosaur If you are implying that "scientific" means testable, which it SHOULD, you must realize that modern science has gone far past this definition. The big bang? Multiverse? Macroevolution? These are accepted as "science."
In comparison to these, the fine tuning argument is a much better scientific argument indeed. Run a computer program testing this theory and generate some random big bang like events. Or mix some shit in water and see if it self assembles.
TheJohnVandivier 3 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier As I read your response I was planning on responding until I got to "Or mix some shit in water and see if it self assembles" and realized that you're the kind of unreasonable and unreachable person I gave up debating in text comments. The only thing I can say to someone like you is, fuck off and have a nice life.
TheLivingDinosaur 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur \
The only thing I can say to someone like you is, fuck off and have a nice life.
I must say you are quite the nasty ass hole
are you always so rude and vile when people speak to you?
One thing you would have if you submitted your life to Jesus is love for your fellow man .Do you hate and curse and anyone who dares to have and opinion your obose?
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur My life is great, you wish you could, and you only got mad because you know scientists have tried and it doesn't work. Thanks for your unintelligent response!
TheJohnVandivier 3 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier You should at least have an idea of what is going on in the world of dna if you are going to make comments about 'mixing shit in water'. No-one who has any idea about these things has ever made such a claim and if they have its been to over-simplify it. Google search this. Their are experiments where using a natural clay and some water and the other chemicals needed and recreating as near as poss the conditions of the time self replicating very basic cells formed spontaniously.
seanieboy78 2 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur here here. Personally I wouldn't have even answered his first comment in your position. You have quite clearly shown how these things have evidence that points toward them if not proves them which it cant with the multiverse etc. Not only that no-one in their right mind would claim to know these things without clear testable evidence. But your comment was spot on he is lost to the dark side Luke.lol. Love your channel just watching this series just now v good.
seanieboy78 2 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur I have a question about the point Matt made in this video. He said that dogs were bred from wolves and you couldn't reverse the process and come up with a wolf. Isn't that untrue? I seem to recall a project (in the 70's maybe) that bred modern domestic horses back to an extinct horse that was the predecessor of modern horses.
Couldn't that be done with dogs? Is is possible to selectively breed dogs back into wolves?
ciaochowbella 2 months ago
@ciaochowbella As LD said (and of course he can correct me) but he clearly pointed out that all dogs are in fact still wolves in the same way that man is still an ape.
We could conceivably reverse the process of "selective breeding" which led to poodles in the first place, until we have "recreated" a wolf-like offspring (no guarantee it will be 100% though).
Even without that, they are still wolves already...with cottonball butts :)
OkamsRazer 2 months ago
@ciaochowbella @OkamsRazer OkamsRazer summed up what would have been my answer. Of course, in typical creationist style, Matt makes a brazen assertion with no evidence to support it. In this case, it could actually be tested, though, but I doubt that any creation "scientists" are doing the actual experiment, either because they're scared that the result will disprove their assertion and/or because it's easier and cheaper to just talk shit. AS for the horse, Google "Heck horse",
TheLivingDinosaur 2 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Thanks, both of you.
I was familiar with the Tarpan (Heck horse) and it is indirectly responsible for my "fall from grace" and leaving Christianity. I was a staunch and uninformed and ignorant as ol' Mattie....but as you see, things can change. The Tarpan showed me that evolution was not only true, but provable. That was the beginning of my questions. Unlike Matt, when I wanted answers, I went to the experts, not the apologists.
Christianity couldn't stand the challenge.
ciaochowbella 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLivingDinosaur Thanks, both of you.
I was familiar with the Tarpan (Heck horse) and it is indirectly responsible for my "fall from grace" and leaving Christianity. I was a staunch and uninformed and ignorant as ol' Mattie....but as you see, things can change. The Tarpan showed me that evolution was not only true, but provable. That was the beginning of my questions. Unlike Matt, when I wanted answers, I went to the experts, not the apologists.
Christianity couldn't stand the challenge.
ciaochowbella 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLivingDinosaur Thanks, both of you.
