I have noted a distinct difference between atheists and theists - atheists seems to have a real small vocabulary - consisting basically of "fucking", "idiot" and "retarded." Come on guys - if you want to be taken seriously, please present some sort of on argument!
@nocontrol06 not just in the bible, but many other ancient documents (including the dead sea scrolls) mention jesus and what he did. In the bible, not to mention jesus, although written 2,000 years ago, all the places and events are factual, therefore the bible is a very reliable source
@uconnhuskies32 I don't know where to begin. First, no historical evidence at all supports anything in the christian bible. To demonstrate this: There were no Jewish people in Ancient Egypt at the time of the Pharaohs. The only way to conceive of anything in there being even close to fact you have to either twist the stories, or the facts, to get it close to reality, and I mean really twist it.
@nocontrol06 Than is spelled with and a not an e, then is only used in regards to time.
Atheism is actually faithed based because there can be no evidence for a negative. There is lots of proof and evidence for a creator, the problem is an atheist would never believe it. If he did he would not be an atheist.
Oh I would love to sit down with this guy in person, the author of this video and actually correct him on quite a few things on what he thinks creationists are and believe.
Were the Finches important to Darwin in formulating his theory? NO
The Galapagos finches were not as important to Darwin as is often claimed, but they are a good example of micro-evolution. They show us that finches can vary in their morphology, and that natural selection has a role in this.
This study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.
The problem that you have is that you don’t actually understand what you are cutting and pasting. The only reason someone would have to lie about their IQ (135 HA HA HA). Is because in reality it is tragically low. There is no point in answering any of this cut and paste bollocks because
1. You won’t understand the answers
2. You have no interest in learning
3. You don’t have the honesty to formulate questions of your own
the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as thought they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (The Blind Watchmaker)
So that old creationist favorite the Cambrian explosion. The CE lasted millions of years. All life forms evolved from pre-Cambrian organisms. And finally. The CE in no way refutes evolution. In fact the theory predicts such events. Nice bit of research there
using words like “faith” in the context you mean when discussing scientific principles makes you look like an idiot – just to save you further embarrassment
Abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of life from non-life. It is also known as autogenesis and is similar to spontaneous generation, the idea that complex organisms spontaneously formed from non-living material. Abiogenesis has no scientific support, has not been observed in the laboratory, and there is no known mechanism by which life can form from non-life with its incredibly complex information structures in place.
“Abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of life from non-life. It is also known” Etc..
So you needed to find out about abiogenesis. But instead of going to a science web-site for your information, you went straight to the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry web-site and cut, pasted and posted what ever bollocks they had on abiogenesis. This is the level of your honesty. It’s utterly pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@mrlucky1232002 How can you reject something if you know nothing about it? Abiogensis doesn't create complex cells, it creates simple cells that then go through the evolutionary process to become more complex.
Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA, wrote:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it goin
@mrlucky1232002 Primordial soup is just a term referring to the elements that existed on the planet billions of years ago, generally meaning the mix of chemicals in sea water.
Nobody knows what primordial soup is, and nobody has ever observed or proven that non-living matter turns into life; they simply believe in it. But, let’s keep going. We’re bound to find some evidence eventually.
This belief in future evidence seem religious to me
@mrlucky1232002 Actually, it's you that doesn't know what the term means.
The Miller - Urey experiment and other similar experiments show that amino acids can form naturally. They are the building blocks of life. Exactly how the first simple life forms began isn't known yet. That's not surprising, since it happened a few billion years ago. Until the last few hundred years, we didn't even know about electricity.
Making up a magical,conveniently invisible being isn't a logical explanation.
"Making up a magical,conveniently invisible process for life that is mathematically impossible isn't a logical explanation."
Since we find don't find evidence of any species linked to another in the fossil record, it requires faith (belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary) to believe that evolution from one species to another happen.
Charles Darwin recognised that a problem of his theory of evolution was to produce life itself. he wrote if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive [of] some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found.
This was supposed to replicate the primeval atmosphere on the Earth.You will notice that there is an absence of oxygen and nitrogen(their model) which are the main elemental constituents of our present environment. The problem recognised by Miller and his colleagues was that oxygen would destroy any organic material in the experiment and certainly in the period of time they allocated to the early period on the planet. For example, when we die, we decay.
evolutionary scientists have proposed that the early Earth had no elemental oxygen. It would, in fact, be a “reducing atmosphere”, the opposite of the modern oxidising one. (They go on to hypothesise that this would gradually change as primitive life produced it). However, the evidence for this reducing atmosphere is very tenuous. Increasingly we are finding from geological and palaeontological research that an oxygen-based atmosphere must have existed from the earliest times
But this omits an important factor. In any process that leads to complexity there must be an information source. For example, in photosynthesis a complex system involving chlorophyll captures energy from the sun and uses it to build molecules from raw materials. Can you imagine shaking a flask containing the basic materials for the production of life?
you need magic for your building blocks to come alive.LOL
One textbook, edited by Soper summarises the situation well (p. 883):
Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.
I see you’re back to cutting and pasting from creationist / religious web-sites yet again. You’re last five posts have been lifted word for word from ‘truth in science’ (oh the irony). Do you feel it is acceptable to learn your science from religious web-sites. Given that these sites have a known agenda, do think you should simply parrot their nonsense without any fact checking? Here’s a thought. Try and have an original thought rather than copying all the time
Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote,
You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.
Seeing as how you love cutting and pasting so much this is lifted straight from the ‘truth in science’ web-site:
“The Board of Directors and members of the Council of Reference are all Christians with traditional Biblical beliefs”
“We highlight the scientific evidence which is contrary to the Neo-Darwinian paradigm, and expose the ideological bias which hides or ignores such evidence”
this is the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation
Prof Francis Crick,on accidental origin of life on Earth, said, The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.”Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws
Also am I not allowed to believe in the bible and also agree with somethings science proves? If you didn't read the rest of my comment it basically said that I believe God created everything. Science is included in everything. So what every we discover through Science reminds me how great our God is.
