Something that is untestable might just as well not exist.
I mean, what's the difference right?
If god can manipulate matter, answer prayers or talk to people, create miracles and so on.. shouldn't that be testable? The answering prayers part is like the easiest demonstration imaginable, yet no results what so ever has been in favor of any religious group...
I encourage theists to get together and make a pray experiment - UNDER LABARATORY CONDITIONS - and test your claims, scientifically!!
@nejtilsvampe lets make it simpler for u. you asked you boss for something. The boss is the decider you can't make him do what you want because he has the ability to fire you. but you can show him how hard worker and sincere you are for him to consider your demands. you are living in God's universe and are created by God who has the absolute ability. He is Almighty all hearing, all seeing, and provider who is incomparably great and the universe is an obvious sign for that.
@Tfkeerful aha.. how is it obvious? Sure for the sake of argument I'll grant that there exists a deity. How do you know it's YOUR god and not one of the other billions of god claims out there?
And you didn't really address my comment. Why is it that theists only claim and claim and claim, and never do any actual research? Make ONE testable prediction based on your god hypothesis and test for it! THEN you can make a an honest claim based on rationality for a change...
@nejtilsvampe I'm a Muslim and believe that God has no resemblance to his creations neither has a son nor partner. so he is ONE. check any web for more info.
I think atheist are the ones who started the claims of no God thing with no concrete evidence. Another thing, there are these laws in science where they can know something is there by looking at its work and signs but does it indicates they are not there? look at the universe its a sign test the universe its God's most powerful creation
@Tfkeerful Idc if you're a muslim, jew, christian whatever.. if you think atheists are the ones who claim god doesn't exist you're an idiot and the conversation is over..
@Tfkeerful afaik it was moses that came up with the idea that the voices the crazy guy heard is a god, and eventually people started to belief his crazy nonsense and monotheism was born.
@Aanthanur wow! monotheism is something you born believing in. you know there is a Creator and He is the Most Powerful all Hearing all Seeing without somebody tells you.
@Tfkeerful no, lucky my parents were not religious freaks and tought me about many different religions and what their followers believed. but my mother herself was not part of any religion, she is a deist. I went to Christian schools and their indoctrination didn't work as i knew already to much about religions and was already a skeptic.
@Tfkeerful i have looked into it seriously, i have read the koran, i went true 2 dawahs. I have Muslim friends that told me alot about their religion. But for mereligions cannot compete with science. Science provides evidence for their theories, religions requires blind faith for their beliefs. and i am a rational person that tries to only belief stuff based on evidence. and the main point. Science changes when new evidence is found. Religion does not.
@Tfkeerful and religions refusal to change is the reason why so many educated people laugh at religions, i mean like Islam , many moslems claim scientific accuracy in the koran, and then point to parts of the koran that uses greek knowledge to explain embryology. back then this was amazing knowledge, but today we know it was wrong and we know alot more about embryology. But the koran did not update its claims and moslems still think this wrong information is somehow perfect.
@Aanthanur did you study that versus of the Koran yourself or did you read someone's own interpretation? . Secondly, why would believing in One Creator that is Most Powerful all Hearing and All knowing that is nothing else is like Him contradict or does not suit some scientists?
@Aanthanur does it really need a "scientific evidence"? to believe of one creator? I mean what is your scientific "theory" of creation? don't you think that there is a God and He is not like any of His creation? because such a sophisticated perfectly created world isn't logically be created by chance, you know
@Tfkeerful you belief this planet is perfect? i don't think so. perfect for what exactly?
i have no theory of creation, but there is a theory of evolution that is able to explain the diversity of life. and yes, when you propose the existence of a creator, especially a specific creator like Moslems belief Allah to be, it needs scinetific evidence for me. i have not seen any evidence that would sugest the existence of such a creator. and mostly the arguments are from ignorance,
@Aanthanur because He is One, there is nothing like Him, for example, God see and other living things might see as well, but God's seeing is absolute and perfect and it is nothing like our seeing sense. you can read under "Tawheed" which means to assert the oneness of something. There you can see why not worship a statue or a creator and who the creator is.
@Tfkeerful how do you know all those attributes of your god? just because a book claims so? or have you actually seen any evidence? when we cannot even find evidence for his existence, how can we know its attributes? and when you say our world cannto be do to chance, how did your creator that is even far more complex and allegedly more perfect, come into existence?
@Aanthanur you know when you believe. and your question of the Creator existence is simple, again, He is like nothing else, if you created a table, does this table's characteristics are the same as yours? this is something we don't necessarily realize or imagine.
@Tfkeerful :) you know when you believe? it is amazing, hindus would say the same about their creator, so who is right hindis or abrahamitic believers? just knowing something has not the same characteristics as you have does in no way tell you the characteristics that it really has. so your statement does not make much sense to a rational thinking person.
@Aanthanur yes, you know when you believe. well, this is for you to search, who is worthy of worshiping. but lets say that you believe there is a Creator but you are quite unsure. Rationally, the world would be created by only One God, otherwise it would be a mess if there are more. your post is quite informative. I got to know a religion that believe God is one. what I found unrealistic is the concept of punishment. I mean the bad ones should be punished because the Creator is Just.
@Tfkeerful well so far i have not heard of a god worthy of whorshipping, but i honestly don't know much about those Hindu gods. But the Abrahamitic god YHWH or as you call him Allah/God is in my eyes not worthy of worshipping, i don't want to offend you, but that is how i see it. especially considering the alleged global flood, wich is essentially genocide on a much larger level than Hitler. totaly unjust in my book. or Soddom and Gomorah. horrible.
@Aanthanur also from the Koran, i learned, my deeds play not as much a role as my belief. So i could be the best person of the world, and stick to al sharia laws or do some amazing things like inventing a cure that saves billions over the years. when i did not belief in him as a god, i would be in trouble. this is extremely unjust. especially when he created me, then it would have been him that gave me my rational thinking and my skepticism. but then i get punished for it? unfair
@Aanthanur Inventing a cure is what we call in Islam a forever good deed which stays until you die. in a Hadeeth it mentions the best deeds after one dies are: a beneficial knowledge, a well-raised children and charity that lasts forever like planting a tree or building a school. And yes you would be in trouble if you don’t believe in the One God that’s a common sense and this is justice even if you can’t see it for He is your Creator.
@Tfkeerful even if i would belief him to be the creator of everything, i would not just accept whatever he does as just just because he is the creator. when i regard his actions as immoral, then i see it that way, no matter if he is the creator of everything.
and labeling a human as lower as animals and the lowest there is just because he is an atheist, i regard that as extremely unjust. and that is what the koran does. and allegedly that is his will or words. so for me he is immoral.
@Aanthanur To make things clear, even if you don’t care, Islam and Abrahmitic are totally different even if they look similar. Allah is worthy of worshipping but you haven’t realize it yet. Natural disasters are causing deaths but research has shown great benefits caused by them. There is wisdom behind everything.
@Tfkeerful eerm Islam is one of the Abrahamic (إبراهيم Ibrāhīm,) religions. it has the same god, Allah=YHWH=God. while tere are large differences, it is not to find in the god, but for example the prophets, you belief jesus was aprophet, Christians belief he was the son of god or even god himself, depends on wich christian cult. Jews don't even see Jesus as a prophet, but as a false prophet. but Adam and eve, YHWH/Allah, Abraham, Moses etc etc is all the same.
@Aanthanur I see, certainly the teaching of Islam is quite different. However, Ibrahim with no doubt is God's messenger and he was a Muslim as well as all messenger were.
@Tfkeerful how can he be a Muslim when allegedly Mohammad, the founder of Islam, is the descendant of Abraham through Ishmael? if anything, he would have been a jew.
@Aanthanur Islam is the Arabic word for (submission) - submitting to Almighty God (Allah) in heart, soul and deed-. (Muslim) is the person. and all messengers were Muslims
@Tfkeerful ah in that sense ok, but not in the sense we in the west undesrtand the word islam. here we understand it as a follower of the rligion called Islam, wich would be impossible as it was not founded yet, Funny thing is, jews say all prophets were jews, Christians say they were all Christians and moslems claim they are all moslems :) pretty confusing for me
@Tfkeerful and don't mistake my posts as an attempt to try to convince you that your belief is wrong. i will not be able to do that nor do i even want that. i merely explain detailed why i do not belief in gods.
@DaveASL It's your job to do that.. you're the ones that claim it's true. I don't know what your expectations are...
But I suppose you could do something like this.
Gather a large number of christians (or whatever) and give them a picture of 1000 people who have an untreatable disease of some kind. Let them pray for these people and then lets see if the survival rate increases or decreases compared to what is expected from natural causes.
@nejtilsvampe however, god or no god, if someone's gonna die, they are gonna DIE. even if you do that experiment, you can't prove that any results you get were actually BECAUSE of praying about it. religion is just something u can't test.. if your religion directly conflicts with good science, then you should probably rethink your ideas. however if your science and religion just don't always see eye to eye, who cares...? is it really that important..?
@DaveASL I have never mentioned proof, I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence. And if you care about wether or not your beliefs are true, then ofcourse evidence is important. If you simply don't care then fine believe what you want...
You're thinking about the individuals.. You can't determine what the cause of every single persons survival was.. But by the law of large numbers, chance should be eliminated, so there has to be an external explanation if the experiment is a succes
@DaveASL Actually they have done double blind studies on the subject of praying for people with some sort of condition. They failed horribly every time.
Exactly. Religion can't be proven because the conditions it sets up for itself make it impossible. So, by that little fact we would like religion to stay the hell out of our social, technological and scientific progress... no matter how right they think they are. If they can't show that it's true they shouldn't base any opinions of public life on it either.
>> Yes, it does destroy it. Everything decays over time, says the second law of Thermodynamics.
>>Yes, so far the Big Bang is the only concept of the start of the world in Evolution.
Conservation of Angular Momentum says that a spinning object of which parts break of, those parts their energy always stays conserved unless it discovers resistance. It did not get influenced by resistance, thus the conservation is still present. Learn your laws.