I was familiar with the Tarpan (Heck horse) and it is indirectly responsible for my "fall from grace" and leaving Christianity. I was a staunch and uninformed and ignorant as ol' Mattie....but as you see, things can change. The Tarpan showed me that evolution was not only true, but provable. That was the beginning of my questions. Unlike Matt, when I wanted answers, I went to the experts, not the apologists.
Christianity couldn't stand the challenge.
ciaochowbella 2 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier "Run a computer program testing this theory" We can't. Carbon based life, perhaps, but life needn't be carbon based. There might be vortices in the atmosphere of Jupiter who have concluded that there is no atmosphere on any other planet in our solar system that is sufficiently dynamic to support life.
grieske 3 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier First off, the "fine tuning" argument had be debunked. A LOT.
Second, if it hadn't, the fine tuning presumption would actually be more in line with the creation story from Hinduism and Asatru than the Judeo-Islamo-Christian deity.
Third, it is not obvious that you've not studied cosmology, physics of any sort, or even the most basic of comparative theology.
Your lack of knowledge can be addressed. You just have to get your info from the sources, not apologists.
ciaochowbella 2 months ago
@ciaochowbella Let's hear this debunking then ;)
TheJohnVandivier 1 month ago
@TheJohnVandivier What debinking would you like me to reiterate?
Dumpling, when you make a request, please be specific. There is a LOT in the world that has been debunked and I can't know which particular bit of folderol you believe.
ciaochowbella 1 month ago
@ciaochowbella Did you just call me a dumpling? I was being quite specific - ANY! I have heard several very stupid easily refutable attempts to debunk the fine tuning argument and all have failed.
The big bounce? Give me a break lol!
TheJohnVandivier 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJohnVandivier Yes, I called you 'dumpling'.
No, you weren't specific. You said, and I quote, "Let's hear this debunking then" with no reference to WHAT you wished to have debunked.
However, now that I know what you're talking about, I can address it.
I'd like to know exactly HOW you think the universe if fine tuned so I can properly address it.
What does "The big bounce? Give me a break lol!" refer to? Puffin, if you can't be specific, this won't work.
ciaochowbella 1 month ago
ItsTheSuperFly closed his account!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
TheResidentSkeptic 3 months ago
This creationist sounds so very very gay.
But he is a creationist. So it's not surprising.
Primordialfan1 3 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur great thinking...
you are the first to point this out....
"Christians advocates always ask questions and direct them to the wrong people"
when Christopher Hitchens takes the stand...they raise a biological argument...
which is right up Richard Dawkins alleyway...
but when Richards up on the podium they ask a question more suited to Sam Harris....
they are sneaky fuckers....those religious folk
azmanabdula 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we arent sure that this is all we have......
so the religious conclusion.....
THERE IS A GOD......
there also could be a 200 foot giant chicken with flashing lights for eyes....
big deal....
azmanabdula 3 months ago
Comment removed
azmanabdula 3 months ago
i love it how whenever anyone makes a video disproving creationist they get almost all likes, but when creationist make their little videos they get all red.
kimihiro111 3 months ago
@kimihiro111 that is because most theists are a weight of ignorance shackled to our ankles. when they state personal opinion as fact, and try to get this nonsence back in the classrooms they deserve all the rankor they reap!
TheIronomega 3 months ago
SNAP!
mzyzer19 3 months ago
Can't stand the visualization...
theWHYing 3 months ago
I'm officially sending you a friend request! Your vids are AWESOME! =) ... Oh wow !!?? SuperTruthlover is spunking all over your comments section again! lol! ... I'm very tempted to start.
MrLittletomdj 4 months ago
Great vid as always
Brokensteel216 4 months ago
Wow so many of the people who didnt do so well in intellectual classes at school are now wanting to join in with intellectual discussion. I find the very idea of creationists as intelligent thinkers as ridiculous, I can't put it into words in such a short comment the dishonesty that this particular twisting of the word intelligence! Furthermore they are fuckin disgraces to the last 400 years of the advancement of human knowledge, and/or lying shit bags!