I'm a Christian and I love Science. The more Scientists study the origin of life and how the Universe started the more I believe that there is a high power being. The complexity of living things from a Human being down to a single cell. There is no way that life began in chemical reaction.
I'm a christian. I also believe a lot of what scientist prove are true (because I'm not an idiot) I believe that God could have used the big bang to create the world. Since I believe God created everything he must have created Science. So at least for me ,and please tell me if you think I'm acting like a smart alike because I'm really not all that smart, I think everything we discover through science points more to there being a God.
@MinkBomb The most compelling argument is that sexual selection intervened, like a peahen choosing a peacock with the prettiest tail. By choosing mates selectively, the pre-humans with the most language ability and creativity procreated.
Check out The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley.
was the most criminal system in human history? You would say yes if you listened to history classes, but in reality, the capitalist free market system causes the death of 6 million African children every year by starvation and lack of public health care in the continent, so it kills just as much people as the Holocaust in less than one year... The best way of learning is indeed to challenge every thesis you hear, but if you don't want/have time to do it, scientists are probably the only ones who
ancient myths with no logical basis... Yet, science is pretty much trustable (and evolution is science since the 20th century...), because, as I explained earlier, it has no ego, so it constantly corrects itself it it is wrong. History and politics, on the other hand, are full of lies and propaganda. While it is clear that WW2 took place in Europe between 3 September 1939 and May the 9th 1945, or that Nazi Germany built concentration camps almost in every conquered state,is it clear that Fascism
@pillowhole: Science does not have sides or egos like politics, economics and religion, so the only thing you should do to see all the facts is being logical. While deism can't be refuted by logical arguments and is just as plausible as atheism, (at our level of scientific knowledge) creation has been proven wrong by science more than 100 years ago. Of course propaganda is everywhere in our societies and you mustn't be naive and believe every theory you hear without research,but religions remain
@mrlucky1232002 Since my atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god(s), just as I have no belief in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster (due to lack of evidence of their existence), my atheism is perfectly logical.
I'm not certain that none of these things exist, but I really doubt that any of them do.
@mrlucky1232002 Actually, there are nearly 2 billion Christians out of 7 billion people on the planet. That doesn't make them right. Distribution of religions around the world shows that most people simply adopt the religion of those around them.
It wasn't that long ago that most people believed that the Earth was flat, but they were wrong.
The Pew Institute collects data on religious beliefs. If you Google their studies, you'll see that even many Christians now know that evolution's real.
@mrlucky1232002 You're right - evolution isn't a religion, it's just a reality of nature, like gravity and other scientific theories. To become a widely accepted scientific theory, it must be based on a large number of observable, verifiable facts.
If you add up the generations from Adam and Eve on down to Jesus, you'll see that the first people couldn't have appeared until about 11,000 years ago at the most. Some say only 6.000 years.
We have human tools and fossils millions of years old.
You're right - evolution isn't a religion, it's just a reality of nature
This statement is true about Micro evolution also known as adaptation.
However those that have faith that big changes MUST have happen because we can see small changes do so by faith and not science. This is when a belief becomes a religion with group think like a religion
These poor souls cannot even consider they may be wrong and refuse to consider new evidence. To them MACRO is true no matter what people say
@mrlucky1232002 Small changes add up to big changes over millions (and billions) of years. Since we find evidence of this pattern over and over in the fossil record, it requires faith (belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary) to believe that evolution from one species to another DIDN'T happen.
I hope that my lottery ticket wins millions of dollars, but I don't believe that this will happen. Why? Because there's no evidence that it will win. Faith won't make it true.
Open mind to both,you'll never comprehend if your one sided, you'll be at a stuck point unable to progress. So many findings yet covered up and frauds.
Humans should actually be proud that they have survived the ruthless test of nature and survived to become the most successful speices within 5000 lightyears.
@ncwdane Creationism is not even a hypothesis. For that it must be falsifiable. It is not.
Evolution is a full blown theory, i.e. a body of concepts tested over and over again and found to comply with the observed evidence *although* it is falsifiable.
I'm a Christian, but I don't bring God into arguments about evolution. I'm one of the few people who is Christian, heavily supportive of science, and know that evolution is completely false.
@d4nilipe So you want me to believe something that breaks two long standing laws of science? No thanks. I'll stick with thinking with my own brain instead of believing what "scientists" tell me.
@wasdare32 Second law of thermodynamics is not violated, since it applies in closed systems, yet the earth is an open system. And biogenesis wouldn't be conflicting with evolution but abiogenesis. Turns out they don't exclude each other. Biogenesis says spontaneous generation can't happen. Abiogenesis says that organic material (which is not 'life') can come into existence from the molecules and atoms that we consider important for life, like nitrogen, sulfur, etc.
@wasdare32 looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool! That is ridiculous. Do you even understand the second law of thermodynamics? lol you r funny.
@wasdare32 how in the world are those two laws relevant in evolution. Law of biogenesis sais that life does not come from non-organic material.. Well, evolution never addresses how life arose, only how existing life evolved. You're thinking about abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution.
2nd law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed system, how the hell can you think that earth or a cell is a closed system??
I think you're being fairly arrogant, I doubt you have looked this up..
@nejtilsvampe But evolution doesn't exist if life didn't arise from basic chemicals and progress to the complexity it is today. So in my opinion, evolution and the theory of life arising from a pool of chemicals go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. I'm pretty much done arguing with people because I've realized that evolution can't be proven to be right or wrong. You either believe or you don't, and everyone seems to be an expert on it.
@wasdare32 no.. you're being wilfully ignorant. ONCE life arose, no matter how it went down, life evovled. Lets say the first cell was created by god, that wouldn't discredit evolution at all ! Abiogenesis and evolution don't have anything to do with eachother, you must see the distinction! Evolution is an observable fact..
It's like, if particle physics is wrong, that doesn't mean the theory of electricity is wrong.. It's two completely seperate issues.
@nejtilsvampe But evolution is a change in DNA. There's no known natural process that adds DNA to a genome. Things can change, but not like evolution says. In order for a wing to come from an arm, extra DNA has to be created to make it happen. But everything is born with a specific amount of DNA and that can't change. Animals today have to same amount of DNA as the same animals that lived a long time ago. They're just slightly different because of mutations, not adding of DNA.