If only I had a dollar for every time a creationist mangles thermodynamics in order to push his agenda.
Apparently taking the creation story in genesis literally is srs bzness, but the part about "thou shalt not bear false witness" was more of a metaphor.
@AntiTheocracy "If only I had a dollar for every time a creationist mangles thermodynamics in order to push his agenda."
Ironic huh? That creationists have been known to make shitloads of money, every time they purposefully mangle thermodynamics...or evolution...or logic...or reason...or reality in general...or the truth...
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
the strongest EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG IS NOT MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN IT.. WOW.. im surprise on how people go to extreme heights to defend religion. take a look at this example if a person tries to peek into space using hubble telescope and discovered what he believes to be a planet, does it make him WRONG because only himself believes in it.. OH NO I HOPE NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE LIKE THIS.
The reason so few people believe in it, is because the mass of the human race wants there to be a divine paternal figure. Their brains aren't big enough for anything else.
I think it's safe to say through the average interpretation given by Christians that they never actually tried to understand evolution. Because I still hear them refer to "monkeys" and how evolution makes no sense because "the world's only 10 thousand years old, and God made us not random evolutionary chance".
I wasn't. Lol I was a bit afraid you were going to think my statement was meant to attack yours. On the contrary. I agreed with everything you said. I was merely trying to add to your comment.
Evolution is the only thing that makes any amount of sense. Given the number of different creatures in the world... I mean, how the hell would Noah have been able to sustain several thousand creatures for 190 days? Each with varying diets and natural climates. Woulda been messy.
@IsolationInstigation im a christian.. and i wanted to believe in God but hearing arguments and debates about religion and science made me feel sad that my belief (christianity) is just as stupid as believing that life came from the cracks of a beautiful bamboo tree.. but i still hope there is God.. probably a pre bing bang God or a post Big Bang God meaning a life form capable of creating another life form. the idea of lifeform creating new lifeform is not stupid i think.
Then it sounds more like you're a Deist. Believe me, Deism is 100 times more believable than Theism. Atleast they don't lie to themselves about everything.
I didn't take from your original comment that you might be a Christian... I guess we do disagree on a few things. But I do respect that you're atleast capable of understanding that The Bible isn't the most absolute truth about the origin and nature of the world.
@princerexor brother the LORD GOD of the bible that you have beleived in is not false
one arguement you may not have heard is this according to the laws of thermodynamics
the big bang is impossible. this is becuase the big bang in a nutshell is the idea that a very compacted speck exploded and then cuased the formation of the universe. however matter/energy cant be created or destroyed. and energy needs a concious guidance to become matter. only GOD could do this. go to drdino.com
@dyhongloong i dont believe in any god my friend.. they are just stories. you brought up the law of thermodynamics and i am not someone who understands and can explain that law.. well then let me ask you what are other laws of thermodynamics?
brought something up in which we both can understand.
the first law of thermodynamics is matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed
the second law is that if energy is added without a guiding force it always cuases destruction
also if the big bang(only possible way for evolution to be true) were true then according to the law of conservaton of angular momentum all planets and galaxies would spin the same way...they dont.
why is that then? GOD made it that way just to make the big bang and evolution look ridiculous
@dyhongloong wow sir you can state the laws of thermodynamics im honest i dont understand what you are talking about.. why not submit a paper to the scientific community and have your point proven validated and published.. you are talking real science concept here.. i bet you are a man who doesnt believe in fairy tale... well naked people created from mud, talking snake, wood turned into snake, parted waters, dead came back to life, LONG HAIR = GREAT POWER SHORT HAIR = NO POWER
@dyhongloong if the scientific community can disprove evolution big bang and all that stuff and prove God then be it.. but how can you prove a bible that contains fairy tales (talking snake) repulsive (baby killing) and just plain wrong (story about a man trying to collect foreskin) (mass murder) (kill all enemies except virgin girls for sex)... and tell them they did all those things because the victims are bad people..
@dyhongloong The big bang and Charles Darwins theory of evolution are completely unrelated. You also don't know anything about the big bang or the "law of conservaton of angular momentum". The big bang was not an explosion.
@Justowner They aren't taught that way. I do not know where you recieved your education but The big bang is to do with the beginning of the universe. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life. 2 completely seperate subjects.
It has become a discovery that matter CAN be created in a vacuum because of the functions of quantum mechanics and the law of gravity. I'm not a scientist, but you should get out more on these things. The argument of the Law of Thermodynamics is the oldest in the book... We are also uncertain how the laws of nature behave in the case of the singularity. Things were probably much different and the laws of nature were broken down. We are not certain, but there is still no reason to
@princerexor You realize what sarcasm is right? that line you horribly misquoted was showing that the people who don't believe in evolution are baboons....lol
@94spexx God is an unfalsifiable claim nd a personal belief, when u start making claims on gods behalf u open up to being wrong. dnt deny facts about reality nd don't claim knowledge that others dnt. back up any decisions with secular reasons, this way you can have conversations with people, if u say GOD SAID SO nd i dnt believe in ur god then we cant intelligently converse.
Then when people ask, why are u so smart, kind, etc? u can say, bcos god wants this of his children.
@94spexx Evolution doesn't say anything about the existence of god, i wouldn't go down the DNA is gods code path because any time you make truth claims about the nature of reality your bound to run into trouble. I'm an atheist but i think a strong theological position is, if they figure out how god did it then thats incredible, god wants us to nuture his creation, take care of it and the more we understand about ourselves and about the nature of reality the closer we get to god.
wait.... i believe the bible and darwin are both right..... did i screw up somewhere? cause creatures still evolve me and my african buddy can stand side by side to prove it. but couldn't it also be true that a super intelligent god had plans of DNA already mapped out for the first people and let nature take the wheel from there? couldn't that be true for all life? smart replies please not trolling. thanks
@94spexx It certainly isn't the first explanation that comes to mind. The hypothesis presupposes a deity. On its face a deity isn't suggested as a result of your hypothesis, the presupposition of the deity already has to be in place. In that case, the deity hypothesis only serves to fill in the ever lessening gaps of abiogenesis. As a matter of fact it may already be that the gaps are closed at this time, abiogenesis happens as a result of natural processes independent of any supernatural force.
Yes, because i could say the same thing about a red pen. It cant be 100% red, there might be a smidge of a different hue mixed in. Or maybe my eyes arent seeing the right color etc etc etc.
At some point you just have to step back and think "Maybe I was just wrong"
When you have keep making excuses just because youre unwilling to admit your initial thoughts were wrong your only hurting yourself.
BTW, I have read OOS. First time was more than 20 years ago - was extremely boring and had to force my way through it. Read it just a few years ago, and it read almost like an adventure story. Darwin comes across as an obsessed adolescent very excitedly explaining the nuances of his bug collection to anyone who will listen.
It's no accident that the vast, VAST majority of the people who reject evolution are also the ones with the very least background in science. They are very easily swayed by non-scientific arguments that "sound" scientific.
caebbajackson, you said: @thesacredcowtipper.. k, millions of year old fossils prove science wrong i guess.
It's a proven fact that they date the fossils by the strata layer they are in and vice-versa - date the strata layers by what fossils are in there. This is circular reasoning. Known 1-week old lava flows are dated to 1.5 billion years old. Dating methods have a lot of fallacies and assumptions on top of what I just explained.
@thesacredcowtipper check out Professor Walter Veith's 8 videos (each one is 5 to 10 parts long on youtube. He taught evolution for 19 years until he researched what is really taught adn what is taught as fact when it has never been proven to be fact. Here are a few of the names of the videos: Bones in Stones, Genes of Genesis, The Fossil Record Speaks, and Mor Fossil Secrets Unveiled to name just a few. Origins TV has several
@thesacredcowtipper Origins TV has several videos from scientists in every field of science that discuss many things that prove special creation. I ahve about 50 of their programs. You may also download online for free The Evolution Cruncher. It is about a 965 page book that brings into question many things taught as fact in colleges that have either been disproven long ago or are misused to try to prove evolution.
@thesacredcowtipper ~Walter Veith...the man who says AIDS does not exist and the Freemasons were responsible for 9/11-->that Walter Veith? His connection with reality has a few loose wires. So do you if you think anything from Origins TV is real; medication may be in order.
@DClayTorosco So you attack the man, not on what he teaches about evolution. You didn't attack his science because it is very well documented what is taught in the textbooks adn he exposed the bad science you and yoru piers call macro-evolution. As far as Origins TV goes, almost every program is done with scientists who use the scientific method to prove their science unlike evolutionary theory that imagines things to be true and uses things like a jaw fragment as evidence for a missing link.
Which video are you talking about? His videos on health? He has even done experiments in that area and proven things and he is a 7th day adventist and they have about 150 years of study in the area of staying healthy through natural means. Is it his end times videos? He documents all his sources on that just as he does on his videos about creation and evolution. Give me a video adn what he said that isn't documented.
this was actually something done about 5 to 10 years ago where some ICR scientists were involved in a thing called the RATE project adn it had to do with radiometric dating not carbon 14.
I'm sorry to say this but Science Comedy has no comic value, it chooses only to divert and to entertain, nothing more. Science tells us about the world, but Literature tells us about ourselves. I believe that the latter is far more important.
@Phooey442 you obviously fail to differentiate between the tangible and the intangible. By far, psychology is the only field of science that comes close to understanding the human nature. Though by practice, the study of our human selves has been going on for a long time in books and stories labelled as fiction, with a value greater than fact.
@kaizersabre and you fail to differentiate fact from opinion....fact is were made from the same things that everything else around us is...so look to what we our very uninformed selves write? give me a break...only the future will tell us what we are cause we simply still dont know
@Phooey442 on the contrary, it is the past that makes you who you are, not the future. How can one which has not yet come determine what already is? But only that which has already come and gone can define what you are. One should know more about oneself than the future can tell you. No advancement in technology is more effective a tool to understand yourself, than simple introspection and honest reflection. That which is true is greater than that which is factual.