PrincePloppy 4 months ago
Heeyyy....I'M a fucking Psychologist...=[
MrOmniblast 5 months ago in playlist More videos from TheLivingDinosaur
@MrOmniblast xD He wasn't insulting psychologists, just saying it's not probbale a psychologist made a scientifically valid peer reviewed paper on evolutionary biology...as that's not their field. /soothe
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi
Lol I know =] I was only joking since he said :"is a fucking psychologist"
MrOmniblast 4 months ago
PS. Dr. BC, You mentioned certain religious people having an agenda, which you may very well be right. I do wonder though if you might have an agenda as well and, if so, what it might be. It would be interesting to find out.
Thomas
tdfisk 5 months ago
Dear Dr. Biochemist.. sorry, I couldn't resist tossing some sarcasm since you dish so much out. I've watched a few of your videos & you complain that creationists don't offer an intelligent debate. I've been looking for you doing that, but I can't seem to find it. I would love to debate you, but I should warn you, I won't as easy as theists. You see, I have no label as I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's irrelevant to me. I defend religion & the right to express & teach their beliefs.
Thomas
tdfisk 5 months ago
That of course is not allowed in the narrow atheist world.
Because atheism does not allow anything outside of the material to exist, atheists have been forced to come up with the idea of an infinite number of universes. The theory being that with an infinite number of universes, one such as ours could come into existence -
. without a natural cause (current evidence says nothing natural existed)
.NOR a cause from outside of nature -
SuperTruthlover 5 months ago
@SuperTruthlover Why do you think that a 'multiverse' is not a scientific theory? Because there's no evidence for it. Same with God. If you want to believe that God created the universe, you go on doing that. But don't bother those who don't.
PointlessSteel 4 months ago
@PointlessSteel
you are correct in regard to there not being a multiverse scientific theory! only militant atheist try to promote things that have no evidence in know science and at the same time deny God when the evidence leads us to the answers that defy known science. There must be a cause for the big bang out side on natural occurring science. You want to reject God and have the free will to do so giving to you by God. God will not MAKE you believe. Anyone who wants to repent finds God
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover Not even 'militant atheists' claim it is a scientific theory, luckily.
PointlessSteel 4 months ago
@PointlessSteel
no luck for you it seems as Dawkins and many others militant atheists like Ricky Gervais have said there is a theory that multi universes exist as a explanation to the formation of this universe sans God
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover If you assert this, then back this up by proving they say that there is evidence in favour of this idea, and that they say that it is an accepted theory in science.
PointlessSteel 4 months ago
@PointlessSteel
If you assert this, then back this up by proving they say that there is evidence in favour of this idea,
you really need to referance my comment as I have done here.
I am not sure what assertion you mean. please tell me what idea and assert you mean.
Science cannot tell us everything as you have already stated and I agee with your statement.
also many things cannot be proven to be true by the SM but we can make assertions based on evidnce EX black holes exist
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
The human body is certainly not alone in its complexity. You can take anything present today for example and see purpose and complexity in it. A blade of grass has cells as the human body does. All living things do. Atoms that make up everything are complex and there are things about them we still do not know. Everything is made of up electrons, protons, and neutrons that give matter its different properties. Kind of like all the information stored in a computer called assembly code
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@PointlessSteel oh atheist make the claim
Because the evidence so strongly supports a supernatural explanation for the universe, people like this atheist and better known atheists like Ricky Gervais (very funny man) and Richard Dawkins have been reduced to positing an infinite number of universes to explain the why and how of our universe.
Why have they done that?
Because according to current evidence, the only way to explain the why and how of this universe is a supernatural cause
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover There is no evidence, therefore no theory. You really need to stop thinking that atheists will do anything to make everything fit in a certain view. Any intelligent atheist will cease being one the moment they have enough reason to.
PointlessSteel 4 months ago
pointless
do you think life just happened? I have learned a bit about it (my major being in Computer Science). You would be amazed at how many pages of one's and zero's it takes to output simple messages to the screen. I'll spare you the details. In the same way, atoms are the building blocks of our universe. If you thought the trillions of cells in the body was a large number, the number of atoms in the body is roughly equivalent to the number grains of sand along a several mile long beach.