@nejtilsvampe Youtube is bad about links but I got it to work. There are some rare occurances where it happpens, but the vast majority of this adding of information, and the vast majority of evolution evidence. happens only in a sterile, very controlled, perfect lab environment where the animals were forced to change. The things that happen in a lab just aren't going to happen in nature, which is exactly what evolution is supposed to be; natural.
"So you want me to believe something that breaks two long standing laws of science? No thanks. I'll stick with thinking with my own brain instead of believing what "scientists" tell me."
If you don't believe what scientists say, why do you believe in laws of science?
@killsome49 lol your only argument is blind faith. The difference is I was parodying the dense nature of most debates with Christians where they simply state they are right while providing pseudo-facts. You sir, have proved my point.
@PointlessSteel Possibility of a watch originated from a rock by itself accidentally and a complex airplane coming out of a junkyard hit by a typhoon all by itself without being created:
I have to ask you Don, I`ve seen many of your video`s. This one is more about form over content, but the ones with actual contant seem to stand fairly well in scientific perspective. Your rationality seems fine. Obviously you are at least fairly intelligent.
How the f*ck is it possible that you believe in god(s) ? I just don`t get it, when I see how you value evidence and intellectual honousty: what is your evidence for god(s) ?
Creationism insults me as a christian, because, creationism is about not comunicating, and in general responsible for uter destruction of nature, for they don't see a nature like something it should be taken care of but a loyal slave of humanity, what is manin cause of ecologocal and biological holocaust over non-human-aprowed species.
@madjack141 Death and resurrection, like Dionysus in Greek myth and others I don't remember; Virgin birth, at least one of the Hindu gods; pretty much Jesus' entire background is a mashup of the origins of other deities before him. Have you seen Zeitgeist by Peter Joseph (I think that's his name.... wow, my memory is horrible)? You should check that out.
"there is more than enough scientific evidence going more towards creationism. "
funny, that you are the only person who sees it...
could you point me in the right direction? maybe cite a source... that IS what you should do when you want to quote scientific literature...
but i hope we can both agree that 'science' that hasn't passed peer-review isn't really science, so i hope we can restrict our citations to peer-reviewed sources...
ok people just because you know how something works doesn't mean god did it. the fact is if god did it with "magic" (as you make Christians out to believe) you would still say "we know how it works so it wasn't god". you are just being ignorant.
Neanderthal man probably had a defiency or arthritis. plus the ridges over your eyes never stop growing, and muscles always pulling at the back of your skull will elongate it. under the extreme pressure and sediment displacement of the flood the dead animals would quickly fossilize or liquidated. any questions.
i dont like your comment about "creationist dont understand science". that is comlettly untrue. just because i look at the same evidence that you have from a different angle dosnt mean i dont know what you think. just like you obviesly dont know much about the ark. if they were babies then they would take up much less space. and dinosaurs, lizerds never stop growing. so under the best circinstamses they would grow to collosoal sizes. once again eggs would take much less space up
@ahuntsman1107 Even if you take only two eggs, a male and female of each one, there are still more species of beetle let alone anything else than what can fit in the arc if it was only as big as it was on the outside.
It's a mistake for our ilk to try and find "logical" explanations for how everyone could fit on the arc. The arc represents G'd taking an active role in the world and thus performing miracle(s) to carry forth his judgment. Miracles don't need to be explained logically.
@Shepherd1OFH a beetle is a KIND of animal and there for that goes perfectly with the bible. it says to of each KIND not one of every species. and while you say it doesn't need to be logical, god works through logic. we know how a rainbow works that doesn't mean god didn't do it. just because you can explain how a clock works doesn't mean it evolved, which a clock evolving is for more likely than a living thing, since it is more advanced is
@ahuntsman1107 It's a kind science calls an order, specifically the order Coleoptera. An order of Class insecta which is part of phylum Arthropoda. Where do you draw the line between one kind an another? Beetles as an order contain a plethora of families each of which contain all the more genus's which themselves contain a number of spiecies each.
Are you saying Noah took only one pair of stem beetles as a kind and you agree all of the rest of the beetles have evelved from them?
O my God!!!
Creationism is backed by more science and logic than evolution ever was and will be!!!
MrSupersayin10000 1 day ago
Funny, that 1st comic seemed hypocritical. Where's the fossil record?
BrotherhoodOfShadows 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have noted a distinct difference between atheists and theists - atheists seems to have a real small vocabulary - consisting basically of "fucking", "idiot" and "retarded." Come on guys - if you want to be taken seriously, please present some sort of on argument!
heinno777 2 weeks ago
DonExodus, You simply don´t know what you´re talking about. Stop wasting your time and give yourself to Jesus....
Theandy1000 1 month ago
@Theandy1000 unfortunatly, you have absoulty no reason to beieve in jesus other then faith and hope
nocontrol06 6 days ago
@nocontrol06 not just in the bible, but many other ancient documents (including the dead sea scrolls) mention jesus and what he did. In the bible, not to mention jesus, although written 2,000 years ago, all the places and events are factual, therefore the bible is a very reliable source
uconnhuskies32 4 days ago
@uconnhuskies32 I don't know where to begin. First, no historical evidence at all supports anything in the christian bible. To demonstrate this: There were no Jewish people in Ancient Egypt at the time of the Pharaohs. The only way to conceive of anything in there being even close to fact you have to either twist the stories, or the facts, to get it close to reality, and I mean really twist it.
KittenKoder 4 days ago
@uconnhuskies32
"not just in the bible, but many other ancient documents (including the dead sea scrolls) "
Same fairy tales. No external verification.
"all the places and events are factual"
Events? LOL NO!
gorilla199uncensored 3 days ago
@nocontrol06 Than is spelled with and a not an e, then is only used in regards to time.
