Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000th power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. - Sir Fred Hoyle
"A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing-747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there?"
By Sir Fred Hoyle - A lifelong atheist who came to the inevitable and remarkable for him conclusion, the universe was intelligently designed - yet always puzzled over: "But for what purpose?"
Fred Hoyle(1983): "The Intelligent Universe", page 19.
@netgear123456 they think that if they prove you cannot see something (even after already having seen it in the past) it means things we have never seen can also be real. You know, logic. Cough. I mean insanity.
@Gilmaris I think its that she says believing something without evidence is idiotic (which it is) they automatically assumed that meant them. Hence, agreeing, that they believe things without evidence. Marvelous :)
Find me an Atheist manifesto that advocates death suffering, infanticide, torture, all the lovely things from religious texts. And be careful, dont go finding Atheists who also happen to like those things, who were not doing it on behalf of Atheism but just for themselves and happened to be Atheist. Im sure they happened to be other things too like White. Or fat. Or had black hair. It has to be on behalf of. Remember, leaves are green, some cars are green that doesnt mean some cars are leaves.
@KowBoySpace Find me the equivalent theist, who advocates death, suffering etc. because he is a theist. Not because he happens to be a theist through whatever religion he follows, but because he is a theist. There is no atheist manifesto, but there is no theist manifesto either.
@Gilmaris The Quran is a theist manifesto. The bible is a theist manifesto. Both have been used as justifications for slavery, killing, etc. The crusades didn't occur because of 2 peoples that hated each other...but just happened to be different faiths. They occurred specifically because of religion. Because their books said they wanted that land, not because that land was any more special. As evidence, look how hard the Christians tried to hold onto it. Did they settle there?
Isnt it amazing that everyone gasps when she makes her point, "Idiot" is not the worst you might call a person. Nobody gasps when religious people say something like "you will burn in hell" or any other horrible statement. Thats why religion is intolerant, disgusting and demands respect from people where it has not been earned.
@KowBoySpace Are you serious? For one thing, most religious people don't tell others that they will burn in hell.Only the extremists tell people that and when do, they are shunned by atheists AND most theists. As to why everyone gasps when she "makes her point"...I don't know...do YOU take kindly to be called an idiot? It's perfectly understandable why the crowd was offended,because she was being a rude bitch.It's ok to think that we are wrong,but calling us idiots crosses the line.
@Velayasha You are idiots. You have faith and therefore by definition are idiots. Idiots know nothing and so do you. Faith means having no proof for something and still believing in it. This argument will go on for eternity ( by eternity I of course mean up until the point where the smart people wipe you out ) so why bother arguing? Just ignore each other until you go away. ( Yes that was a reference to Firefly :D ).
@Velayasha well the books they worship do. And the people they look too for guidance come to your death bed. Last thing you need. And nobody gasps at Christians running about with "Gays will go to hell" an Atheist would just say, oops there goes the god squad. It is not rude to say that believing something without evidence makes you an idiot. Many things make you an idiot, it just so happens religious people have a protection racket that it cannot apply to them or they will be furious
@Velayasha put it this way. If the conservative manifesto said, if your not a conservative, you will burn in hell. Next time you saw a conservative, since they have aligned themselves with that policy, you are perfectly entitled to assume they are saying you will burn in hell.
@Velayasha "most religious people don't tell others that they will burn in hell."
Nah, they just discuss it among themselves behind their backs. Much better. The holy books of the 2nd and third abrahamic faiths DO declare others will go to hell. Nothing rude about saying that she's not an idiot. Nothing rude about saying that this is the reason she doesn't believe things without evidence. And they said nothing to rebut her argument.
@Gilmaris If they're idiots, that's not rude to point out either. It's not rude to point out that a bucket full of iron oxide powder is a rust bucket. It's not rude to say belief without evidence is stupid.
@Enginmaster It's not rude to call people idiots? Ok, you're a stupid, idiotic buffoon who should one day try using some brain cells...that is, if you have any.You have not proven there is no God, therefore you have not proven your hateful, position. And don't say you can't prove a negative. Atheists try to do exactly that every day. Did I mention you're an idiotic, buffoon? Remember, according to your own flawed logic, I am not being rude at all. According to you, manners don't matter.
@Velayasha Firstly, she didn't directly say it. To imply something isn't rude is it? If it is, then just saying "I'm going to heaven, and not to hell because I accept Christ" is INSANELY more rude than saying "I don't believe in things without evidence because I'm not an idiot" Secondly, no, it's not rude to call you an idiot. You've demonstrated the dictionary definition of being an idiot. So it's not an insult. Just honesty. Don't need to prove a negative. We're not making the claim.