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@Point
Lack of evidence, lack of evidence, That is always the parroted refrain of atheists. What evidence would you expect?
What are you looking for? What would you consider as evidence? ev·i·dence (v-dns) 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
for example: if a god were real would you expect to see evidence of worship by the faithful?
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@Pointl
Where did the laws come from? Who/what gave matter, energy, void, sound, and time its properties? In this case you've got two choices. Either this all was a colossal blunder that science can somehow explain (it can't), or that we came from a divine power that is not subject to the rules of our dimension such as time and the fact that everything here must have an origin and an end, and therefore was able to violate all these laws to bring energy, time, sound and void into existence.
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover I see you really wish everything to have a clear purpose, a reason that explains how and why things are the way they are. Is this correct?
PointlessSteel 4 months ago
@Pointles I see you really wish everything to have a clear purpose
no I never said I wish things had purpose and it is always clear to me
What I said is that there is a purpose for things in life whether we can understand it or not.
a reason that explains how and why things are the way they are
you are incorrect to think I alway need a reason for everything as I don't think that at all
My point is many atheist reject the idea that thing have a purpose and there is a purpose for our lives
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@Pointh
if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it, given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do, and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist.
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover If the evidence is clear enough, they would want to examine it. If there is enough evidence it would change their mind.
An atheist cannot know 'all things', yes, but they do not need to prove a negative. Also, there are plenty of things explained by scientific theories that we all assume to be true, even though we have not examined every aspect of it.
PointlessSteel 4 months ago
@Pointless
If the evidence is clear enough, they would want to examine it. If there is enough evidence it would change their mind.
Do you think there would be enogh evidence to convince a man who rejects God because he wants to do as he pleases? Would you turn from the life you now live and obey God is you saw the evidence that Jesus really did walk the earth? What evidence would you accept (within reason) as enough to change your mind? if you don't know than how would you know if you saw it?
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover atheist don't hold thei position just so they can do as they please. that is the christian model. an atheist would live with the consequences of their actions, where a xian would just ask for forgivenes. Is that the reason why christians are so hypocritical about the morals they preach? one can only wonder.
tristbjorn 3 months ago
@tris
atheist don't hold thei position just so they can do as they please
How do you know why athiests hold their position .Have you taken a poll of all atheists in the world?
No you did not, Therefore your assertion is only your opinion and you believe it by faith alone.
You really think the Chrsitian gets away with sin and does not face the consequences.LOL
Silly boy the reason God tell His children to obey Him is to avoid the consequences.
Asking for forgivness does not get you out of Jail
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@SuperTruthlover I know because every atheist who state their why they are atheists, do it for completely other reasons. If you don't believe that asking god to forgive you sins, mean that you are forgiven, then you are not a christian. Sorry to break the truth to you, but maybe you should read the bible for once. Being able to ask for forgivenes and then be absolved from sin, means that christians can do what they want. Your argument is just as failed as your understanding of your belief.
tristbjorn 3 months ago
@PointlessSteel
you say the is no evidence for God so do you believe there is no God or do you merely claim you LACK belief in God?
In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly remain atheists.
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover atheism by definition is a lack of belief in gods. If believers could provide ANY evidence, then they could attack that position, but they rather just go around the same old tired and debunked bs.
tristbjorn 3 months ago
@tristbjorn
The evidence for God is so clear only about 6% of the people don't believe in God.
How can you assert there is no evience?
How would you know if people saw evidence and you are too blind to see it.
Your position is illogical since you can't know about all the evidence that exist in the universe for God and yet you say there is not God. I have evidence while you only have your love of darkness and your faith.
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@SuperTruthlover if the evidence is so clear, then please provide it. Instead you comit the fallacy of argument ad populum. Not once have a christian provided any evidence and you continue that trend. Come on, what is your evidence?
tristbjorn 3 months ago
@tristbjorn
I have asked you three time to tell me what evidence you would accept within reason for God
Are you so dense you cannot understand my comments to you?
Tell me what evidence would convince you and I will provide it
My daughter plays the same game when we are going out to eat.