Atheism is actually faithed based because there can be no evidence for a negative. There is lots of proof and evidence for a creator, the problem is an atheist would never believe it. If he did he would not be an atheist.
modernrocks 2 days ago
Oh I would love to sit down with this guy in person, the author of this video and actually correct him on quite a few things on what he thinks creationists are and believe.
cctman 1 month ago
Were the Finches important to Darwin in formulating his theory? NO
The Galapagos finches were not as important to Darwin as is often claimed, but they are a good example of micro-evolution. They show us that finches can vary in their morphology, and that natural selection has a role in this.
This study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
The problem that you have is that you don’t actually understand what you are cutting and pasting. The only reason someone would have to lie about their IQ (135 HA HA HA). Is because in reality it is tragically low. There is no point in answering any of this cut and paste bollocks because
1. You won’t understand the answers
2. You have no interest in learning
3. You don’t have the honesty to formulate questions of your own
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@stewpotb62
hi smelly cat
what are they feeding you LOL
the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as thought they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (The Blind Watchmaker)
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@stewpotb62
There is no point in answering any of you dumb smelly cat questions
because
1. You won’t understand the answers
2. You have no interest in learning
3. You don’t have the honesty to formulate questions of your own
you just make comments to promote your atheist agenda and attacks your betters
No reason to debate with you dogface
God back to the kennel troll
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
So that old creationist favorite the Cambrian explosion. The CE lasted millions of years. All life forms evolved from pre-Cambrian organisms. And finally. The CE in no way refutes evolution. In fact the theory predicts such events. Nice bit of research there
“No reason to debate with you dogface
God back to the kennel troll”
You don’t debate you cut and paste nonsense.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stewpotb62
There is no point in answering any of you dumb smelly cat questions
because
1. You won’t understand the answers
2. You have no interest in learning
3. You don’t have the honesty to formulate questions of your own
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stewpotb62
There is no point in answering any of you dumb smelly cat questions
because
1. You won’t understand the answers
2. You have no interest in learning
3. You don’t have the honesty to formulate questions of your own
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
virus units self assemble quite happily with no nervous system no motility no hormones no gametes etc
They are just a little bit of DNA or RNA in a protein coat
Is this alive?
It has genetic material?? It reproduces
If you can get your head round now these systems survive abiogenesis does not seem such a large leap
pinball1970 1 month ago
@pinball1970
This does not explain how life begins
The DNA infomation much come from somewhere.
Rocks have No DNA nor does any dead thing
No scientist has been able to produce life from nonlife
Common sense tells us some outside force must have been involved to produce life
Why can't this be God?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
evolution is not meant to explain abiogenesis
pinball1970 1 month ago
@pinball1970
abiogenesis is the same as multi universes
the changes for it being true are so unlikely it is considered impossible.
of course you can still have faith in such things
if you know what I mean
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
using words like “faith” in the context you mean when discussing scientific principles makes you look like an idiot – just to save you further embarrassment
pinball1970 1 month ago
@pinball1970
when you beleive thing are true when you lack proof I call this faith
What do you call it?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@pinball1970
You have faith in Abiogenesis sans evidence
Abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of life from non-life. It is also known as autogenesis and is similar to spontaneous generation, the idea that complex organisms spontaneously formed from non-living material. Abiogenesis has no scientific support, has not been observed in the laboratory, and there is no known mechanism by which life can form from non-life with its incredibly complex information structures in place.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
“Abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of life from non-life. It is also known” Etc..
So you needed to find out about abiogenesis. But instead of going to a science web-site for your information, you went straight to the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry web-site and cut, pasted and posted what ever bollocks they had on abiogenesis. This is the level of your honesty. It’s utterly pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@stewpotb62
Such witty put downs. Do you employ a scriptwriter?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
Carbon and most of the elements found in the universe are made in stars - this has been observed using spectral analysis
Carbon Oxygen Sulphur all the metals ie everything living matter is made of bar Hydrogen
The occurs naturally – no magic no Jesus
pinball1970 1 month ago
@pinball1970
life does not occur from non life
Naturally all life came from God and no magic spaceman
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002 "life does not occur from non life
Naturally all life came from God and no magic spaceman"
(assuming) you think god is life, where did he come from? you creatonist are so damn contradicting..
OpenMindGoodHerb420 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 Do you know how abiogenisis works? You should considering I posted this video thousands of times in our discussions.
youtu(dot)be/XhWds7djuWo
Madpolis7 1 month ago
@Madpolis7
Do you know how abiogenesis works?
I know it does not work in real life LOL
You can accept all the videos you like but no scientist can make created life from non life in the complexity we see in one cell
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 How can you reject something if you know nothing about it? Abiogensis doesn't create complex cells, it creates simple cells that then go through the evolutionary process to become more complex.
Madpolis7 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 so no magic spaceman, but a magic sky daddy is ok ? lol.
mandrillx 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from DonExodus2
@mrlucky1232002
1000's of organics have been observed out in space and inside meteors
formed perfectly naturally via basic building blocks heat pressure charge and time
no magic or god required
pinball1970 1 month ago
@pinball1970
So you beleive that space alien sent life particles out into space
Where did these life particles or organic come from?
you still have some outside force bring life to this planets
What evidence do you think exsit for organics in space LOL
Seem you have watched Spaceballs too meany times
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
I do not just believe they have been OBSERVED
where do they come from ? good question - same place all organic matter comes from stars
pinball1970 1 month ago
@pinball1970
same place all organic matter comes from stars
A star is a ball of gas and no organic matter has ever been taken from a star
even if you idea about matter coming from a star is true
that still leaves the question of how did it get there?
are you saying living matter always existed?
it was just there
do you also beleive by faith that the universe was just there?
no big bang not beginning at all
you don't seem to care about science when it does not support you
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
have you actually read any of the papers regarding this?
One meteor in particular was found to be as old the solar system and had very strong evidence of extra terrestrial organic matter
pinball1970 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pinball1970
very strong evidence of extra terrestrial organic matter
are you saying you think life came from extra terrestrials/
What did they come from than
still the same problem as far a the beginning of life goes don't you think?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@pinball1970
Do you know how abiogenisis works?