@Velayasha Manners don't matter to the truth, that's true. Believing ANYTHING without evidence is absolutely stupid. You've not proven there's no monkey statue made out of egg whites on Neptune's moon Triton either, but it's STUPID to believe in such things until there's evidence. Get over it. Not hating anyone. I'm just stating the truth. You should demand evidence if you're asked to believe something.
@Enginmaster Yes, you ARE making a claim. Not only do you claim there is no God, you imply others are idiots for believing in Him. And who cares if she didn't directly say it? We know what she meant. Do you know why? "Because we're not idiots". You can't piss on our legs and then convince us that it's just raining.
@Velayasha YOU are the one saying you don't have evidence for a god, by NOT presenting anything. I made NO claim. It would be stupid of me to say "I 100% believe there is no god" without evidence. I don't. It is absolutely stupid of you to say you do believe there is a god without evidence too. So yes, you are an idiot. And if you find it insulting, how much more insulted would you be if I condemned you to eternal torture, idiot?
@Enginmaster I have enough evidence for God both visible and invisible, therefore I am not an idiot. It is not my fault that you are blind. And when did I ever condemn you to Hell? Only God can make that call. Any theist who tells you that you are going to Hell, has over stepped their bounds. However, if you do end up there, the fault is your own. Not God's. If you fall in the river, but refuse the life jacket offered to you, and die from drowning or impact against rocks, it's your fault.
@Velayasha Then PRESENT IT, my fine idiot. Don't just say "i have evidence, I just ain't gonna show you it." that's stupid. Just as stupid as it is to believe in your god without evidence.
@Velayasha That's like saying before a judge "I have proof I didn't commit the crime" And when he/she asks you to present it you just say "man, if you can't see why I didn't rob that store, you're just blind, not my fault!" Just see how that works out in real court. That's not convincing. You're not convincing me. Say in a round-about way what you consider to be your evidence. I can easily outline the evidence for ANY thing I believe within a youtube comment box. Are you so dumb you can't?
@Enginmaster You will get the same proof that people in the days of Noah got. But you will not have an Ark. Your hatred and snobbery will not save you. Your calamity will be the only proof you get. That is what I have to present to you. If you don't like it, then tough shit....idiot.
@Velayasha I'm asking for corroborating evidence of the supernatural parts of your holy book. What evidence do YOU have, my fine idiot? I'm not asking for what your fictional book said someone had. That's not evidence, that's further unbelievable claims. It's written in a book that says there was a talking snake, a mud brick building to "heaven" and a global flood for which there is no corroboration, and much refutation in the geological record. What is YOUR evidence, else you're an idiot.?
@Velayasha Since when did I condemn you to idiocy, only your lack of evidence can condemn you. That's the hilarious part. The people in the audience, without being told directly that they did believe without evidence, automatically declared themselves to be offended, and to say by implication, they WERE idiots. They're the ones that say they have no evidence. All Kate was saying is that she refuses to believe without evidence because she's not an idiot. But yeah, you seem an idiot now.
@Enginmaster The funny thing about haters like you, is that you demand material proof for things that are immaterial. What do you expect for your so called "evidence"? A photo of God? His DNA? You cannot lab test, weigh and analyze God. If we could, He would not be God. But He has given us enough to believe without being subject to our limited instruments. The idea of a Creator makes a whole lot more sense than believing the computer you use [the Universe], just kind of "made itself".
@Velayasha I hate nothing. And I don't make any positive claims about the universe's creation. No scientist does. But YOU are making positive claims without evidence, and that's incredibly stupid. Any evidence you have. You're the one who said you had a lot of evidence. Only you know what your evidence is. Present it. The book doesn't count, because it's the only thing claiming a god like that. What evidence surpassing the evidence for other gods? Nothing in the bible says "untestable god"
@Velayasha If it did say he's untestable, then it's further proof that it's a stupid thing to believe in. God used to moon prophets. Moses saw his ass! Clearly he had two legs, and a pair of buttocks connected. If he could create ALL the rest of the stars and planets in 1 day, surely he could send us a text message, could he not? Neutrinos don't even do that much, but we can detect them! Describe your evidence you claim is "enough to believe" not credulous people like all other faiths.
@Velayasha "It is obvious to those who have not closed their minds. "
That's like saying, "well gee, anyone who looks at titan should clearly see there's a monkey statue made of egg whites there. If you're closed minded you won't see it, but the evidence is there"
Bullshit! You present no evidence. You point at trees that we know evolved to get here and pretend that implies an invisible bearded magic skydaddy. Absolutely stupid, by anyone's standard. It needs to be said.
@Enginmaster And who says we have no evidence for God? You do. That's like asking a blind man if there is evidence that color exists. God's existence is evident in nature. It is obvious to those who have not closed their hearts and minds. To those who have, you will not see God.