I say Mexican and she says NO
Ok than pizza No
how about German food NO
finally I say "tell me what you will accept and we can go from there.
Why waste my time giving your evidence you will reject? Tell me
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@tristbjorn
So what is this position of lack of belief really about?
In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly remain atheists.
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@SuperTruthlover Quietly remain atheists? you must be kidding me.
I lack a belief in gods, if you can demonstrate to me that this is not the case, please do so, otherwise, don't resort to screaming, "Coward!"
See, the DEFAULT position of any claim is disbelief until reasonable evidence is given to believe.
For any god that's ever been defined to me, I've found them to be utterly useless in any sort of explanatory value, as well as completely undemonstrated. so, I remain in my default.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@Big
Stating your atheism is simply a default position, doesn't make it so. I am simply using your position and your actions together to see if they are consistent. You tell me that you don't believe in gods as an atheist .You see, if you defend yourself, you do so because you have a position. You don't defend non positions. But since defend yourself I am simply working with the very basics of your position to see if it is consistent with your actions. I don't think it is.
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@SuperTruthlover Who ever said I don't have a position? My position is that lack a belief in gods because theistic arguments have failed to provide a reasonable reason to believe.
the attacks on my atheism consist of telling me I'm wrong to not believe as other believers do, which requires me to debunk theistic arguments.
It's a simple fact that not believing something until evidence is presented IS the default state, because the other option, belief until disproven, is internally incoherent.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@tristbjorn
if the evidence is so clear, then please provide it
What is the evidence you base you world view on?
Atheist deny God on blind faith alone.
Having non-beliefs and behaving that you have a belief by defending your position is the reality of your action. That is not consistent with having no belief about something. Also, it is very debatable about how logical it might or might not be to believe or not believe in the extraordinary. The whole topic is open to discussion.
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@SuperTruthlover Then please demonstrate that fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, ghosts, vampires don't exist and I'll use your method to show how your god doesn't.
biggingeryeti 3 months ago
@biggingeryeti
Although I would agree with Dawkins that human beings seem to have an innate proclivity towards belief in God, I would suggest that there is different reason why so many people seem to have an innate awareness of God.
no one belives in the things you want me to prove are not real so you are being ridiculas my friend. God bless you
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@SuperTruthlover It doesn't matter whether or not people believe in them (and many, by they way, do believe in faeries). You can't prove they don't exist. So asking someone to prove your god doesn't exist is equally pointless. The point is that you can't prove that a god does exist and that he is your particular god and until you can, I see no reason to believe in one.
biggingeryeti 3 months ago
@biggingeryeti
You have a stupid reason to reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior my friend
The is major evidence that Jesus Lived and died on the Cross
You are right about people believing in faeries
Like the same number beleive God does not exist.
No historic event can be proven and this is why athies shout PROOF PROOF
You should know proof is a word for math and booze but not for science or history
many you just don't want to believe . ever think why you reject Jesus?
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@biggingeryeti
The way to believe in unicorns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically, the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way.
SuperTruthlover 2 months ago
@biggingeryeti
I would suggest that there is different reason why so many people seem to have an innate awareness of God.
this is not the case for that fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, ghosts, vampires
May point is you can't logical be an atheist unless you have blind faith that God does not exist
You hope and desise there to be no God and have made up your mind to reject any and all evdence that there might be God.
That is on you dude and not lack of evidnce
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@SuperTruthlover Just like you have blind faith all the other gods you don't accept and anything else supernatural? Same thing. I can fly and if you don't believe me then you have blind faith that I can't. No, I made a claim so I have to prove it. You are making a claim so you have to prove it, so please don't invoke logic, you don't know how to use it. I went to catholic schools and stopped believing in god when it was clear that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that one exists. Simple as that.
biggingeryeti 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@biggingeryeti
so do you believe God does not exist or do you not know if God exsits
I mean your right is you are not claiming that no gods exist than you don't have to prove your position . I thougt you were an atheist saying there is no God which is a claim one would have to prove to be value.