@Phooey442 it doesn't take a world class scientist to realize that history repeats itself because people are fooled into thinking that they are progressing with science whilst there is utterly no progress of the inner being. Man today is just as brutal, scheming, cunning and greedy as Man 100 years ago. Nevermind the added knowledge, for it adds no value to the soul.
Yes, "theory." Like germ theory and the theory of gravity. In this case, supported by 150 years of evidence across a multitude of fields of science - anatomy, genetics, nuclear physics, geology, paleontology, etc.
I'd love to hear your idea of a reasonable theory. I hope you have more evidence than some words in an old book.
Yes. But people don't blindly follow science books because they are sacred. The ideas are always being explored, expanded, tested. That book has held up for 150 years because new evidence - in many different fields of science - continues to support it.
@sciencecomedian The Bible is written by different authors in different ways, it isn't to be taken literal in some parts. Most theologians believe it wasnt 7 literal days, and do not believe earth is only a few thousand years old. And how does science prove there was no flood?
@sciencecomedian The Bible is written by different authors in different ways, it isn't to be taken literal in some parts. Most theologians believe it wasnt 7 literal days, and do not believe earth is only a few thousand years old. And how does science prove there was no flood?
@calebbajackson Actually most theologians before the 1800 believed the earth was 6,000 years old. It wasn't until Darwin's book came out that they started to try to make the Bible fit science because of their doubt. Known 1-week lava flows date sometimes over a billion years old with radiometric dating methods. Evolution hasn't proven the earth is old by any means. The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks-has nothing to do with dating methods. C14 is still in diamonds
@calebbajackson C14 is still in diamonds so earth cannot be more than 30,000 years old. there are so many things that disprove the old-earth theologians. Research it. there is a lot of evidence pointing to a very young earth.
@thesacredcowtipper If YOU actually researched it (beyond parroting creationist claims) you'd understand why your claims are simply... fallacious. Your claim on C14 carbon dating is citing an author who is in turn citing assumptions made in the 1940s when the technique was first developed. In other words, no longer applicable
@thesacredcowtipper The lava flows thing is simply cherry picking. The research you are trying to cite was done by the scientist to show that that particular method of carbon dating could not be used on lava flows.
John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, July 1968, pp. 4601-4607
@Dahvood this was actually something done about 5 to 10 years ago where some ICR scientists were involved in a thing called the RATE project adn it had to do with radiometric dating not carbon 14.
@thesacredcowtipper My rebuttal is a simple one. The RATE project was done by people who were illiterate in scientific method. A look at their methodology shows that. Even their introduction shows that. It isn't something I can really condense down to youtube comment size, but perusing google with a "rate project critic" brings up some quality results.
@sciencecomedian I just have a beef because evolution is taught as fact from cosmic to chemical to stellar to organic to macro to micro. The only part of evolution that is scientific is micro but change within its own species (a horse producing another type of horse ) is a far cry from macro evolution that is taught as fact. Even Stephen Jay Gould and others like him admitted because of lack of transitional fossils, thing smust have boom - just came on the scene [punctuated equilibrium].
"The DNA evidence alone proves common ancestry (aka evolution) to be fact.
-Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project and hardcore christian
Considering we share chunks of DNA with damn near everything that has DNA its the logical conclusion to draw. The more we share the closer we are related, the less we share , the less we are related. Requires a lot more thinking than simply saying "Jeebus did it".
@Boomx2Brian All information came into existence when time, space, and matter did. This just proves a common designer and intelligetn design. It's nto that hard to see. It was Jesus that created. See, that's why you got it all wrong. You thoguht it was Jeebus. LOL
@thesacredcowtipper I have to call bullshit on that. Theres no way to tie timespace coming into existence (which in itself you havent proven) with there being a designer. Thats like me saying "The sun will rise tommorrow so there fore when it happens that makes me a prophet. Even if I were to amuse you and concede this for arguments sake you have no way to determine it was your god. Without evidence the flying spaghetti monster has just as much merit. That alone should raise flags and doubt.
I am so past doubts. God is so real in my life adn that can never be changed.
If you had matter without space where would you put the matter and when would you put it if you didn't have time. they all had to come into existence all at the same time. Well, if FSM is God of this universe then so be it.
The FSM was only to show that holding such loose standards for evidence lets anything fantasy on the same level. No evidence for a god no evidence for FSM. Ur not willing to believe FSM, yet are willing to make an exception for god. One should atleast recognize this is flawed and heavily biased thinking. Again, this goes back to ur desire for what feels good over what is real.
@thesacredcowtipper Ur unwillingness to even accept the possibility of god not existing shows u r dogmatic. Thats never a good position to hold regarding ANYTHING. It shows you dont care what reality is or what is truth, you only care about what makes you feel good. We dont hold other aspects of life in this manner and there is no reason religion gets an exception.
I have no doubts because I have a personal relationship with God. That's what I meant. He is ver real to me and not some fantasy as you would suggest.It's no difference than my friend Mike who use to be a satanist and saw people picked up off the ground adn thrown by unseen forces because he dabbled in stuff he shouldn't. The onyl difference is he was seeing the demonic side of the supernatural and I was experiencing the godly side of the supernatural.
@thesacredcowtipper I understand that your belief is strong. That doesnt make a statement any more true. Your account of your friend is just as much hearsay as a talking snake, turning water into wine, a talking burning bush etc etc.
A guy named James Randi has been offering a million bucks to anyone that can prove and demonstrate a supernatural event. It has yet to be claimed. All the more reason not to believe in ur claims or those from your fairy tale book.
@Boomx2Brian " a talking snake, turning water into wine, a talking burning bush etc etc." Why do you guys use this same old rhetoric? It's getting to be funny to me. You got to have more than that. I don't have a problem with the supernatural because I have experienced it many times. I jsut gave you a few examples. anyhow, if you really want to knwo the truth, how about going to Haiti and find some withdoctors that practice Voodoo adn I am sure you will beleive in the supernatural. (cont)
@thesacredcowtipper Or you can just give your life over to the one you call Jeebus now & find out He is real.If you can look at all the things out there on a nano level & say this all happened by chance,something is wrong with you sir.This Universe is so intricately designed from the atom to the largest star & to say it happened by sheer chance is insane.Man's best efforts using design aren't 1 millionth as complex as what already exists in nature & you would never say those things just happened
@thesacredcowtipper I doubt it. I think youve mistaken me for a gullible dumbass, you need a weaker target. Get it through your skull, hearsay doesnt mean shit. There is no reason why anyone else should believe you just because you say, nor me just because I say it. The evidence alone is what matters.
You make your ignorance blatantly obvious if you think the big bang or evolution says anything about things happening by chance. Educate yourself. You are living proof humans are dumbasses.
@Boomx2Brian I'm not talking about hearsay. I'm telling you to go there and experience it. thanks for the compliment. Evolution was always taught as chance and WITH ENOUGH TIME these things "may have", "perhaps", "possibly" have happened. That's hearsay my friend. since I am the dumbass, you tell me HOW the Big Bang started if it is true? Dont' tell me it happened and call that evidence. (cont)
@Boomx2Brian Dont' tell me it happened and call that evidence. Tell me HOW it happened. Where did the energy come from that made it explode and the laws of science like inertia, gravity, law of angular momentum adn all the other laws that exist? Laws EQUAL information and if you evolutionists can't even get that through your heads, you guys are the dumbasses. I appreciate it if you don't use thw word dumbass anymore.
@thesacredcowtipper Wow you really are retarded arent u? Thats the god damn point. YOu tell me of all this supernatural shit, but dont saything about how. Saying god did it isnt an explaination when we can replace that phrase with idk and it gives us no new information.
Btw I majored in ecology and evolution. Your not going to convince me evolution has anything to do with chance. I studied. You try that instead of biased bullshit your pastor spews. Guess what? He hasnt studied it either
@Boomx2Brian I admit there is faith when it comes to creation because I wasn't there when it happened. But as usual I cannot get one atheist to answer a simple question that should be so full of evidence. You talk of evidence, you say you studied but you don't ahve an answer. Creation is a very logical answer as to how everything got here.
@thesacredcowtipper YOu just said you need faith and claim its logical answer. Thats moronic. The reason evolution works is, for one, it doesnt defy everything single thing we have observed, and learned about our natural world. That alone eliminates your sky daddy from contention.
Since I dont have hundreds of pages to explain, look up the video titled evolution by Qualiasoup. Its a simplied dumbed down version, but it works the same.
@Boomx2Brian How is that illogical. Here I ahve a book in my hand that predicted thousands of future events (no other world religion or cult has such a book) and these future events came to pass. This book also in its original Koine Greek , Aramaic, and Hebrew is written numerically thorughout the whole book (called Bible Numerics). They keep digging up things in Israel that are proving the stories to be true. I have plenty to stand on. (cont)
I'll even grant you your "Bible evidence". But, since you're in the business of accepting evidence (kudos for that one sir!), what about OUR evidence? What's wrong with ours that's not wrong with yours? Why trust religious researchers and not scientists? (because that's what your doing, right?)
I am open to real evidence. What would you say is your best evidence for MACRO evolution? I've watched many debates and even many professors say fossils aren't good evidence which I agree with them on that. The teach it as good evidence but then in debates seem to say otherwise. We can't see one animal turn into another totally different animal - it's unobservable so therefore should not be called science. Faith is involved there. :)
Okay okay okay. So you do genuinely have an issue with the evidence we propose. That's good!
But (and I say this for your own good, and you need to trust me - and a world-wide community of dedicated scientists) you completely misunderstand.
In nature things don't evolve like in Pokemon ("macro" evolution) - living things evolve gradually - imperceptibly. And this isn't a cop-out - new "species" ARE produced in this manner. ........
@SubtleChaotic What is ur defintion of species? Ur example on rabbits still had a rabbit at the end - just a really messed up rabbit.Its kind of like making aphoto copy of an original.The original looks perfect but if you take the copy and make another copy and then take that copy and make another copy, & so on, it will get to the point where you won't even be able to read the text but it is still a copy of the original.It's a loss of information still & still a piece of paper with ink on it.