@Enginmaster U're STILL not saying anything that isn't polemical. WHERE'S THE SCIENCE 4 EVOLUTION? 4 SPECIES CHANGE? It should be THROUGHOUT THE STRATA? How do u "explain" Gould's "PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM" nonsense, then have evolutionists mouth off a LOT about "millions & millions & millions" of years? :) What about Fred Hoyle & the impossible MATH of evolution? :)
Dawkins even tried 2 resurrect Hoyle's "PANSPERMIA" BS 4 evolution! Hoyle was a most devout atheist:)
@4zX289 Hey look, the bigot's back! Hows your hatred doing? Still fermenting inside that cesspool you call a mind, eh? Dude, if you failed to even graduate middleschool level biology, that's really not my responsibility. Gould was wrong. It was good that scientists considered his hypothesis...but it didn't stand up to studies. If you're still 20 yrs behind the times, I'm sure your comment would seem less stupid. Dawkins did not "try to resurrect" panspermia. You are stupid.
@4zX289 "It should be THROUGHOUT THE STRATA" It is throughout the strata. Age of earth is corroborated through several techniques. The same physics that allowed us to detonate nukes allowed us to know the age of various minerals. You sad about that? You wishing there were a talking snake and magical tree? Flat earth so your god could have a mountain/tree to see "all the kingdoms of Earth"? Too bad. The evidence will not bend to your wishthinking. Earth is round. You are dumb.
@4zX289 You do not seem to understand what punctuated equilibrium means, nor do you seem to understand its place among the theories of evolution. You also fail to realize that Hoyle is not in the mainstream and his stats are not supported by most scientists.
@littlemoretime1 ROTE: "You do not seem to understand what punctuated equilibrium means, nor do you seem to understand its place among the theories of evolution."
I DO KNOW it's PROPER PLACE -- "among the theories of evolution." I am ALSO familiar with the "place" of the various theories of communism. :) I put such BOTH, in the SAME PLACE. :)
U rote: "You also fail to realize that Hoyle is not in the mainstream"
Ah! SACRED DEMOCRACY eh?! :) Very good! Let's VOTE on it! :)
@4zX289 Saying you know what something means does not in fact prove you know what it means. & suggesting that every theory involving evolution is correct just to make evolution as ridiculous as possible does not support ur cause. That scientist is not the in mainstream bcause his ideas are not widely supported by other scientists based on evidence/logic. This is not democracy in a pure sense as scientists are meant to let the evidence speak for itself.
@littlemoretime1 ROTE: "U also fail 2 realize that Hoyle is not in the mainstream & his stats are not supported by most scientists"
By BIOLOGISTS? -- BY EVOLUTIONISTS? :) So far, there's NO data that disproves his calculation of chemical evolution. NONE! Still "shooting" 4 "PANSPERMIA" eh?:) Like Richard Dawkins recently did? :) Hmm.... Dawkins ain't much on that there numbers stuff much, IS HE? :)Hoyle & his (almost as brilliant in his own sphere, C. Wickramasinghe can count.
@4zX289 Hoyle's stats that suggest 10 to the 400th chance r not logical. Hell, there is a wiki page entitled "Hoyle's fallacy" because his analysis is illogical and assumes that things are entirely due to chance. All evolutionary biologists will tell u this isn't the case. &on that site, it states explicitly that ur among the many creationists who latch on to this hypothesis to disprove evolution without actually understanding it
@littlemoretime1ROTE: "Hoyle's stats that suggest 10 to the 400th chance r not logical."
LOOK AT THE EQUATIONS! AMINES! Fuck wiki's VERY BS "Hoyle's fallacy" SHIT - written by an UNEDUCATED DUDE from INFIDEL.NET btw, U DIDN'T KNOW THAT, DID U?
"Hell, there is a wiki page entitled "Hoyle's fallacy" because his analysis is illogical and assumes that things are entirely due 2 chance."
How EASILY U R IMRESSED! Ah! WIKI SEZ!.. "I READ THAT (barely) SO THERE! :) Wiki "science"? :)
@littlemoretime1 "because his analysis is illogical and assumes that things are entirely due to chance. All evolutionary biologists will tell u this isn't the case"
CHANCE IS THE BASIS OF EVOLUTION -REMEMBER? No God right? :) "&on that site, it states explicitly that ur among the many creationists who latch on 2 this hypothesis 2 disprove evolution without actually understanding it"
I used 2 TEACH it! & YOU? Remember what I said about "punctuated equilibrium"? :)
Punctuated equilibrium was a hypothesis to deal with what turned out to be a collection artifact. It's not real. Gradualism has the evidence on its side.
"u DISMISS HOYLE et al, the ASTROPHYSICIST & MATHEMATICIAN so EASILY? ON WHAT?"