One meteor in particular was found to be as old the solar system and had very strong evidence of extra terrestrial organic matter
Hey pinball you and Madpolis should get together and compare notes
Do you believe in abiogensis BTW LOL
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
Abiogenesis? Of course as I do not think a creator had anything to do with it
I suppose you are ok with your creator having no need for a creator?
pinball1970 1 month ago
@pinball1970
virus units self assemble quite happily with no nervous system no motility no hormones no gametes etc
a single virus cell have DNA infomation enough to fill 1,000s of books
Just saying
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@pin baby
you believe life naturally occured by faith alone
Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA, wrote:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it goin
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
why would something micro evolve and then stop?
Where is the cut off? If the climate food source competition changes natural selection will continue
100,000yrs of micro evolution may yield larger changes
What about 10million yrs or 200million yrs worth of micro evolutions?
pinball1970 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pinball1970
why would something micro evolve and then stop?
Some reason the universe expands at a certain rate and never changes
gravity stays the same
a species changes in small ways within limits
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@pinball1970
100,000yrs of micro evolution may yield larger changes
However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
which chemical laws is evolution violating?
pinball1970 1 month ago
@pinball1970
chemicals don't spring into life ever
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
As it turns out, evolutionists all believe in primordial soup, but they have no idea what it is, and cannot prove it ever existed.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 Primordial soup is just a term referring to the elements that existed on the planet billions of years ago, generally meaning the mix of chemicals in sea water.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1
Nobody knows what primordial soup is, and nobody has ever observed or proven that non-living matter turns into life; they simply believe in it. But, let’s keep going. We’re bound to find some evidence eventually.
This belief in future evidence seem religious to me
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 Actually, it's you that doesn't know what the term means.
The Miller - Urey experiment and other similar experiments show that amino acids can form naturally. They are the building blocks of life. Exactly how the first simple life forms began isn't known yet. That's not surprising, since it happened a few billion years ago. Until the last few hundred years, we didn't even know about electricity.
Making up a magical,conveniently invisible being isn't a logical explanation.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1
"Making up a magical,conveniently invisible process for life that is mathematically impossible isn't a logical explanation."
Since we find don't find evidence of any species linked to another in the fossil record, it requires faith (belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary) to believe that evolution from one species to another happen.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
Charles Darwin recognised that a problem of his theory of evolution was to produce life itself. he wrote if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive [of] some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
The Miller - Urey experiment
This was supposed to replicate the primeval atmosphere on the Earth.You will notice that there is an absence of oxygen and nitrogen(their model) which are the main elemental constituents of our present environment. The problem recognised by Miller and his colleagues was that oxygen would destroy any organic material in the experiment and certainly in the period of time they allocated to the early period on the planet. For example, when we die, we decay.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
evolutionary scientists have proposed that the early Earth had no elemental oxygen. It would, in fact, be a “reducing atmosphere”, the opposite of the modern oxidising one. (They go on to hypothesise that this would gradually change as primitive life produced it). However, the evidence for this reducing atmosphere is very tenuous. Increasingly we are finding from geological and palaeontological research that an oxygen-based atmosphere must have existed from the earliest times
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
The Miller - Urey experiment
contains Major flaws
Basically, this argument is saying,
Raw materials + Energy ⇒ Life molecules.
But this omits an important factor. In any process that leads to complexity there must be an information source. For example, in photosynthesis a complex system involving chlorophyll captures energy from the sun and uses it to build molecules from raw materials. Can you imagine shaking a flask containing the basic materials for the production of life?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1
you need magic for your building blocks to come alive.LOL
One textbook, edited by Soper summarises the situation well (p. 883):
Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
I see you’re back to cutting and pasting from creationist / religious web-sites yet again. You’re last five posts have been lifted word for word from ‘truth in science’ (oh the irony). Do you feel it is acceptable to learn your science from religious web-sites. Given that these sites have a known agenda, do think you should simply parrot their nonsense without any fact checking? Here’s a thought. Try and have an original thought rather than copying all the time
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@stewpotb62
hey smelly cat Happy new year
facts from scientists scare you LOL
Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote,
You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
Seeing as how you love cutting and pasting so much this is lifted straight from the ‘truth in science’ web-site:
“The Board of Directors and members of the Council of Reference are all Christians with traditional Biblical beliefs”
“We highlight the scientific evidence which is contrary to the Neo-Darwinian paradigm, and expose the ideological bias which hides or ignores such evidence”
So no bias there then.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
this is the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation
Prof Francis Crick,on accidental origin of life on Earth, said, The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.”Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@gorrila199uncensored
Also am I not allowed to believe in the bible and also agree with somethings science proves? If you didn't read the rest of my comment it basically said that I believe God created everything. Science is included in everything. So what every we discover through Science reminds me how great our God is.
lucaswellsacus 2 months ago
I believe the bible. Did you read the rest of my comment?
lucaswellsacus 2 months ago
I'm a Christian and I love Science. The more Scientists study the origin of life and how the Universe started the more I believe that there is a high power being. The complexity of living things from a Human being down to a single cell. There is no way that life began in chemical reaction.
bernardotado 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bernardotado
"I'm a Christian"
"the more I believe that there is a high power being."
Who failed with its story book! Created the universe, and cant even educate xtians what an xtian is! LOL
I DONT THINK SO!
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
I'm a christian. I also believe a lot of what scientist prove are true (because I'm not an idiot) I believe that God could have used the big bang to create the world. Since I believe God created everything he must have created Science. So at least for me ,and please tell me if you think I'm acting like a smart alike because I'm really not all that smart, I think everything we discover through science points more to there being a God.
lucaswellsacus 2 months ago
@lucaswellsacus
"I'm a christian. I also believe a lot of what scientist prove are true (because I'm not an idiot) "
Well since you agree the bible is full of lies, mistakes and contradictions how can you pretend any of it is true?
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
@MinkBomb The most compelling argument is that sexual selection intervened, like a peahen choosing a peacock with the prettiest tail. By choosing mates selectively, the pre-humans with the most language ability and creativity procreated.
Check out The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley.
zhalfirim 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respond to this video... Hey everyone check out the probability of chance video on my channel!