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@biggingeryeti
there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that one exists
You can't say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
@SuperTruthlover Of course I haven't looked at all the evidence in the world. But I have looked. I went to catholic schools till the age of 16. If there is some evidence out there that demonstrates a god then I will change my mind. But as far as I know, there isn't. And even if there is, there isn't any to demonstrate that it is your god.
biggingeryeti 3 months ago
@biggingeryeti
If there is some evidence out there that demonstrates a god then I will change my mind
But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through... and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?
SuperTruthlover 2 months ago
@SuperTruthlover Anything that can't be explained through natural means. A miracle. The laws of physics being suspended. It is a tough question, what evidence one would accept to be evidence of god/supernatural, because in many instances it is impossible to predict what evidence is going to be found. But it is important to state here, I do not claim there is definitely no god. There may be. I just do not believe that there is.
biggingeryeti 2 months ago
@biggingeryeti
To say there is NO evidence is an illogical statement, since you cannot know all evidence. and i am glad you are not claim this and being illogocal
The Christians claim evidence in the eyewitness accounts of Christ. I am asking why it isn't valid.
SuperTruthlover 2 months ago
@SuperTruthlover When you say eye witness accounts of Christ do you mean at the time, in his day or at any point in time during their own experiences? I assume the former, but there are no decent texts agreeing with the accounts in the bible. Even if the accounts of people witnessing Jesus are real, that only confirms his existence and not his divinity.
biggingeryeti 2 months ago
@Point
The atheist must logically admit there could be evidece for God he has not yet seen! This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence, which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover if you bothered opening your ears, then you wouldn't needlesly state nonsens. I've yet to come across an atheist who isn't an agnostic-atheist. TLD even state it in THIS video! But until you provide some evidence for a god, the only logical position is to assume none-existance. The reason xians are attacked is because they want us to accept their unfounded bs. If they kept it to them self without trying to dumb down the rest of us - they wouldn't get it stuck to them!
tristbjorn 3 months ago
Atheists often imply that reason is best used by them and not by Christians who, as many say, need psychological help for believing in God. This condescending attitude is a fountain for derogatory comments. I get the impression from atheists that they are so convinced they have the truth that no other options are available to them, and that if you don't agree with them, you're not smart. Of course, they will deny this and say I am crazy, but this is what I have observed -- right or wrong.
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover if you don't apply the same principles to your god as to any other god, then you are intelectual dishonest. Belief can come from many sources, ignorance is among on of them and from the arguments presented it's a pretty common cause. If you hear voices in your head I'd say you need a shrink, if you just get the warm feeling when you pray or attend a sermon, you are just unaware of why this is.
tristbjorn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tristbjorn
that is because most atheists are a weight of ignorance shackled to our ankles. when they state personal opinion as fact
You think our president Obama is delusional simply because you reject God and don't see the evidence the rest of the world plainly sees
Oh the arrogance
SuperTruthlover 3 months ago
Pointle
you think atheists will become believers if that see evidnce for God?
Sometimes atheist assert that there is no proof God exists. The only problem is that an atheist cannot logically make that claim.
In order to state there is no proof for God's existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence.
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
Because the evidence so strongly supports a supernatural explanation for the universe, people like this atheist and better known atheists like Ricky Gervais (very funny man) and Richard Dawkins have been reduced to positing an infinite number of universes to explain the why and how of our universe.
Why have they done that?
Because according to current evidence, the only way to explain the why and how of this universe is a supernatural cause; a cause that operated outside of nature.
SuperTruthlover 5 months ago
What this atheist (atheists are those who believe that our's was the first intelligence to arise) doesn’t understand is that while the details (Greek mythologies) have been wrong, that in no way takes away from the Christian doctrine of Creator God. This doctrine states that the universe with its exquisitely finely tuned constants and qualities could not and did not come into being from nothing apart from the willed initiation and design of Creator God.
SuperTruthlover 5 months ago
This atheist has stated, “It's interesting to point out that throughout the entire history of scientific investigation, not one supernatural explanation has ever been confirmed as true.” Besides Zeus and Thor, he doesn’t give any examples, but let’s give him the benefit of doubt. I’ll be the first to admit that Christians have said some pretty stupid things - things admittedly said in ignorance.