The main trend is certainly not a loss of information, at all.
The definition of a species is "a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of interbreeding - producing viable offspring" or something like that.
You're not using your imagination :P OR understanding how feeble the term "species" is. It's quite easy to see that the 10,000 gen. wouldn't be recognizable as "a rabbit"! But at which point did it STOP being a rabbit? Think about it :P
Imagine a rabbit. .. Now imagine 10,000 generations of rabbits - with all the individuals from one line of descent sitting next to each other, and you're walking along this line.. As you walk, the difference between each rabbit (for a better analogy, consider each rabbit representing an "average" rabbit of that generation..) is going to be imperceptible - if not non-existent. BUT, there WILL (probably) be a difference between the 1st and the 10,000th rabbit.
@SubtleChaotic That makes sense when talking about if they can no longer reproduce with one another because the genetics are gone. Isn't that a loss of genetic information though?
No not really (although they may have, it's more likely that that's not the case). Dogs and Wolves are different species (dogs descended from wolves - in the last few thousand years! some disagree that they're actually different species, but lets go with it), they can no longer produce viable offspring together. It's not that "the genetics are gone" - they're just no longer compatible.
@SubtleChaotic Uh, gotta stop you before you get called on it by a creationist. Some dogs are compatible with wolves. They are called wolf hybrids obviously enough. One such dog breed is the malamute. Granted these dogs are very wolf like in features and size but still closer to dog than wolf. So try to use a better example next time. It wouldn't be a good idea to let any creationists get the upper hand in an argument. You know?
I know, I'm sorry, it was a terrible example ;( Couldn't really be bothered getting anything more accurate, just wanted to make the point really. Besides I thought this particular guy would let it slide.. I think I almost intended it a sort-of hypothetical example.. that obviously has a little truth to it.
@SubtleChaotic No worries. You are right though eventually dogs and wolves wont be able to breed. But for now I think a better example would be birds. Not only are there so many that can't breed together you also get around the "same kind" BS that creationists like to use. Because clearly a blue jay and an penguin are not the same kind of animal. Also the cool thing with penguins is they could become a fully aquatic type bird much like are dolphins/whales did if given enough time.
- I guess THIS is your "macro" evolution. (sometimes we speak of "macro mutations" - but that's different to macro-evolution - it's just a random giant-ass mutation, not the refined and viable model we call a species..)
So, little mutations across that 10,000 generations accumulate, eventually making something that looks nothing like the original. .. Can you see how this is possible, at least in theory..? Of course you can. What we then say, is that this theory is accurate.
@SubtleChaotic I agree that it is possible but it has never been seen and therefore ithas left the realm of science-things that are observable and repeatable. Still need faith. Just because something is a possiblity doesn't mean it is going ot happen. That's like saying a swim suit model is oging to come up to me and beg me to marry her. It is possbile but very, very, very highly unlikely. :)
I was just trying to get you to accept the possibility, now we can move on to seeing if that's the way the world REALLY is. When first devising the theory of evolution, we might not have had the slightest inkling that it was true! It was just a cool theory. But now it actually turns out to be what actually happens! Hoorah! :D
We actually CAN see it, too! In human history, dogs have descended from wolves by our hand.
Yeah okay, they still look pretty similar, I have to give you that - not very spectacular! :P
EXCEPT, that they ARE different species! They don't produce viable offspring - meaning they will continue to evolve along separate lineages. It doesn't take much imagination (unfortunately you wont live long enough to actually see it happen - which it will) to see that soon the differences WILL be spectacular!
So, you accept the notion. .. You accept 'evolution' leading to.. to put it in the words I think you would like to use as a creationist: "different members of a species that cannot reproduce with one another" - and I mean come-on ;)
Granted you can't actually SEE that, but that's because (and you have to be accepting of this) evolution is slow to our eyes! Very slow. But we can still show quite considerable "macro" evolution..! A famous test-tube experiment involving bacteria, showed that over thousands of observed generations, a particular species evolved a way to metabolize a completely new food source - a HUGE change for a bacterium! (look it up- it's way better than i make it seem :p)
@Boomx2Brian Christianity is the ONLY faith that doesn't ahve to be followed blindly. We have proof through some 3,000 prophecies that have come to pass that it is a supernatural book adn inspired by the Holy Spirit. If Daniel 11:1-19, all of Isaiah 53 adn most of Psalm 22 (about 100+ prophecies in this small section) aren't enough to convince someone of God along with the complexity of thigns in nature, I can't help that person see the truth.
ACT 1:18: "Now Judas purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
MAT 27:5-7: "And Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."
...just one of 100's of contradictions. At least one of these stories has to be a LIE. The claim of creationists that the Bible is infallible is just plain wrong, even a child can see it.
I actually have an artilce on this section fo scripture that I wrote back in August, 2010. It is way too long to post here. It is not a contradiction at all if read with the scriptures as a WHOLE and that is how scripture is suppposed to be read. I encourage you to learn that. I haven't found one contradiction yet. Most that say that are doing what is call surface-reading (isogesis) of the scriptures.
@thesacredcowtipper OK after further reading, the Bible quotes from ACT in my previous comment was taken a bit out of context, in this case ACT is paraphrasing a speech made by Peter. I still maintain that ACT 1 is incongruous with MAT 27 although it is not necessarily a full-on contradiction.
Re: "isogesis" IMO as someone who has studied the genome, this word is also appropriate for how many ppl approach a certain simple biological theory that explains emergent complexity so well: Evolution.
@coldcapsicum Truce. Help me out on this whole micro and macro thing. I don't see what micro is proof of macro. I asked one guy and he sent me a link on atavisms. Atavisms really don't prove anything and the one atavism I know for a fact was proven to be a fatty tissue and not a tail (It was a baby from India with an off-centered looking tail). Further study showed that this was just a tumor or fatty lobe. One would have to imagine that that is proof. Give me your best proof on macro. Thanks!
@thesacredcowtipper No such thing as macro and micro evolution. It is all just evolution. The whole thing started because creationists, in their attempts to disprove evolution, couldn't get around the fact that some things do change such as different breeds of dogs and cats. But really if you study evolution you will see that evolution is made up of lots "micro" transitiosn that over time become "macro" transitions, but all in all its all the same thing. Things change over time. Nothing more.
@thesacredcowtipper Also look at it like this. Evolution is a lot like walking down a road. You notice gradual changes as you walk down the road if you keep going eventually you will be in a completely new area, but if you trace you path back you can see where you came from And if you come to a detour you change your path and start seeing even more new sights. Only in the case of evolution you have millions of people walking down these roads and all taking different routes
Something that is untestable might just as well not exist.
I mean, what's the difference right?
If god can manipulate matter, answer prayers or talk to people, create miracles and so on.. shouldn't that be testable? The answering prayers part is like the easiest demonstration imaginable, yet no results what so ever has been in favor of any religious group...
I encourage theists to get together and make a pray experiment - UNDER LABARATORY CONDITIONS - and test your claims, scientifically!!
nejtilsvampe 3 months ago 2
@nejtilsvampe lets make it simpler for u. you asked you boss for something. The boss is the decider you can't make him do what you want because he has the ability to fire you. but you can show him how hard worker and sincere you are for him to consider your demands. you are living in God's universe and are created by God who has the absolute ability. He is Almighty all hearing, all seeing, and provider who is incomparably great and the universe is an obvious sign for that.
Tfkeerful 3 months ago
@Tfkeerful aha.. how is it obvious? Sure for the sake of argument I'll grant that there exists a deity. How do you know it's YOUR god and not one of the other billions of god claims out there?
And you didn't really address my comment. Why is it that theists only claim and claim and claim, and never do any actual research? Make ONE testable prediction based on your god hypothesis and test for it! THEN you can make a an honest claim based on rationality for a change...
nejtilsvampe 3 months ago
@nejtilsvampe I'm a Muslim and believe that God has no resemblance to his creations neither has a son nor partner. so he is ONE. check any web for more info.
I think atheist are the ones who started the claims of no God thing with no concrete evidence. Another thing, there are these laws in science where they can know something is there by looking at its work and signs but does it indicates they are not there? look at the universe its a sign test the universe its God's most powerful creation
Tfkeerful 3 months ago
@Tfkeerful Idc if you're a muslim, jew, christian whatever.. if you think atheists are the ones who claim god doesn't exist you're an idiot and the conversation is over..
nejtilsvampe 3 months ago
@nejtilsvampe u remind me of my brother LOL. ok, as u wish =)
Tfkeerful 3 months ago
@Tfkeerful afaik it was moses that came up with the idea that the voices the crazy guy heard is a god, and eventually people started to belief his crazy nonsense and monotheism was born.
Aanthanur 4 weeks ago
@Aanthanur wow! monotheism is something you born believing in. you know there is a Creator and He is the Most Powerful all Hearing all Seeing without somebody tells you.
Tfkeerful 4 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful no, lucky my parents were not religious freaks and tought me about many different religions and what their followers believed. but my mother herself was not part of any religion, she is a deist. I went to Christian schools and their indoctrination didn't work as i knew already to much about religions and was already a skeptic.
Aanthanur 4 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Have you considered looking seriously into Islam?
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful i have looked into it seriously, i have read the koran, i went true 2 dawahs. I have Muslim friends that told me alot about their religion. But for mereligions cannot compete with science. Science provides evidence for their theories, religions requires blind faith for their beliefs. and i am a rational person that tries to only belief stuff based on evidence. and the main point. Science changes when new evidence is found. Religion does not.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful and religions refusal to change is the reason why so many educated people laugh at religions, i mean like Islam , many moslems claim scientific accuracy in the koran, and then point to parts of the koran that uses greek knowledge to explain embryology. back then this was amazing knowledge, but today we know it was wrong and we know alot more about embryology. But the koran did not update its claims and moslems still think this wrong information is somehow perfect.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur did you study that versus of the Koran yourself or did you read someone's own interpretation? . Secondly, why would believing in One Creator that is Most Powerful all Hearing and All knowing that is nothing else is like Him contradict or does not suit some scientists?