Jusstfnsk8 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
can be trusted...
Vict0r1984 3 months ago
was the most criminal system in human history? You would say yes if you listened to history classes, but in reality, the capitalist free market system causes the death of 6 million African children every year by starvation and lack of public health care in the continent, so it kills just as much people as the Holocaust in less than one year... The best way of learning is indeed to challenge every thesis you hear, but if you don't want/have time to do it, scientists are probably the only ones who
Vict0r1984 3 months ago
ancient myths with no logical basis... Yet, science is pretty much trustable (and evolution is science since the 20th century...), because, as I explained earlier, it has no ego, so it constantly corrects itself it it is wrong. History and politics, on the other hand, are full of lies and propaganda. While it is clear that WW2 took place in Europe between 3 September 1939 and May the 9th 1945, or that Nazi Germany built concentration camps almost in every conquered state,is it clear that Fascism
Vict0r1984 3 months ago
@pillowhole: Science does not have sides or egos like politics, economics and religion, so the only thing you should do to see all the facts is being logical. While deism can't be refuted by logical arguments and is just as plausible as atheism, (at our level of scientific knowledge) creation has been proven wrong by science more than 100 years ago. Of course propaganda is everywhere in our societies and you mustn't be naive and believe every theory you hear without research,but religions remain
Vict0r1984 3 months ago
Creationists are like pedophiles.
They find trusting, vulnerable children.
They tell the children that what they have to offer is harmless and good.
Then they screw the children over for life.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago 23
@ndrthrdr1
The funny part is that a lot of creationists(Catholic Priests) ARE pedophiles.
NorthCitySider 2 months ago
@NorthCitySider
You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
mrlucky1232002 2 months ago
@mrlucky1232002 Since my atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god(s), just as I have no belief in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster (due to lack of evidence of their existence), my atheism is perfectly logical.
I'm not certain that none of these things exist, but I really doubt that any of them do.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1
there are a billion people at least that believe in Jesus Christ and no one except for a few nuts believe in Big foot or Nessy LOL
You realy think the is no evidence for Jesus"
There is much evidence for Jesus silly boy
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 Actually, there are nearly 2 billion Christians out of 7 billion people on the planet. That doesn't make them right. Distribution of religions around the world shows that most people simply adopt the religion of those around them.
It wasn't that long ago that most people believed that the Earth was flat, but they were wrong.
The Pew Institute collects data on religious beliefs. If you Google their studies, you'll see that even many Christians now know that evolution's real.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndrthrdr1
"It wasn't that long ago that most people believed that the Earth was flat, but they were wrong"
you seem to believe in an atheist myth sir
People did not just learn the earth was round with Columbus silly boy
Around 300 BC is when most people know the earth was not flat
The reason you think the atheist myth is true is a book by Washington Irving called the adventures of Columbus.
Christian believe that Micro Evo happens within species by the design of God
Is that what you mean?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1 Aren't you being a little cruel to paedophiles?
therealjammit 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I am sorry someone screwed you up so badly
I will be you will be healed and that you can find peace
Evolution is not a religion and a poor substitute for the love of Jesus
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 You're right - evolution isn't a religion, it's just a reality of nature, like gravity and other scientific theories. To become a widely accepted scientific theory, it must be based on a large number of observable, verifiable facts.
If you add up the generations from Adam and Eve on down to Jesus, you'll see that the first people couldn't have appeared until about 11,000 years ago at the most. Some say only 6.000 years.
We have human tools and fossils millions of years old.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1
You're right - evolution isn't a religion, it's just a reality of nature
This statement is true about Micro evolution also known as adaptation.
However those that have faith that big changes MUST have happen because we can see small changes do so by faith and not science. This is when a belief becomes a religion with group think like a religion
These poor souls cannot even consider they may be wrong and refuse to consider new evidence. To them MACRO is true no matter what people say
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 Small changes add up to big changes over millions (and billions) of years. Since we find evidence of this pattern over and over in the fossil record, it requires faith (belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary) to believe that evolution from one species to another DIDN'T happen.
I hope that my lottery ticket wins millions of dollars, but I don't believe that this will happen. Why? Because there's no evidence that it will win. Faith won't make it true.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
Open mind to both,you'll never comprehend if your one sided, you'll be at a stuck point unable to progress. So many findings yet covered up and frauds.
pillowhole 4 months ago
God is great ! He works through evolution
MrCobra811 4 months ago
Humans should actually be proud that they have survived the ruthless test of nature and survived to become the most successful speices within 5000 lightyears.
aaqucnaona94 4 months ago
Excellent, very concise.
bkroberts89 4 months ago
Transitional Forms should outnumber any one species one quasi stage !!!
YET
There is NOT a single :Kind" of Animal in which this takes Place !!!
thats impossible if Evolution were true !!!!
it's like only drawing the same number outta a deck of cards every time !!!!
Obvious law of Averages, all other numbers would Always outnumber any ONE Number, Creation is so Obviously what fits the evidence !!!!
ncwdane 5 months ago
@ncwdane "Creation" fits any kind of evidence. That's why it's not falsifiable. That's why it's not science.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn Niether creation or Evolution are science
Creation & Evolution are two different hypothesis
It Just so happens that science & evidence supports the Creation Model, hands down
In cant help that, & if it happens to point towards a creator God, then so be it !!!!
ncwdane 5 months ago
@ncwdane Creationism is not even a hypothesis. For that it must be falsifiable. It is not.
Evolution is a full blown theory, i.e. a body of concepts tested over and over again and found to comply with the observed evidence *although* it is falsifiable.
They are not the same.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn You Got a Point
Creationism is just a Matter of Fact !
Deal with it
Your gonna look like a fool trying to explain to God different !!!!
ncwdane 5 months ago
@ncwdane Matter of fact, creationism is bullshit.
There, fixed that for you.