Evidence. He was demonstrably wrong. Enough said.
And you accept magic skydaddy myths for what reason? Oh yes, you're retarded.
@Enginmaster "Punctuated equilibrium was a hypothesis to deal with what turned out to be a collection artifact. It's not real. Gradualism has the evidence on its side."
It's STILL "evolution" -- still BS! "Punctuated equilibrium" was AND STILL IS, an anti theist "defense" to "cover" WHAT GOD DID, so much for "millions & millions of years"
when inconvienient! :) U IGNORANT SICKLY COCKSUCKER:) Go suck more assholes, inevitably, eating more bits of shit:) YUMMY, eh faggot? :)
@4zX289 Only religious minded morons think of individuals like Hoyle or Gould as "holy" and therefore impervious to the mountains of evidence that accumulate against some of their ideas. But at least you finished your bigoted hate speeches for now, and are instead ranting like a tinfoil hat wearing psycho instead. Good night, psycho.
@Enginmaster - "Only religious minded morons think of individuals like Hoyle or Gould as "holy" and therefore impervious to the mountains of evidence that accumulate against some of their ideas."
BOTH Hoyle & Gould were atheists you IGNORANT FAGGOT!
"But at least u finished ur bigoted hate speeches 4 now, & are instead ranting like a tinfoil hat wearing psycho instead. Good night, psycho."
Thought so.. IGNORANT FAGGOT ATHEIST ON MEDICATIONS! Suck any @ssholes lately? YUM! YUM!
@littlemoretime1 I AM AMAZED! How DULL U indeed ARE! U had the AUDACITY to READ WIKI AND TELL ME WHAT THAT *IDIOT* from INFIDEL.NET "rote" there & CITE THAT?! AS AN ARGUMENT?! WOW!
Fuckin' *IGNORANT* ROBOTS! AMAZING! Did YOU look at the equations? Have YOU *EVER* taken a stat class? Do U KNOW *ANY* chemistry? Taken a SINGLE COURSE IN ORGANIC CHEMISTRY? Do you KNOW what a titration IS? An AMINE? & u DISMISS HOYLE et al, the ASTROPHYSICIST & MATHEMATICIAN so EASILY? ON WHAT?
@littlemoretime1 YOU MUST BE "HIGH" ON DRUGZZZ! No one, no one could be so STUPID! Could "reason" like this! Are you on SSRIs? Benzos? WHAT? NO ONE COULD BE THIS STUPID -- NATURALLY! That ROBOTIC! That ILLOGICAL!
Sir Fred Hoyle... What got him into trouble & denied him the Nobel Prize was his "math hit" on evolution.. It's ALL ABOUT those pesky amines, isn't it now? :) ..recombining & all "over millions & millions & millions of years" So I'm told :) SUDDENLY.. best get that there "punc-tu-ated equilibrium" thing out! :) Uh huh.. yeah... sure.. 4 YOU maybe! :)
Hmm... Fred Hoyle's Boeing-story in the Evolution/Creation literature
@littlemoretime1 But I like Fred Hoyle :) FLAMING ATHEIST, but I like him anyway. :) Good astrophysicist, good math dude. To think .... :) I used to teach evolution... Like Fred Hoyle would have - did the legalities... but also *TRUTH* WITH IT -- ABOUT IT! Didn' give a fig about people's RELIGION... Don't give a fig about yours either. :)
To think! I used to be like u :) my, my!
Wanna hear the 747 & the tornado in the junk yard story? :)
@4zX289 Are you a bit wasted right now? Your points are so broken up that you never actually defend your opinion beyond stating it. And then you try and stick like 8 tangents within a single post.
"Your points are so broken up that you never actually defend your opinion beyond stating it. And then you try and stick like 8 tangents within a single post."
Oh?
Perhaps because in many of them I try to crowd data. Nor is it mere polemics. READ the points, goggle and/or see the links if u so wish. Nor at all, is the reasoning tangental. If so, WHERE?
@KowBoySpace that and christians calls people who believe in aliens, or are muslim, or are mormon, idiots all the time for their beliefs, yet there is no uproar...
she must not enter the debate because she is mentally, spiritually, morally, etc handicaped, she is actully idiot n know it not. May |God Guide her of perish(kill her) ameen
Are they seriously saying at the end that believing in money is the same as believing in God? Yeah... I don't think I want to live on this planet anymore.
I love it how the believers' only comeback to her was to muddy the already ambiguous definition of faith. Money works and we've all seen it in action, which is a lot more than we can say for god and heaven.
GOD EXISTS BECAUSE.... MONEY!!! Look! You got money! It's a symbol! Therefore God exists! Brilliant argument, really. And with the "Religious idiots" thing that's going on below me. A lot of those geniuses did the things they did, not in the name of religion, but because they wanted more knowledge. Most of the people today who are religious, don't seek further knowledge, they think "God did it" and just stop right there. Those people are the ones who the lady is calling idiotic.