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful i read the koran on quran dot com and used the translations of Sahih International, Muhsin Khan and Pickthall.
And this alleged creator has no supporting scinetific evidence.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur does it really need a "scientific evidence"? to believe of one creator? I mean what is your scientific "theory" of creation? don't you think that there is a God and He is not like any of His creation? because such a sophisticated perfectly created world isn't logically be created by chance, you know
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful you belief this planet is perfect? i don't think so. perfect for what exactly?
i have no theory of creation, but there is a theory of evolution that is able to explain the diversity of life. and yes, when you propose the existence of a creator, especially a specific creator like Moslems belief Allah to be, it needs scinetific evidence for me. i have not seen any evidence that would sugest the existence of such a creator. and mostly the arguments are from ignorance,
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful like, i don't know how our sunsystem could have formed without a supernatural creator, thus there must be a supernatural creator.
but then why your creator and not those of the Hindu religion? or the Norsk creation myths? why your creator?
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur because He is One, there is nothing like Him, for example, God see and other living things might see as well, but God's seeing is absolute and perfect and it is nothing like our seeing sense. you can read under "Tawheed" which means to assert the oneness of something. There you can see why not worship a statue or a creator and who the creator is.
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful how do you know all those attributes of your god? just because a book claims so? or have you actually seen any evidence? when we cannot even find evidence for his existence, how can we know its attributes? and when you say our world cannto be do to chance, how did your creator that is even far more complex and allegedly more perfect, come into existence?
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur you know when you believe. and your question of the Creator existence is simple, again, He is like nothing else, if you created a table, does this table's characteristics are the same as yours? this is something we don't necessarily realize or imagine.
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful :) you know when you believe? it is amazing, hindus would say the same about their creator, so who is right hindis or abrahamitic believers? just knowing something has not the same characteristics as you have does in no way tell you the characteristics that it really has. so your statement does not make much sense to a rational thinking person.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur yes, you know when you believe. well, this is for you to search, who is worthy of worshiping. but lets say that you believe there is a Creator but you are quite unsure. Rationally, the world would be created by only One God, otherwise it would be a mess if there are more. your post is quite informative. I got to know a religion that believe God is one. what I found unrealistic is the concept of punishment. I mean the bad ones should be punished because the Creator is Just.
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful well so far i have not heard of a god worthy of whorshipping, but i honestly don't know much about those Hindu gods. But the Abrahamitic god YHWH or as you call him Allah/God is in my eyes not worthy of worshipping, i don't want to offend you, but that is how i see it. especially considering the alleged global flood, wich is essentially genocide on a much larger level than Hitler. totaly unjust in my book. or Soddom and Gomorah. horrible.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur also from the Koran, i learned, my deeds play not as much a role as my belief. So i could be the best person of the world, and stick to al sharia laws or do some amazing things like inventing a cure that saves billions over the years. when i did not belief in him as a god, i would be in trouble. this is extremely unjust. especially when he created me, then it would have been him that gave me my rational thinking and my skepticism. but then i get punished for it? unfair
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Inventing a cure is what we call in Islam a forever good deed which stays until you die. in a Hadeeth it mentions the best deeds after one dies are: a beneficial knowledge, a well-raised children and charity that lasts forever like planting a tree or building a school. And yes you would be in trouble if you don’t believe in the One God that’s a common sense and this is justice even if you can’t see it for He is your Creator.
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful even if i would belief him to be the creator of everything, i would not just accept whatever he does as just just because he is the creator. when i regard his actions as immoral, then i see it that way, no matter if he is the creator of everything.
and labeling a human as lower as animals and the lowest there is just because he is an atheist, i regard that as extremely unjust. and that is what the koran does. and allegedly that is his will or words. so for me he is immoral.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur To make things clear, even if you don’t care, Islam and Abrahmitic are totally different even if they look similar. Allah is worthy of worshipping but you haven’t realize it yet. Natural disasters are causing deaths but research has shown great benefits caused by them. There is wisdom behind everything.
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful eerm Islam is one of the Abrahamic (إبراهيم Ibrāhīm,) religions. it has the same god, Allah=YHWH=God. while tere are large differences, it is not to find in the god, but for example the prophets, you belief jesus was aprophet, Christians belief he was the son of god or even god himself, depends on wich christian cult. Jews don't even see Jesus as a prophet, but as a false prophet. but Adam and eve, YHWH/Allah, Abraham, Moses etc etc is all the same.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur I see, certainly the teaching of Islam is quite different. However, Ibrahim with no doubt is God's messenger and he was a Muslim as well as all messenger were.
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful how can he be a Muslim when allegedly Mohammad, the founder of Islam, is the descendant of Abraham through Ishmael? if anything, he would have been a jew.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Islam is the Arabic word for (submission) - submitting to Almighty God (Allah) in heart, soul and deed-. (Muslim) is the person. and all messengers were Muslims
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful ah in that sense ok, but not in the sense we in the west undesrtand the word islam. here we understand it as a follower of the rligion called Islam, wich would be impossible as it was not founded yet, Funny thing is, jews say all prophets were jews, Christians say they were all Christians and moslems claim they are all moslems :) pretty confusing for me
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur there is a difference. we believe in all prophets and they don't.
Tfkeerful 3 weeks ago
@Tfkeerful and don't mistake my posts as an attempt to try to convince you that your belief is wrong. i will not be able to do that nor do i even want that. i merely explain detailed why i do not belief in gods.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@nejtilsvampe design that experiment.
DaveASL 3 months ago
@DaveASL It's your job to do that.. you're the ones that claim it's true. I don't know what your expectations are...
But I suppose you could do something like this.
Gather a large number of christians (or whatever) and give them a picture of 1000 people who have an untreatable disease of some kind. Let them pray for these people and then lets see if the survival rate increases or decreases compared to what is expected from natural causes.
nejtilsvampe 3 months ago
@nejtilsvampe however, god or no god, if someone's gonna die, they are gonna DIE. even if you do that experiment, you can't prove that any results you get were actually BECAUSE of praying about it. religion is just something u can't test.. if your religion directly conflicts with good science, then you should probably rethink your ideas. however if your science and religion just don't always see eye to eye, who cares...? is it really that important..?
DaveASL 3 months ago
@DaveASL I have never mentioned proof, I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence. And if you care about wether or not your beliefs are true, then ofcourse evidence is important. If you simply don't care then fine believe what you want...
You're thinking about the individuals.. You can't determine what the cause of every single persons survival was.. But by the law of large numbers, chance should be eliminated, so there has to be an external explanation if the experiment is a succes
nejtilsvampe 3 months ago
@DaveASL Actually they have done double blind studies on the subject of praying for people with some sort of condition. They failed horribly every time.
CtheWolfe 3 months ago
@DaveASL
Exactly. Religion can't be proven because the conditions it sets up for itself make it impossible. So, by that little fact we would like religion to stay the hell out of our social, technological and scientific progress... no matter how right they think they are. If they can't show that it's true they shouldn't base any opinions of public life on it either.
HerrKnitler 2 months ago
The Bible is at least a couple thousand years old...
WiTeBoi 3 months ago
This guy may be wrong about the 'mothers of evolution' theory. He probably is....but.... Well, it sounds pretty valid to me, lol
skywize 4 months ago
@gininginin
>> Yes, it does destroy it. Everything decays over time, says the second law of Thermodynamics.
>>Yes, so far the Big Bang is the only concept of the start of the world in Evolution.
Conservation of Angular Momentum says that a spinning object of which parts break of, those parts their energy always stays conserved unless it discovers resistance. It did not get influenced by resistance, thus the conservation is still present. Learn your laws.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
If only I had a dollar for every time a creationist mangles thermodynamics in order to push his agenda.
Apparently taking the creation story in genesis literally is srs bzness, but the part about "thou shalt not bear false witness" was more of a metaphor.
AntiTheocracy 5 months ago 27
@AntiTheocracy "If only I had a dollar for every time a creationist mangles thermodynamics in order to push his agenda."
Ironic huh? That creationists have been known to make shitloads of money, every time they purposefully mangle thermodynamics...or evolution...or logic...or reason...or reality in general...or the truth...
TheHigherVoltage 4 months ago
@AntiTheocracy As I recall it's only to your neighbour right.. screw everybody else xD
nejtilsvampe 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Believe any "God" had any part of it.
ReasonableCertainty 6 months ago
man this nigga be live ass fuck nigga i be all about that science my nigga,
jjtheslayer69 7 months ago
the strongest EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG IS NOT MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN IT.. WOW.. im surprise on how people go to extreme heights to defend religion. take a look at this example if a person tries to peek into space using hubble telescope and discovered what he believes to be a planet, does it make him WRONG because only himself believes in it.. OH NO I HOPE NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE LIKE THIS.
princerexor 8 months ago
@princerexor
The reason so few people believe in it, is because the mass of the human race wants there to be a divine paternal figure. Their brains aren't big enough for anything else.
I think it's safe to say through the average interpretation given by Christians that they never actually tried to understand evolution. Because I still hear them refer to "monkeys" and how evolution makes no sense because "the world's only 10 thousand years old, and God made us not random evolutionary chance".
IsolationInstigation 8 months ago
@IsolationInstigation dont get me wrong.. read my statement carefully and see what i mean. i think evolution is a fact of life..
princerexor 8 months ago
@princerexor
I wasn't. Lol I was a bit afraid you were going to think my statement was meant to attack yours. On the contrary. I agreed with everything you said. I was merely trying to add to your comment.
Evolution is the only thing that makes any amount of sense. Given the number of different creatures in the world... I mean, how the hell would Noah have been able to sustain several thousand creatures for 190 days? Each with varying diets and natural climates. Woulda been messy.