TomFynn 5 months ago
Comment removed
ncwdane 5 months ago
I'm a Christian, but I don't bring God into arguments about evolution. I'm one of the few people who is Christian, heavily supportive of science, and know that evolution is completely false.
wasdare32 5 months ago
@wasdare32 lol who is not supportive of science? The fact you can not accept evolution means you have no idea what sciece is.
d4nilipe 5 months ago
@d4nilipe So you want me to believe something that breaks two long standing laws of science? No thanks. I'll stick with thinking with my own brain instead of believing what "scientists" tell me.
wasdare32 5 months ago
@wasdare32 Breaks two long standing laws? Which?
PointlessSteel 5 months ago
@PointlessSteel Second law of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis.
wasdare32 5 months ago
@wasdare32 Second law of thermodynamics is not violated, since it applies in closed systems, yet the earth is an open system. And biogenesis wouldn't be conflicting with evolution but abiogenesis. Turns out they don't exclude each other. Biogenesis says spontaneous generation can't happen. Abiogenesis says that organic material (which is not 'life') can come into existence from the molecules and atoms that we consider important for life, like nitrogen, sulfur, etc.
PointlessSteel 5 months ago
@wasdare32 looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool! That is ridiculous. Do you even understand the second law of thermodynamics? lol you r funny.
d4nilipe 4 months ago
@d4nilipe The five laws of thermodynamics deal with energy transfer in open and closed systems, so yes I'm familiar with it.
wasdare32 4 months ago
@wasdare32 how in the world are those two laws relevant in evolution. Law of biogenesis sais that life does not come from non-organic material.. Well, evolution never addresses how life arose, only how existing life evolved. You're thinking about abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution.
2nd law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed system, how the hell can you think that earth or a cell is a closed system??
I think you're being fairly arrogant, I doubt you have looked this up..
nejtilsvampe 4 months ago
@nejtilsvampe But evolution doesn't exist if life didn't arise from basic chemicals and progress to the complexity it is today. So in my opinion, evolution and the theory of life arising from a pool of chemicals go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. I'm pretty much done arguing with people because I've realized that evolution can't be proven to be right or wrong. You either believe or you don't, and everyone seems to be an expert on it.
wasdare32 4 months ago
@wasdare32 no.. you're being wilfully ignorant. ONCE life arose, no matter how it went down, life evovled. Lets say the first cell was created by god, that wouldn't discredit evolution at all ! Abiogenesis and evolution don't have anything to do with eachother, you must see the distinction! Evolution is an observable fact..
It's like, if particle physics is wrong, that doesn't mean the theory of electricity is wrong.. It's two completely seperate issues.
nejtilsvampe 4 months ago
@nejtilsvampe But evolution is a change in DNA. There's no known natural process that adds DNA to a genome. Things can change, but not like evolution says. In order for a wing to come from an arm, extra DNA has to be created to make it happen. But everything is born with a specific amount of DNA and that can't change. Animals today have to same amount of DNA as the same animals that lived a long time ago. They're just slightly different because of mutations, not adding of DNA.
wasdare32 4 months ago
@wasdare32
talkorigins org/indexcc/CB/CB102
nejtilsvampe 4 months ago
@wasdare32 talkorigins org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Forget the last comment, link does not work without .html in the end.
nejtilsvampe 4 months ago
@nejtilsvampe Youtube is bad about links but I got it to work. There are some rare occurances where it happpens, but the vast majority of this adding of information, and the vast majority of evolution evidence. happens only in a sterile, very controlled, perfect lab environment where the animals were forced to change. The things that happen in a lab just aren't going to happen in nature, which is exactly what evolution is supposed to be; natural.
wasdare32 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wasdare32
"But evolution is a change in DNA. There's no known natural process that adds DNA to a genome"
- ..you mean like a gene duplication...?
"Things can change, but not like evolution says" - the evidence begs to differ
"Extra DNA has to be created to make it happen" - if a gene duplicates and then the copy mutates, what exactly do you think you have?
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wasdare32
"So you want me to believe something that breaks two long standing laws of science? No thanks. I'll stick with thinking with my own brain instead of believing what "scientists" tell me."
If you don't believe what scientists say, why do you believe in laws of science?
odinata 5 months ago
How to debate creationists: Push them off a cliff.
jjjmanyo 6 months ago
@jjjmanyo How to debate evolutionists: Let them push you off a cliff and let them suffer on the judgement day.
killsome49 5 months ago
@killsome49 lol your only argument is blind faith. The difference is I was parodying the dense nature of most debates with Christians where they simply state they are right while providing pseudo-facts. You sir, have proved my point.
jjjmanyo 5 months ago
@killsome49 Possibility of judgement day happening: Less than 0.1%
PointlessSteel 5 months ago
@PointlessSteel Possibility of a watch originated from a rock by itself accidentally and a complex airplane coming out of a junkyard hit by a typhoon all by itself without being created:
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
killsome49 5 months ago
@killsome49 I'm not even sure it is possible. Not a watch and an airplane, at least.
PointlessSteel 5 months ago
Excellent video.
Zeroxidy 6 months ago
Debating creations gives me a headache...
Hornadayfan 6 months ago 22
@Hornadayfan it can be fun. whenever im really really bored i just log on to youtube and pick out a nice one. 5 hour entertainment guaranteed.
elCommentante 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hornadayfan see Roger Morneau ex Satanist pt 5
Darwin is a religion
IdaSputum 2 months ago
thumbs up for this vid!
AtheistBelgium 7 months ago
Thanks Don, it's hard not to just call them ID-iots.
Ask them, ''If God made the first cell, then you would 'believe' in evolution?''
gregrutz 7 months ago 4
@gregrutz No I still wouldn't
RespectMyHate 4 months ago
@RespectMyHate Then you are brainwashed. Plane and simple, closed minded and brainwashed.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@larry141094
Well great, neither do I. But my question was to DonExodus. Thats not you, is it?
Koekjedrbij1 7 months ago
I have to ask you Don, I`ve seen many of your video`s. This one is more about form over content, but the ones with actual contant seem to stand fairly well in scientific perspective. Your rationality seems fine. Obviously you are at least fairly intelligent.
How the f*ck is it possible that you believe in god(s) ? I just don`t get it, when I see how you value evidence and intellectual honousty: what is your evidence for god(s) ?