2. After some strong deep pondering about it, I've concluded that gods/spirits/angels/demons/etc. are simply the main form of superstition of our times.
3. I'll just say it's incredibly unlikely that I'm wrong, especially as far as a personal god goes. So much so that I do not admit that I could be wrong.
4. You wouldn't be, and it's up for debate if we've be worse off in the grave. There are different religions and different interpretations of religions as well.
@233259 Who died and made you the arbitrator of what exists and what doesn't? The Universe is so vast, that your "conclusion" that everything mentioned in your psot cannot exist, is like saying the Earth is flat. I know atheist like to lord science over us believers [as if we are against science] but, you could not hold a more unscientific position than you currently are.
2: I don't have proof. But no proof has been presented that he does exist, which is sufficient for disbelieving unicorns and dragons. Why make an exception for God?
3: Of course I could be wrong. But considering how many different religions there are, it is more likely that all of them are wrong. I don't have to present evidence to disprove that which has no evidence for it.
@Imaculata "2: I don't have proof. But no proof has been presented that he does exist, which is sufficient for disbelieving unicorns and dragons. Why make an exception for God?"
NOTHING makes "an exception for God". There has been much proof for God's existence. You just don't know it. :)
Goggle Fred Hoyle +evolution WADE INTO THE MATERIAL. He was an atheist by the way. :)
@4zX289 Alright, what is the proof? Because if God is real, and we assume he affects the material world, then it should be easy to test right? Anything that affects the material, can be tested through material means. But if your God can easily be replaced by a unicorn and be just as proven, you failed the test clearly. But I'm all ears, lets hear that proof.
@Imaculata "Alright, what is the proof? Because if God is real, and we assume he affects the material world, then it should be easy to test right?"
Of course! :) Refer to/goggle: Fred Hoyle +evolution & he was an ATHEIST! :)
He laughed (as does ANY credible scientist, about "evolution" :)
If you prefer PHYSICS, math, etc.. (besides biology) check out William Lane Craig's (others too!) debating atheists. "On you" as is said. I do NOT believe in "religion" - Christ didn't.
@Imaculata Also please refer to my other posts. Some rather contentious with one fellow.
But... if you have a "religious" or non-scientific view, can't help you. Other then VERY committed atheists, biologists KNOW *evolution* (not talking about adaptation or selection) of one species to another - is IMPOSSIBLE! Dna is far to complex! Add to it the cytoplasmic factors! Not happening! :)
@Imaculata "But if your God can easily be replaced by a unicorn and be just as proven, you failed the test clearly." But I'm all ears, lets hear that proof."
Agree!
" But I'm all ears, lets hear that proof."
Gave you some goggle terms. Look 'em up! :)
Well? :) See my other posts in this "forum"
On you! Isn't it? I used to be an atheist... lost my "faith" in such... No choice... LOGIC!
You can check out biochemist Michael Behe... etc..
@4zX289 A bunch of words for me to Google is not proof. Just explain your evidence in a post. Is that so hard? You say there is evidence everywhere for God. Please present it rather than linking to the works of others. BTW Michael Behe is a tool. He works for the Discovery Institute, which is an institution with a pure religious agenda. It has little to do with actual science. His PHD does not buy him any extra credit when he works for such an absurd organisation.
@4zX289 "Michael Behe"? Fucking Michael Behe? Whose pathetic "irreducible complexity" crap has been debunked by a simple mousetrap? I call bullshit on this.
@TomFynn Rote: ""Michael Behe"? Fucking Michael Behe? Whose pathetic "irreducible complexity" crap has been debunked by a simple mousetrap? I call bullshit on this."
Your "call" of "BS" means nothing! Are you a biochemist like Michael Behe is? :)
A biologist as I am? :)
Well then... OK... if not... stop HOOTING out "BS!" on what you do not understand, RIGHT? :)
Behe's work, along with others, on genetics, etc.. statistical analysis of amine recombination by ATHEIST Fred Hoyle? :)
@TomFynn Thank u 4 ur vid info! However, that LAWYER did NOT at all prove that u can "catch a mouse" by using ur tie/tie clip, in the SAME WAY AS A MOUSETRAP did he? :) & the FLAGELLA?:)
Biochemically, anatomically, 2 achieve the same thing as the flagella does, becomes even a more LUDICROUS concept! The LAWYER should "keep 2 his own level." :)
The logic is fallacious. But thank u!