IsolationInstigation 8 months ago
@IsolationInstigation im a christian.. and i wanted to believe in God but hearing arguments and debates about religion and science made me feel sad that my belief (christianity) is just as stupid as believing that life came from the cracks of a beautiful bamboo tree.. but i still hope there is God.. probably a pre bing bang God or a post Big Bang God meaning a life form capable of creating another life form. the idea of lifeform creating new lifeform is not stupid i think.
princerexor 8 months ago
@princerexor
Then it sounds more like you're a Deist. Believe me, Deism is 100 times more believable than Theism. Atleast they don't lie to themselves about everything.
I didn't take from your original comment that you might be a Christian... I guess we do disagree on a few things. But I do respect that you're atleast capable of understanding that The Bible isn't the most absolute truth about the origin and nature of the world.
Billions of planets and we get special treatment?
IsolationInstigation 8 months ago
@princerexor brother the LORD GOD of the bible that you have beleived in is not false
one arguement you may not have heard is this according to the laws of thermodynamics
the big bang is impossible. this is becuase the big bang in a nutshell is the idea that a very compacted speck exploded and then cuased the formation of the universe. however matter/energy cant be created or destroyed. and energy needs a concious guidance to become matter. only GOD could do this. go to drdino.com
dyhongloong 7 months ago
@dyhongloong i dont believe in any god my friend.. they are just stories. you brought up the law of thermodynamics and i am not someone who understands and can explain that law.. well then let me ask you what are other laws of thermodynamics?
brought something up in which we both can understand.
princerexor 7 months ago
@princerexor
the first law of thermodynamics is matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed
the second law is that if energy is added without a guiding force it always cuases destruction
also if the big bang(only possible way for evolution to be true) were true then according to the law of conservaton of angular momentum all planets and galaxies would spin the same way...they dont.
why is that then? GOD made it that way just to make the big bang and evolution look ridiculous
dyhongloong 7 months ago
@dyhongloong wow sir you can state the laws of thermodynamics im honest i dont understand what you are talking about.. why not submit a paper to the scientific community and have your point proven validated and published.. you are talking real science concept here.. i bet you are a man who doesnt believe in fairy tale... well naked people created from mud, talking snake, wood turned into snake, parted waters, dead came back to life, LONG HAIR = GREAT POWER SHORT HAIR = NO POWER
princerexor 7 months ago
@dyhongloong are these things NOT FAIRY TALE TO YOU?
princerexor 7 months ago
@dyhongloong if the scientific community can disprove evolution big bang and all that stuff and prove God then be it.. but how can you prove a bible that contains fairy tales (talking snake) repulsive (baby killing) and just plain wrong (story about a man trying to collect foreskin) (mass murder) (kill all enemies except virgin girls for sex)... and tell them they did all those things because the victims are bad people..
princerexor 7 months ago
@dyhongloong The big bang and Charles Darwins theory of evolution are completely unrelated. You also don't know anything about the big bang or the "law of conservaton of angular momentum". The big bang was not an explosion.
HateFilledLies 7 months ago
@HateFilledLies Then why the hell is it always taught that way?
Justowner 6 months ago
@Justowner They aren't taught that way. I do not know where you recieved your education but The big bang is to do with the beginning of the universe. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life. 2 completely seperate subjects.
HateFilledLies 6 months ago
@HateFilledLies
Actually the big bang does NOT talk about the beginning of the universe. It talks about the events that happened milliseconds afterwards. =P
verzen 6 months ago
@verzen True, I was trying to get my point across and made this grave mistake lol.
HateFilledLies 6 months ago
@verzen try plancktimes, milliseconds are way too big numbers. ^^
nejtilsvampe 3 months ago
@dyhongloong
>>the second law is that if energy is added without a guiding force it always cuases destruction
No that's not it.
>> if the big bang(only possible way for evolution to be true)
Hell no. Big bang could be false and still the theory of evolution be accurate.
>>according to the law of conservaton of angular momentum all planets and galaxies would spin the same way
No they wouldn't. The law says that angular momentum is conserved.
>>ridiculous
That's you. Please educate yourself.
gininginin 5 months ago 29
@dyhongloong
From Hovind's videos any person with scientific background can tell that he doesn't know basic science.
OptimalElement 7 months ago
@dyhongloong
It has become a discovery that matter CAN be created in a vacuum because of the functions of quantum mechanics and the law of gravity. I'm not a scientist, but you should get out more on these things. The argument of the Law of Thermodynamics is the oldest in the book... We are also uncertain how the laws of nature behave in the case of the singularity. Things were probably much different and the laws of nature were broken down. We are not certain, but there is still no reason to
ReasonableCertainty 6 months ago
@dyhongloong
drdino! LOL!
rkyeun 4 months ago
@princerexor You realize what sarcasm is right? that line you horribly misquoted was showing that the people who don't believe in evolution are baboons....lol
skywize 4 months ago
I laughed my ass off. You can tell I meant it, because I actually spelled it out.
Bad joke? Damn.
ChiefMaverick515 8 months ago
@ChiefMaverick515 It made me laugh. :)
myteethareshiny 8 months ago
lmfao!
Dacurath 8 months ago
@94spexx God is an unfalsifiable claim nd a personal belief, when u start making claims on gods behalf u open up to being wrong. dnt deny facts about reality nd don't claim knowledge that others dnt. back up any decisions with secular reasons, this way you can have conversations with people, if u say GOD SAID SO nd i dnt believe in ur god then we cant intelligently converse.
Then when people ask, why are u so smart, kind, etc? u can say, bcos god wants this of his children.
its an idea..
shandcunt 9 months ago
@94spexx Evolution doesn't say anything about the existence of god, i wouldn't go down the DNA is gods code path because any time you make truth claims about the nature of reality your bound to run into trouble. I'm an atheist but i think a strong theological position is, if they figure out how god did it then thats incredible, god wants us to nuture his creation, take care of it and the more we understand about ourselves and about the nature of reality the closer we get to god.
shandcunt 9 months ago
kind of sad the believers think their bible are true
so sad !!!
noeszigi 10 months ago
wait.... i believe the bible and darwin are both right..... did i screw up somewhere? cause creatures still evolve me and my african buddy can stand side by side to prove it. but couldn't it also be true that a super intelligent god had plans of DNA already mapped out for the first people and let nature take the wheel from there? couldn't that be true for all life? smart replies please not trolling. thanks
94spexx 10 months ago
@94spexx It certainly isn't the first explanation that comes to mind. The hypothesis presupposes a deity. On its face a deity isn't suggested as a result of your hypothesis, the presupposition of the deity already has to be in place. In that case, the deity hypothesis only serves to fill in the ever lessening gaps of abiogenesis. As a matter of fact it may already be that the gaps are closed at this time, abiogenesis happens as a result of natural processes independent of any supernatural force.
Nolgthorn 10 months ago
@94spexx
Yes, because i could say the same thing about a red pen. It cant be 100% red, there might be a smidge of a different hue mixed in. Or maybe my eyes arent seeing the right color etc etc etc.
At some point you just have to step back and think "Maybe I was just wrong"
When you have keep making excuses just because youre unwilling to admit your initial thoughts were wrong your only hurting yourself.
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
BTW, I have read OOS. First time was more than 20 years ago - was extremely boring and had to force my way through it. Read it just a few years ago, and it read almost like an adventure story. Darwin comes across as an obsessed adolescent very excitedly explaining the nuances of his bug collection to anyone who will listen.
TheFallibleFiend 11 months ago
It's no accident that the vast, VAST majority of the people who reject evolution are also the ones with the very least background in science. They are very easily swayed by non-scientific arguments that "sound" scientific.
TheFallibleFiend 11 months ago
caebbajackson, you said: @thesacredcowtipper.. k, millions of year old fossils prove science wrong i guess.
It's a proven fact that they date the fossils by the strata layer they are in and vice-versa - date the strata layers by what fossils are in there. This is circular reasoning. Known 1-week old lava flows are dated to 1.5 billion years old. Dating methods have a lot of fallacies and assumptions on top of what I just explained.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper check out Professor Walter Veith's 8 videos (each one is 5 to 10 parts long on youtube. He taught evolution for 19 years until he researched what is really taught adn what is taught as fact when it has never been proven to be fact. Here are a few of the names of the videos: Bones in Stones, Genes of Genesis, The Fossil Record Speaks, and Mor Fossil Secrets Unveiled to name just a few. Origins TV has several
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper Origins TV has several videos from scientists in every field of science that discuss many things that prove special creation. I ahve about 50 of their programs. You may also download online for free The Evolution Cruncher. It is about a 965 page book that brings into question many things taught as fact in colleges that have either been disproven long ago or are misused to try to prove evolution.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper ~Walter Veith...the man who says AIDS does not exist and the Freemasons were responsible for 9/11-->that Walter Veith? His connection with reality has a few loose wires. So do you if you think anything from Origins TV is real; medication may be in order.
DClayTorosco 11 months ago
@DClayTorosco So you attack the man, not on what he teaches about evolution. You didn't attack his science because it is very well documented what is taught in the textbooks adn he exposed the bad science you and yoru piers call macro-evolution. As far as Origins TV goes, almost every program is done with scientists who use the scientific method to prove their science unlike evolutionary theory that imagines things to be true and uses things like a jaw fragment as evidence for a missing link.
thesacredcowtipper 11 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper Walter Veith makes videos about stuff well outside his area of expertise.
TheFallibleFiend 11 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend Hi Fiend,
Which video are you talking about? His videos on health? He has even done experiments in that area and proven things and he is a 7th day adventist and they have about 150 years of study in the area of staying healthy through natural means. Is it his end times videos? He documents all his sources on that just as he does on his videos about creation and evolution. Give me a video adn what he said that isn't documented.
thesacredcowtipper 11 months ago
this was actually something done about 5 to 10 years ago where some ICR scientists were involved in a thing called the RATE project adn it had to do with radiometric dating not carbon 14.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
0:24 You know he's telling jokes to a smart crowd if they get it before he even gets near the punch line.