Koekjedrbij1 8 months ago
Creationism insults me as a christian, because, creationism is about not comunicating, and in general responsible for uter destruction of nature, for they don't see a nature like something it should be taken care of but a loyal slave of humanity, what is manin cause of ecologocal and biological holocaust over non-human-aprowed species.
powerfly777 8 months ago
all i understood from this video :
darwin is a monkey
not everything can evolve , only the things they want
and we are created from dust
my response :
nothing evolves.
we are not made of dust , dumass?!
i am a muslim and i say that , only adam was created from mud , not any mud also , so why are u angry ? we get it
you worship a monkey? goodluck
UnholyStrikes 8 months ago
Debating Creationists Part I: Dinosaur fossils
Part II: Carbon dating
Part III: Vestigial structures
Part IV: "I'm sure we agree that Zeus doesn't exist, right?"
Part V: The Bible
....
Part 798: Jesus as a ripoff of deities from other religions
....
bamaredd91 8 months ago
@bamaredd91 a ripoff, hm? what makes him a ripoff?
madjack141 8 months ago
@madjack141 Death and resurrection, like Dionysus in Greek myth and others I don't remember; Virgin birth, at least one of the Hindu gods; pretty much Jesus' entire background is a mashup of the origins of other deities before him. Have you seen Zeitgeist by Peter Joseph (I think that's his name.... wow, my memory is horrible)? You should check that out.
bamaredd91 8 months ago
@bamaredd91 i might check it out... actually Jesus is a mash up of prophecies in the bible. Not other religions.
madjack141 8 months ago
why do you guys like to make such a big deal on creation vs. evolution? are the creationists really that inferior?
madjack141 8 months ago
@madjack141 Yes
TheNightwing01 8 months ago
@TheNightwing01 how so?
madjack141 8 months ago
@madjack141 Lack of understanding of basic scientific principles.
TheNightwing01 8 months ago
@TheNightwing01 what if they do have understanding of scientific principles?
madjack141 8 months ago
@madjack141 Then they are lying, or misleading their flock so to speak.
TheNightwing01 8 months ago
@TheNightwing01 misleading their flock? oh please....there is more than enough scientific evidence going more towards creationism.
madjack141 8 months ago
@madjack141 Where?
TheNightwing01 8 months ago
@TheNightwing01 around you. the world. if you want details, I can go further...
madjack141 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@madjack141 Right 99% of biological scientist got it wrong, and you and your mythical book got it right.
TheNightwing01 8 months ago
@TheNightwing01 Yes 99% of biological scientist got it wrong and you and your mythical book have it right.
TheNightwing01 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@madjack141
"there is more than enough scientific evidence going more towards creationism. "
funny, that you are the only person who sees it...
could you point me in the right direction? maybe cite a source... that IS what you should do when you want to quote scientific literature...
but i hope we can both agree that 'science' that hasn't passed peer-review isn't really science, so i hope we can restrict our citations to peer-reviewed sources...
is that a problem? of course it is...
Arteanor 8 months ago
Comment removed
klm4298 7 months ago
ok people just because you know how something works doesn't mean god did it. the fact is if god did it with "magic" (as you make Christians out to believe) you would still say "we know how it works so it wasn't god". you are just being ignorant.
ahuntsman1107 8 months ago
but DonExodus2, if evolution is true (acording to natural selection, which is a fact) how can someone still believe that god had a plan for humans?
gulbirk 8 months ago
You're referring to rhetoric, and I believe that creationists and dawinists could both use a lesson in Aristotle as well.
CRhetoric1 8 months ago
236 people are creationists
SnakeSalmon8izback 9 months ago
@SnakeSalmon8izback 236 people are also retarded.
legionmantis 8 months ago
@SnakeSalmon8izback you say that like it is a bad thing when he is directly attacking us
ahuntsman1107 8 months ago
@ahuntsman1107 uhm...sure....okay...whatever you say
SnakeSalmon8izback 8 months ago
Neanderthal man probably had a defiency or arthritis. plus the ridges over your eyes never stop growing, and muscles always pulling at the back of your skull will elongate it. under the extreme pressure and sediment displacement of the flood the dead animals would quickly fossilize or liquidated. any questions.
ahuntsman1107 9 months ago
i dont like your comment about "creationist dont understand science". that is comlettly untrue. just because i look at the same evidence that you have from a different angle dosnt mean i dont know what you think. just like you obviesly dont know much about the ark. if they were babies then they would take up much less space. and dinosaurs, lizerds never stop growing. so under the best circinstamses they would grow to collosoal sizes. once again eggs would take much less space up
ahuntsman1107 9 months ago
@ahuntsman1107 Even if you take only two eggs, a male and female of each one, there are still more species of beetle let alone anything else than what can fit in the arc if it was only as big as it was on the outside.
It's a mistake for our ilk to try and find "logical" explanations for how everyone could fit on the arc. The arc represents G'd taking an active role in the world and thus performing miracle(s) to carry forth his judgment. Miracles don't need to be explained logically.
Shepherd1OFH 8 months ago
@Shepherd1OFH a beetle is a KIND of animal and there for that goes perfectly with the bible. it says to of each KIND not one of every species. and while you say it doesn't need to be logical, god works through logic. we know how a rainbow works that doesn't mean god didn't do it. just because you can explain how a clock works doesn't mean it evolved, which a clock evolving is for more likely than a living thing, since it is more advanced is
ahuntsman1107 8 months ago
@ahuntsman1107 It's a kind science calls an order, specifically the order Coleoptera. An order of Class insecta which is part of phylum Arthropoda. Where do you draw the line between one kind an another? Beetles as an order contain a plethora of families each of which contain all the more genus's which themselves contain a number of spiecies each.
Are you saying Noah took only one pair of stem beetles as a kind and you agree all of the rest of the beetles have evelved from them?
Shepherd1OFH 8 months ago
@Shepherd1OFH that is actually exactly what i mean.
ahuntsman1107 8 months ago
@ahuntsman1107 What makes the order of beetles count only as one kind, but not the order of, say primates?
Shepherd1OFH 8 months ago