Behe still stands -flagella 2! U may wish 2 look at the ridiculous concept of "punctuated equilibrium":)
@TomFynn Ahem! You still didn't reply to my previous questions on: "statistical analysis of amine recombination by ATHEIST Fred Hoyle? :)"
Hoyle, devout atheist that he was... was also against the "Bang Bang" as he mockingly called it, thus inadvertently giving it the name! :)
Bible: "...and He spread the heavens". Thus Hoyle's championing "steady state universe" -no creation, no God:) No expansion! Hoyle did hate BS of evolution though. Even he couldn't take it! BAD MATH!
Fred Hoyle invented the term (2 explain life on earth) "PANSPERMIA"?!? There's a "WTF!" aspect 2 desperate stuff! Yeah, LITTLE GREEN MEN FROM SPACE is responsible for life forming on earth! :)
MOST LOUD ATHEIST Richard Dawkins, C on YOU TUBE SOMEWHERE, tried, when pinned down, 2 resurrect that same concept! :)
When he got sufficiently em-bare-ass-ed 4 making a fool of himself, he made a press release saying he wasn't "advocating little green men.." :)
@4zX289 Did a LOT of reading on Sir Fred Hoyle long ago. Brilliant man actually.. Would've won the Nobel prize BUT that "hit piece" he did on the math impossibility of evolution...Well... angered many people -Dawkins 2. Nobel prize is political at times. Why Obama got "Peace Prize" :)
Concept of "the Big Bang" STAGGERED Hoyle! Recoiled at the thought of -- GOD! Interestingly he eventually concluded, that the universe HAD 2 be "intelligently designed" -but as he put it 4 what purpose?
@Enginmaster Rote: "Thanks for demonstrating why everyone laughs at creationists. They're SO stupid. Just like you."
Can I be smart like YOU? :)
I can tell by ur comments! That along with ALL ur knowledge of "SCIENCE!" & equally impressive LOGIC! :) So what did u get ur shitty degree in? IF U DID? English? Psychology? Education? Art? :) FAGGOT!
Perhaps u ought 2 take a course in, besides ur previously mentioned "University course in modern physics" :) 1 in "modern biology"? :)
@4zX289 Also to answer your question, no, you cannot be smart like I am, apparently. You still have yet to learn how to spell, much less move beyond severely childish name-calling. You'd have to know PhD level engineering, as well as a minor in paleontology to get anywhere near my level. But thanks for the laughs, moron. Also, you'd have to learn how to READ. And to look up things like the RNA world hypothesis. Beyond that, you'd have to know basic scientific philosophy. You fail.
@TomFynn Funny thing... How RICHARD DAWKINS -tried to ARGUE AGAINST HOYLE'S MATH ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF "evolution"! The guy can barely count! And DAWKINS was going to argue against the math of Hoyle AND his FELLOW MATH "BIGGIE"? :) Well... Dawkins must have large gonads... as a compensation for a small brain... But he does indeed hate GOD! :) Most devout, isn't he? Most religious! Well... I can very well now C Y Christ hated religion. No wonder "religion" annoyed him so. Me too! :)
1. No, I'm not. But I'm more than 50% sure, so I choose the most likely option.
2. No, I don't. But I have mounds of evidence that directly contradicts various holy books, ergo, if they're lying about other things, why not God too?
3. Yes, I could be wrong, but I'm betting on the most likely option.
4. You only benefit if the Christian God exists. What if the real god is Thor, or Zeus? You'll be as fucked as the rest of us.
Your presenting "Pascal's Wager" is not at all necessary. There is rather good (VERY GOOD! -Excellent in fact!) evidence for God. Take a look at Cosmology, and the most dubious Theory of Evolution. If you seek to present an "apologia" for "faith" well... check out the apologetic sites. I have no faith... I have evidence, which I greatly prefer. Your "arguments" are rather 19th century-ish. Sorry! - from an ex-atheist.
@4zX289 There is nothing dubious about the Theory of Evolution, or it wouldn't be a theory. Theory means mountains of evidence, you could literally fill a room with all the evidence for Evolution. It has also been confirmed by other sciences that didn't exist yet during Darwins time, like our knowledge of DNA and genes for example. All of modern medicine is based on our understanding of evolution, which is why we know it to be a fact. You benefit from it every day with through vacines.
@Imaculata Wrote: "There is nothing dubious about the Theory of Evolution, or it wouldn't be a theory. Theory means mountains of evidence, you could literally fill a room with all the evidence for Evolution."
I have a sci. background - biology in point of fact.DO YOU? Used to TEACH "evolution" :) PLUS CURRENT SCIENCE (non-1860's stuff:) WITH IT :) as a COUNTER to this civil war era stuff :) Please refer to my other posts in this "forum".
@4zX289 Your lack of knowledge about evolution kind of shows the contrary, which makes your whole claim to having a sci background dubious at best. Personally, I don't take people's word for it just because they claim to be a scientist or in biology, when they provide to evidence for their claims. I got a vaccine several times in my life, and surprise surprise, it works. That is part of what evolution teaches us. It also teaches us about how you inherit features from your parents.