SuperTruthlover 5 months ago
We give them way too much by granting that any theist has a belief that can be compared to another theist such that they agree about what the word god even means. They can't even do that much, let alone provide evidence to a rationalist that would stand scrutiny. Faith is without limits. The contents of what can be activily believed is not limited by anything but the believer. Faith is subjectivity. See Soren Kierkegaard.
sowcratees 5 months ago
not enuff butts in this vid
isrealjason 6 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur: First, I LOVE the videos, keep them coming. A small nitpick though:
You say you are an Agnostic, but seem to misunderstand the words meaning. If your response to the question "Do you believe in a god" is anything but a solid "yes", then you are an atheist. Atheist just means not a theist. So you may mean "I don't claim there is no god" when you say agnostic, but such is the same for atheism. EVERYONE is an agnostic, as no one can KNOW if there is a god at this point.
djtripnosys 6 months ago
thank you for revealing bull shit of relgious unreality.
JusticeIsWhere 6 months ago
I love it. Comparing computers to living multicellular organisms is not even comparing apples to oranges, it's rather like comparing apples to coke cans. It's not remotely rational, it's insane.
craigore2011 6 months ago
Not intending to be fangirlish, just in curiosity, what had you to use these images?
Alice89chan 6 months ago
Why did you include Demi? lol
Alice89chan 6 months ago
"Touché"
anoccomir 6 months ago
Where is moral obligation? There is no such thing at all! Be kind to your neighbor, or don't. Help people and try to be a good person in any way you can, or don't. If you really need god to tell you that killing and hurting are bad, then there is more wrong with you than you know. The only moral obligation comes from within, from a personal commitment to be a good person, whatever that means to you.
8ncient1 7 months ago
you do realize that Agnostic Front is a band right?
opivy07 7 months ago
You don't like religious people pushing their agenda in politics and society, but yet you technically push yours on YouTube? Isn't it contradictory?
StopFear 7 months ago
@StopFear No. Considering he doesn't do that.
What he DOES do it point out scientific innacuracies and flawed reasoning, while being very sure to back up everything he says with empirical evidence and observations. Also, he included 'moral' when he was covering the 'agendas', which he has never done at all in any of his videos in any way.
You are free to disagree with him, but you must realize that without actually finding empirical observable evidence, nobody will take you seriously.
BigLundi 7 months ago
I LOVE Jesus THAT'S IT!
MzShondababy21 7 months ago
I hope ferntube isn't fucking serious, I mean really if aliens come here long after we are dead and find any of our left over tech of course they will know that someone built it because they would have an understanding that inanimate objects are created by sentient beings while living beings evolve to their present form over time...facepalm!
wakcedout 7 months ago
I get it when you're an Atheist you are God! You can and will come to any conclusion on everytihing like without any proof;except what you want. Yet even in your video you say that something must have made that computer the aliens found on a dead earth. Why would they ever think that? It's far less complex than what they are made of? Let's face it this computer just evolved and those Chinese should remove their names from the label.
Ferntube123 7 months ago
@Ferntube123 Your arguments are terrible.
"I get it when you're an Atheist you are God!" - ad hominem attack
"proof" - Science does not prove ANYTHING.
"et even in your video you say that something must have made that computer the aliens found on a dead earth..." - Can a computer reproduce with slight changes? Is it able to operate spontaneously? Does it react to stimuli? Is a computer capable of obtaining energy by itself? Hmm...NO.
MSJjoshua 7 months ago
I am enjoying all the vids. Thanks for posting them.
wizard970 7 months ago
Nice job on the video also you're very articulate. well I disagree with the things you said I found myself very entertained. that's not to be disrespectful your video was put together for information as well as entertainment that's what I meant. maybe I'm showing myself to be stupid or naive but I have a question and I'm sure you been asked this before but I just don't know the answer. what do you say about dreams and memories and self actualization? is there any proof for those things?
ginoray37 7 months ago
don't make videos with your cellphone on you. :P
it's a minor sound issue. it's just your videos are made so nicely, very professional. I thought I'd point it out, as I'm sure many people already have.
urantivirus 7 months ago
@urantivirus Thanks for the tip. Actually, I worked out the correlation a few weeks ago and started taking it off for the last few videos and was coming to the conclusion that that was the cause. Cheers for validating. I'd never heard of cell phones interfering with mikes/speakers like that, so it never occurred to be until recently.