TheSpartan42 1 year ago 2
ive been reading about stephen hawking's work. id love to hear a joke about his theory of everything
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa78815 1 year ago
I'm sorry to say this but Science Comedy has no comic value, it chooses only to divert and to entertain, nothing more. Science tells us about the world, but Literature tells us about ourselves. I believe that the latter is far more important.
kaizersabre 1 year ago
@kaizersabre so you don't include yourself with the world?
Phooey442 1 year ago
@Phooey442 you obviously fail to differentiate between the tangible and the intangible. By far, psychology is the only field of science that comes close to understanding the human nature. Though by practice, the study of our human selves has been going on for a long time in books and stories labelled as fiction, with a value greater than fact.
kaizersabre 1 year ago
@kaizersabre and you fail to differentiate fact from opinion....fact is were made from the same things that everything else around us is...so look to what we our very uninformed selves write? give me a break...only the future will tell us what we are cause we simply still dont know
Phooey442 1 year ago
@Phooey442 on the contrary, it is the past that makes you who you are, not the future. How can one which has not yet come determine what already is? But only that which has already come and gone can define what you are. One should know more about oneself than the future can tell you. No advancement in technology is more effective a tool to understand yourself, than simple introspection and honest reflection. That which is true is greater than that which is factual.
kaizersabre 1 year ago
@kaizersabre i want what your smoking hahahaha...maybe history repeats itself b/c people think this way
Phooey442 1 year ago
@Phooey442 it doesn't take a world class scientist to realize that history repeats itself because people are fooled into thinking that they are progressing with science whilst there is utterly no progress of the inner being. Man today is just as brutal, scheming, cunning and greedy as Man 100 years ago. Nevermind the added knowledge, for it adds no value to the soul.
kaizersabre 1 year ago
He's a witch!! Burn him at the stake!! Blasphemer!! BLASPHEMERRRR!!!
mackles 1 year ago
@mackles ah the good ole days...ami right?!
Phooey442 1 year ago
Creationists being all batshit in the comments section of a science-based video?
This is novel.
FreeInquisition 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"THEORY" is the key word. A really BAD Theory that only someone doing blow off a Monkey's ass could have conjured up.
AmericanSoapBox 1 year ago
@AmericanSoapBox
Yes, "theory." Like germ theory and the theory of gravity. In this case, supported by 150 years of evidence across a multitude of fields of science - anatomy, genetics, nuclear physics, geology, paleontology, etc.
I'd love to hear your idea of a reasonable theory. I hope you have more evidence than some words in an old book.
sciencecomedian 1 year ago 67
@sciencecomedian
isnt a book 150 years old an old book?
calebbajackson 1 year ago
@calebbajackson
Yes. But people don't blindly follow science books because they are sacred. The ideas are always being explored, expanded, tested. That book has held up for 150 years because new evidence - in many different fields of science - continues to support it.
sciencecomedian 1 year ago 20
Name something biblical that science disproves
calebbajackson 1 year ago
@calebbajackson I guess that depends what you think the bible says. And, frankly, I'm not familiar enough with the dusty old book.
Name something scientific that the bible says or disproves.
I'll say this: the world wasn't created in 6 or 7 days and not just a few thousand years ago. And there was no slate-cleaning flood and Noah's Ark.
sciencecomedian 1 year ago
@sciencecomedian The Bible is written by different authors in different ways, it isn't to be taken literal in some parts. Most theologians believe it wasnt 7 literal days, and do not believe earth is only a few thousand years old. And how does science prove there was no flood?
calebbajackson 1 year ago
@sciencecomedian The Bible is written by different authors in different ways, it isn't to be taken literal in some parts. Most theologians believe it wasnt 7 literal days, and do not believe earth is only a few thousand years old. And how does science prove there was no flood?
calebbajackson 1 year ago
@calebbajackson Actually most theologians before the 1800 believed the earth was 6,000 years old. It wasn't until Darwin's book came out that they started to try to make the Bible fit science because of their doubt. Known 1-week lava flows date sometimes over a billion years old with radiometric dating methods. Evolution hasn't proven the earth is old by any means. The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks-has nothing to do with dating methods. C14 is still in diamonds
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@calebbajackson C14 is still in diamonds so earth cannot be more than 30,000 years old. there are so many things that disprove the old-earth theologians. Research it. there is a lot of evidence pointing to a very young earth.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper If YOU actually researched it (beyond parroting creationist claims) you'd understand why your claims are simply... fallacious. Your claim on C14 carbon dating is citing an author who is in turn citing assumptions made in the 1940s when the technique was first developed. In other words, no longer applicable
Dahvood 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper The lava flows thing is simply cherry picking. The research you are trying to cite was done by the scientist to show that that particular method of carbon dating could not be used on lava flows.
John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, July 1968, pp. 4601-4607
Read it.
Dahvood 1 year ago
@Dahvood this was actually something done about 5 to 10 years ago where some ICR scientists were involved in a thing called the RATE project adn it had to do with radiometric dating not carbon 14.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper My rebuttal is a simple one. The RATE project was done by people who were illiterate in scientific method. A look at their methodology shows that. Even their introduction shows that. It isn't something I can really condense down to youtube comment size, but perusing google with a "rate project critic" brings up some quality results.
Dahvood 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper.. k, millions of year old fossils prove science wrong i guess
calebbajackson 1 year ago
@sciencecomedian I just have a beef because evolution is taught as fact from cosmic to chemical to stellar to organic to macro to micro. The only part of evolution that is scientific is micro but change within its own species (a horse producing another type of horse ) is a far cry from macro evolution that is taught as fact. Even Stephen Jay Gould and others like him admitted because of lack of transitional fossils, thing smust have boom - just came on the scene [punctuated equilibrium].
thesacredcowtipper 11 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
"The DNA evidence alone proves common ancestry (aka evolution) to be fact.
-Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project and hardcore christian
Considering we share chunks of DNA with damn near everything that has DNA its the logical conclusion to draw. The more we share the closer we are related, the less we share , the less we are related. Requires a lot more thinking than simply saying "Jeebus did it".
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian All information came into existence when time, space, and matter did. This just proves a common designer and intelligetn design. It's nto that hard to see. It was Jesus that created. See, that's why you got it all wrong. You thoguht it was Jeebus. LOL
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper I have to call bullshit on that. Theres no way to tie timespace coming into existence (which in itself you havent proven) with there being a designer. Thats like me saying "The sun will rise tommorrow so there fore when it happens that makes me a prophet. Even if I were to amuse you and concede this for arguments sake you have no way to determine it was your god. Without evidence the flying spaghetti monster has just as much merit. That alone should raise flags and doubt.
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian Hi Boom,
I am so past doubts. God is so real in my life adn that can never be changed.
If you had matter without space where would you put the matter and when would you put it if you didn't have time. they all had to come into existence all at the same time. Well, if FSM is God of this universe then so be it.
Peace out bro.
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
The Jeebus was for amusement, not a typo.
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian I know. LOL. Is Jeebus related to Cheesus?
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
The FSM was only to show that holding such loose standards for evidence lets anything fantasy on the same level. No evidence for a god no evidence for FSM. Ur not willing to believe FSM, yet are willing to make an exception for god. One should atleast recognize this is flawed and heavily biased thinking. Again, this goes back to ur desire for what feels good over what is real.
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper Ur unwillingness to even accept the possibility of god not existing shows u r dogmatic. Thats never a good position to hold regarding ANYTHING. It shows you dont care what reality is or what is truth, you only care about what makes you feel good. We dont hold other aspects of life in this manner and there is no reason religion gets an exception.
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian Brian,
I have no doubts because I have a personal relationship with God. That's what I meant. He is ver real to me and not some fantasy as you would suggest.It's no difference than my friend Mike who use to be a satanist and saw people picked up off the ground adn thrown by unseen forces because he dabbled in stuff he shouldn't. The onyl difference is he was seeing the demonic side of the supernatural and I was experiencing the godly side of the supernatural.
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper I understand that your belief is strong. That doesnt make a statement any more true. Your account of your friend is just as much hearsay as a talking snake, turning water into wine, a talking burning bush etc etc.
A guy named James Randi has been offering a million bucks to anyone that can prove and demonstrate a supernatural event. It has yet to be claimed. All the more reason not to believe in ur claims or those from your fairy tale book.
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian " a talking snake, turning water into wine, a talking burning bush etc etc." Why do you guys use this same old rhetoric? It's getting to be funny to me. You got to have more than that. I don't have a problem with the supernatural because I have experienced it many times. I jsut gave you a few examples. anyhow, if you really want to knwo the truth, how about going to Haiti and find some withdoctors that practice Voodoo adn I am sure you will beleive in the supernatural. (cont)
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper Or you can just give your life over to the one you call Jeebus now & find out He is real.If you can look at all the things out there on a nano level & say this all happened by chance,something is wrong with you sir.This Universe is so intricately designed from the atom to the largest star & to say it happened by sheer chance is insane.Man's best efforts using design aren't 1 millionth as complex as what already exists in nature & you would never say those things just happened
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper I doubt it. I think youve mistaken me for a gullible dumbass, you need a weaker target. Get it through your skull, hearsay doesnt mean shit. There is no reason why anyone else should believe you just because you say, nor me just because I say it. The evidence alone is what matters.
You make your ignorance blatantly obvious if you think the big bang or evolution says anything about things happening by chance. Educate yourself. You are living proof humans are dumbasses.
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian I'm not talking about hearsay. I'm telling you to go there and experience it. thanks for the compliment. Evolution was always taught as chance and WITH ENOUGH TIME these things "may have", "perhaps", "possibly" have happened. That's hearsay my friend. since I am the dumbass, you tell me HOW the Big Bang started if it is true? Dont' tell me it happened and call that evidence. (cont)
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper You are welcome on the compliment of dumbass because for you thats an upgraded measure of your intelligence
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian Dont' tell me it happened and call that evidence. Tell me HOW it happened. Where did the energy come from that made it explode and the laws of science like inertia, gravity, law of angular momentum adn all the other laws that exist? Laws EQUAL information and if you evolutionists can't even get that through your heads, you guys are the dumbasses. I appreciate it if you don't use thw word dumbass anymore.