@Imaculata ""There is nothing dubious about the Theory of Evolution, or it wouldn't be a theory. Theory means mountains of evidence, you could literally fill a room with all the evidence for Evolution."
Sorry... but what you wrote is LAUGHABLE! 1860's "evolutionary science" does NOT hold up 2 CURRENT SCIENCE! Look it up! You just posted VERY BAD INFO. 4 your agenda! LOOK IT UP! Even atheist Jay Gould backed away from "evolution" :)
Empty "talk" can't fight truth of science! Goggle!
@4zX289 What a load of nonsense. You get your answers from truth in science? A page dedicated to nonsense arguments that have been debunked by even people that are not scientists? Evolution still holds up today, which is what makes it a fact. I'm starting to wonder if you even know what evolution is. Do you? I'd like to know.
2. No I do not. Don't need "proof" to disprove a "negative". As in we both do not need "proof" that there is no tooth fairy. So my question to you would be... since you cannot "disprove" the tooth fairy must you claim that it MIGHT exist? The answer is no.
3. I absolutely could be wrong. And it's good to hear a Christian say that. Hope it's genuine.
4. a. You will have missed the meaning of being human.
1. A lot of things may exist, what's your point? Poseidon may rule the seas.
2. You are asking to provide evidence to prove a negative. If we took that approach everything would have to be believed until disproven which is just idiotic.
3.Sure everyone can be wrong though I seriously doubt you have ever considered being wrong since your position stands contrary to copious amounts of crushing evidence.
4. Is just Pascal's Wager reworded, terrible argument.
I'm an atheist and I was more offended that the man at the beginning at 14 seconds stating 'heaven is real' as though he had some authority on a place that no person in existence has ever seen, or even has proven to exist. Like the woman said the whole reason that it is described as faith is that it relies on a complete lack of evidence to believe.
@permedmammoth So did you expect the man who obviously believes in God and Heaven to not say Heaven is real? Of course he will say that! That's what he believes. Methinks thou art offended much too easily.
@Revansmask17 The Holy Trinity (including the holy spirit), was invented and added by the church in the late-fourth century, having been passed into law during the Nicene Council in C.E. 38.
@Imaculata "The Holy Trinity (including the holy spirit), was invented and added by the church in the late-fourth century, having been passed into law during the Nicene Council in C.E. 38."
And I say you are foul son or daughter of Adam and Eve, you deniy the holy spirit, deniy Christ and more. Good luck in hell bro, hope you dont scream for the first 100 years there.
@permedmammoth "Like the woman said the whole reason that it is described as faith is that it relies on a complete lack of evidence to believe."
That's why I have no faith. I do have evidence. Much more preferred. Look up William Lane Craig debates if you wish to know... even the atheists (infidel.net) acknowledge he wins every debate with atheists. :) You can goggle both terms. If you truly wish to know. Otherwise... that's "on you" as it is said. I would prefer to be sure.
i think it would have been funnier for the woman to say to everyone that she believes in the flying spaghetti monster and have reasons to back it up hence showing everyone how ridiculous it is to go around telling everyone you know what happens after we all die.
Why does being an atheist come with an obligation to be a bitch? I'm not religious or anything...but i don't mock people when it comes to things they find sacred.
Agree with her. No evidence, no reason to believe. You believe in unicorns, you're insane, you believe in a man that walks on water, you're faithful. It's utter rediculousness and she's pointing out the truth, whether it hurts your feelings or not. If you choose to believe something, including the Bible, with no proof, that is not intelligent. It's idiotic.
Actually Jesus Christ is as real as the keyboard im using to contact you, my realtionship with Christ had been moved beyond belief into reality. Now you sir are on some mest
@Revansmask17 What evidence do you have for Jesus Christ being alive... right now? I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for your keyboard existing.
But here's the funny and important part about this "conundrum" here.
If you cannot produce legit, unbiased evidence for Jesus Christ existing... right now... then you are forced to conclude that there is MORE evidence for your insignificant keyboard existing than for Jesus. And that's the "funny" part.
@dixonsusa ROTE: "Agree with her. No evidence, no reason to believe."
Wrote on that "evidence" OPINION of hers - see my post on it, to another party.
You merely DO NOT KNOW WHAT the evidence is. :) Your ignorance, OF THE EVIDENCE does NOT mean the evidence is nonexistent, does it? :)
How do you explain "prophecy" then? :) But... my post provides more... if u dare that is. UR refusal to ACCEPT evidence, speaks more about you, then your ignorance of it.