TheLivingDinosaur 7 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Its seems to be the way that cell phone receive signal create this issue. I play guitar and if my amplifier is on, it will make a hard to describe sound just before my phone rings, if I get a phone call or text message.
TheRantingsofaMadman 4 months ago
there was no jesus? if that is true then how is this year called 2011?!?!?!?!
Ncribs 8 months ago
@Ncribs jesus was probably real but he would be nothing more than a cult leader
teedonster2 7 months ago
meant the word proof not belief
johndebbra 8 months ago
want proof then why aren't they agnostics since if there was proof they would believe so aren't they agnostic,belief is not proof and agnostics to not believe but we will not dismiss it as fact because there is no fact at least yet i confess not sure though how one can be both agnostic and atheist as(another word game)seems like atheist would not believe even with proof,but since they want truth and most have open mind would that not mean they are agnostic,ok will get off soap box now :)
johndebbra 8 months ago
@johndebbra "i confess not sure though how one can be both agnostic and atheist"
That's because you don't understand what either of them are. The same goes with punctuation. It's funny you call yourself an agnostic yet have no clue what agnosticism is. I bet you're an atheist as well. Tell me, which god do you believe in? Don't tell me you don't know, because I'm not asking what you know.
"meant the word proof not belief"
When? You use both words in almost every... well though out your comment
urantivirus 7 months ago
@urantivirus i love you to :)
johndebbra 7 months ago
@urantivirus by the way learn how to spell"I never maid any argument, except I said Sarah Palin looked like a whore in the "Sarah Palin 1995 Video - With Her Husband" ..now go back in your trailer and count your food stamps.
johndebbra 7 months ago
@johndebbra Did you read the comment above the comment with the spelling mistake? You fucking retard. Now go pick up a dictionary so you can properly use the English language. You don't even know what agnosticism is, yet you call yourself one. And btw, answer my fucking question. Which god do you believe in? It's funny how I comment on your punctuation failure, and you go sifting through my channel to find a mistake. And it's one I corrected. Good job, champ. And you still fail with punctuation.
urantivirus 7 months ago
@johndebbra It's also funny how I provided an argument against your comment followed by a question and the only thing you addressed was my criticism of your complete lack of punctuation. You must be one smart fella.
Thanks for the lolz! ;)
urantivirus 7 months ago
very nice pwnage sir.
chambasa2006 8 months ago
@chambasa2006 i agree though one thing i do not understand is the part of being both atheist and agnostic as i thought they are different atheism seems like the do not believe no matter what is shown but agnostics as i consider myself and speaking for myself i do not believe what story books like the bible koran,morons,umm i mean the mormons book.The reason i am agnostics because simply put there is no proof that there is no God (or better word may be higher intelligence)and that is what i
johndebbra 8 months ago
@johndebbra GNOSTICISM is different from THEISM. Gnosticism speaks to a knowledge based system while theism is a belief based system. Agnostic-Atheist means that a person BELIEVES there is now god, however does not make a definite statement that is 100% accurate because he is still AGNOSTIC and believes that knowledge of god is probably unknowable. I hope that cleared it up .
chambasa2006 8 months ago
do not understand atheist want proof agnostics want proof (to play a word game)the only thing that separates us is the word proof as a lot of atheist have comments and vids that go something like being agnostics is like going on a bus without a ticket which makes no sense since like them we want proof talking to a religious person is like a blind man talking to a deaf man no matter what is said or shown a religious person will not hear or see anything but what they want,atheist say they they
johndebbra 8 months ago
This video is soo great! Even the first 1:40 is enough to settle ANY debate because it is the most logical, most rationalist position anyone can take (theists and athiests alike), regardless of whatever is true or untrue.
Forlo12345 8 months ago