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper Wow you really are retarded arent u? Thats the god damn point. YOu tell me of all this supernatural shit, but dont saything about how. Saying god did it isnt an explaination when we can replace that phrase with idk and it gives us no new information.
Btw I majored in ecology and evolution. Your not going to convince me evolution has anything to do with chance. I studied. You try that instead of biased bullshit your pastor spews. Guess what? He hasnt studied it either
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian I admit there is faith when it comes to creation because I wasn't there when it happened. But as usual I cannot get one atheist to answer a simple question that should be so full of evidence. You talk of evidence, you say you studied but you don't ahve an answer. Creation is a very logical answer as to how everything got here.
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper YOu just said you need faith and claim its logical answer. Thats moronic. The reason evolution works is, for one, it doesnt defy everything single thing we have observed, and learned about our natural world. That alone eliminates your sky daddy from contention.
Since I dont have hundreds of pages to explain, look up the video titled evolution by Qualiasoup. Its a simplied dumbed down version, but it works the same.
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian How is that illogical. Here I ahve a book in my hand that predicted thousands of future events (no other world religion or cult has such a book) and these future events came to pass. This book also in its original Koine Greek , Aramaic, and Hebrew is written numerically thorughout the whole book (called Bible Numerics). They keep digging up things in Israel that are proving the stories to be true. I have plenty to stand on. (cont)
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
I'll even grant you your "Bible evidence". But, since you're in the business of accepting evidence (kudos for that one sir!), what about OUR evidence? What's wrong with ours that's not wrong with yours? Why trust religious researchers and not scientists? (because that's what your doing, right?)
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic Hi Subtle,
I am open to real evidence. What would you say is your best evidence for MACRO evolution? I've watched many debates and even many professors say fossils aren't good evidence which I agree with them on that. The teach it as good evidence but then in debates seem to say otherwise. We can't see one animal turn into another totally different animal - it's unobservable so therefore should not be called science. Faith is involved there. :)
thesacredcowtipper 8 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
Okay okay okay. So you do genuinely have an issue with the evidence we propose. That's good!
But (and I say this for your own good, and you need to trust me - and a world-wide community of dedicated scientists) you completely misunderstand.
In nature things don't evolve like in Pokemon ("macro" evolution) - living things evolve gradually - imperceptibly. And this isn't a cop-out - new "species" ARE produced in this manner. ........
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic What is ur defintion of species? Ur example on rabbits still had a rabbit at the end - just a really messed up rabbit.Its kind of like making aphoto copy of an original.The original looks perfect but if you take the copy and make another copy and then take that copy and make another copy, & so on, it will get to the point where you won't even be able to read the text but it is still a copy of the original.It's a loss of information still & still a piece of paper with ink on it.
thesacredcowtipper 8 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
The main trend is certainly not a loss of information, at all.
The definition of a species is "a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of interbreeding - producing viable offspring" or something like that.
You're not using your imagination :P OR understanding how feeble the term "species" is. It's quite easy to see that the 10,000 gen. wouldn't be recognizable as "a rabbit"! But at which point did it STOP being a rabbit? Think about it :P
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
Respond to this video...
Imagine a rabbit. .. Now imagine 10,000 generations of rabbits - with all the individuals from one line of descent sitting next to each other, and you're walking along this line.. As you walk, the difference between each rabbit (for a better analogy, consider each rabbit representing an "average" rabbit of that generation..) is going to be imperceptible - if not non-existent. BUT, there WILL (probably) be a difference between the 1st and the 10,000th rabbit.
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic That makes sense when talking about if they can no longer reproduce with one another because the genetics are gone. Isn't that a loss of genetic information though?
thesacredcowtipper 8 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
God you're a good wee creationist ;)
No not really (although they may have, it's more likely that that's not the case). Dogs and Wolves are different species (dogs descended from wolves - in the last few thousand years! some disagree that they're actually different species, but lets go with it), they can no longer produce viable offspring together. It's not that "the genetics are gone" - they're just no longer compatible.
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic Uh, gotta stop you before you get called on it by a creationist. Some dogs are compatible with wolves. They are called wolf hybrids obviously enough. One such dog breed is the malamute. Granted these dogs are very wolf like in features and size but still closer to dog than wolf. So try to use a better example next time. It wouldn't be a good idea to let any creationists get the upper hand in an argument. You know?
xynth101088 8 months ago
@xynth101088
I know, I'm sorry, it was a terrible example ;( Couldn't really be bothered getting anything more accurate, just wanted to make the point really. Besides I thought this particular guy would let it slide.. I think I almost intended it a sort-of hypothetical example.. that obviously has a little truth to it.
Anwyay! I very much know ;) Thanks!
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic No worries. You are right though eventually dogs and wolves wont be able to breed. But for now I think a better example would be birds. Not only are there so many that can't breed together you also get around the "same kind" BS that creationists like to use. Because clearly a blue jay and an penguin are not the same kind of animal. Also the cool thing with penguins is they could become a fully aquatic type bird much like are dolphins/whales did if given enough time.
xynth101088 8 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
- I guess THIS is your "macro" evolution. (sometimes we speak of "macro mutations" - but that's different to macro-evolution - it's just a random giant-ass mutation, not the refined and viable model we call a species..)
So, little mutations across that 10,000 generations accumulate, eventually making something that looks nothing like the original. .. Can you see how this is possible, at least in theory..? Of course you can. What we then say, is that this theory is accurate.
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic I agree that it is possible but it has never been seen and therefore ithas left the realm of science-things that are observable and repeatable. Still need faith. Just because something is a possiblity doesn't mean it is going ot happen. That's like saying a swim suit model is oging to come up to me and beg me to marry her. It is possbile but very, very, very highly unlikely. :)
thesacredcowtipper 8 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
I was just trying to get you to accept the possibility, now we can move on to seeing if that's the way the world REALLY is. When first devising the theory of evolution, we might not have had the slightest inkling that it was true! It was just a cool theory. But now it actually turns out to be what actually happens! Hoorah! :D
We actually CAN see it, too! In human history, dogs have descended from wolves by our hand.
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic I agree dogs come from wolves. Still a dog though. You have to admit that.
thesacredcowtipper 8 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
Yeah okay, they still look pretty similar, I have to give you that - not very spectacular! :P
EXCEPT, that they ARE different species! They don't produce viable offspring - meaning they will continue to evolve along separate lineages. It doesn't take much imagination (unfortunately you wont live long enough to actually see it happen - which it will) to see that soon the differences WILL be spectacular!
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
So, you accept the notion. .. You accept 'evolution' leading to.. to put it in the words I think you would like to use as a creationist: "different members of a species that cannot reproduce with one another" - and I mean come-on ;)
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
Respond to this video...
Granted you can't actually SEE that, but that's because (and you have to be accepting of this) evolution is slow to our eyes! Very slow. But we can still show quite considerable "macro" evolution..! A famous test-tube experiment involving bacteria, showed that over thousands of observed generations, a particular species evolved a way to metabolize a completely new food source - a HUGE change for a bacterium! (look it up- it's way better than i make it seem :p)
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic What is your best "scientific" evidence of MACRO evolution. This means it must be observable and repeatable for it to be science..
thesacredcowtipper 8 months ago
@Boomx2Brian Christianity is the ONLY faith that doesn't ahve to be followed blindly. We have proof through some 3,000 prophecies that have come to pass that it is a supernatural book adn inspired by the Holy Spirit. If Daniel 11:1-19, all of Isaiah 53 adn most of Psalm 22 (about 100+ prophecies in this small section) aren't enough to convince someone of God along with the complexity of thigns in nature, I can't help that person see the truth.
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper So how did Judas die?
ACT 1:18: "Now Judas purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
MAT 27:5-7: "And Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."
...just one of 100's of contradictions. At least one of these stories has to be a LIE. The claim of creationists that the Bible is infallible is just plain wrong, even a child can see it.
coldcapsicum 9 months ago
@coldcapsicum Hi Coldcap,
I actually have an artilce on this section fo scripture that I wrote back in August, 2010. It is way too long to post here. It is not a contradiction at all if read with the scriptures as a WHOLE and that is how scripture is suppposed to be read. I encourage you to learn that. I haven't found one contradiction yet. Most that say that are doing what is call surface-reading (isogesis) of the scriptures.
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper OK after further reading, the Bible quotes from ACT in my previous comment was taken a bit out of context, in this case ACT is paraphrasing a speech made by Peter. I still maintain that ACT 1 is incongruous with MAT 27 although it is not necessarily a full-on contradiction.
Re: "isogesis" IMO as someone who has studied the genome, this word is also appropriate for how many ppl approach a certain simple biological theory that explains emergent complexity so well: Evolution.
coldcapsicum 9 months ago
@coldcapsicum Truce. Help me out on this whole micro and macro thing. I don't see what micro is proof of macro. I asked one guy and he sent me a link on atavisms. Atavisms really don't prove anything and the one atavism I know for a fact was proven to be a fatty tissue and not a tail (It was a baby from India with an off-centered looking tail). Further study showed that this was just a tumor or fatty lobe. One would have to imagine that that is proof. Give me your best proof on macro. Thanks!
thesacredcowtipper 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper No such thing as macro and micro evolution. It is all just evolution. The whole thing started because creationists, in their attempts to disprove evolution, couldn't get around the fact that some things do change such as different breeds of dogs and cats. But really if you study evolution you will see that evolution is made up of lots "micro" transitiosn that over time become "macro" transitions, but all in all its all the same thing. Things change over time. Nothing more.
xynth101088 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper Also look at it like this. Evolution is a lot like walking down a road. You notice gradual changes as you walk down the road if you keep going eventually you will be in a completely new area, but if you trace you path back you can see where you came from And if you come to a detour you change your path and start seeing even more new sights. Only in the case of evolution you have millions of people walking down these roads and all taking different routes
xynth101088 9 months ago