@4zX289 Your spelling and grammar are horrid, so on top of your condescension and obvious closed mindedness, it makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a religious zealot (which I assume you'd respect more) to recognize that there will be no intelligent exchange with you. So I'm not going to bother. But I will say that you misunderstand the meaning of evidence. A dictionary would at the very least be a good start for you.
@4zX289 ""evolutionists" - ALWAYS LOSE PUBLIC debates"
ROFL! What do you mean... lose? At any intelligence^2 type debate, they definitely win as the votes show. In terms of just about 100% of the relevant scientific community affirming the corroborating evidence for evolution, they win, etc. Wow, you're retarded. You're sure you're not a poe?
@Enginmaster Argue with the NY Times which (most reluctantly) conceded that. Biochemists, etc. also agree that "the fiction" of evolution is UNREAL... 1860's HORSESHIT! Modern science has gotten a "little bit" further then that. :) LINING UP d-l AMINES & COMBINING BY CHANCE?!! :) OH? :) VERY minor stuff like that! :) Even Fred Hoyle, big time atheist LAUGHED at such- GOOGLE IT! :)
U don' know 2 much, do u? Humanities B.A. if you even graduated... Right? :)
@dixonsusa Just because you're an atheist does not give you license to be a bigot. Peoples' religious beliefs (or absence thereof) should be kept to oneself.
Typical religious reply here; I feel sorry for you not having that spiritual side < without even asking what she does believe in. I'm an atheist who is spiritual, amazing stuff hey.
What about those starving children in Africa dying from AIDS? Or the millions suffering from leukemia every year? Or the thousands swept away by the 2004 tsunami?
We have a much better means of explaining the universe and its origins using modern technology then ever before. The bible and its lose interruptions of morals and life is incredibly of date. Just give it some time, anyone who wasn't brain washed as a kid to not question faith isn't religious. Funny how that works.
Religion is a joke, God however is not. The true religious man doesn't need religion. God, the source of all matter and consciousness is beyond any label. Want to see god? well it's hard not to. The spark of god is within every atom.
Keppler, Picasso, Tolkien, Newton, Kant, Gallilei, Faraday, George Strokes, Kelvin, Max Planck, Descartes, E.T Whittaker, Shakespeare and Carl Gustav Jung. Maybe throw in Einstein too.
@Hybridspasser Many of the people you listed died before Darwin's theories. It is apocryphal that they all would have been religious had they lived now instead of when they did.
@thirteendays13 So remove those if that makes you happy. Instead, add in Niels Bohr (who had yin-yang as his personal coat of arms), Joyce, Watt and Alexander Flemming.
So, paper money doesn't exist? Oh gawd. My IQ just dropped to 0 listening to this guy....
TolaMacarino 1 hour ago
if i was their i would make that lady cry!!!!! she is a wolf's in sheep's clothing
jerrybrown54321 1 hour ago
Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000th power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. - Sir Fred Hoyle
4zX289 2 hours ago
"A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing-747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there?"
By Sir Fred Hoyle - A lifelong atheist who came to the inevitable and remarkable for him conclusion, the universe was intelligently designed - yet always puzzled over: "But for what purpose?"
Fred Hoyle(1983): "The Intelligent Universe", page 19.
4zX289 2 hours ago
Money isnt real? what?
netgear123456 5 hours ago
@netgear123456 You don't know much about economics either. :)
4zX289 4 hours ago
@netgear123456 they think that if they prove you cannot see something (even after already having seen it in the past) it means things we have never seen can also be real. You know, logic. Cough. I mean insanity.
littlemoretime1 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course that all religious people are idiots and religion itself doesn't deserve respect at all.
mojjuzrnejm 6 hours ago
go her
mrandrew89 7 hours ago
EVERYBODY PRAY FOR KATE
GloryaDios 8 hours ago
@GloryaDios Everyone sacrifice a goat for GloryaDios.
Enginmaster 7 hours ago
Name of the show or link?
saultube44 9 hours ago
I love how this lady has control of her own life without faith, and all these people don't like it...insecure much?
crazymanlargemarge 9 hours ago
@crazymanlargemarge I think it's being called idiots they object to.
Gilmaris 9 hours ago
@Gilmaris I mean before that.
crazymanlargemarge 8 hours ago
@Gilmaris I think its that she says believing something without evidence is idiotic (which it is) they automatically assumed that meant them. Hence, agreeing, that they believe things without evidence. Marvelous :)
KowBoySpace 8 hours ago
Find me an Atheist manifesto that advocates death suffering, infanticide, torture, all the lovely things from religious texts. And be careful, dont go finding Atheists who also happen to like those things, who were not doing it on behalf of Atheism but just for themselves and happened to be Atheist. Im sure they happened to be other things too like White. Or fat. Or had black hair. It has to be on behalf of. Remember, leaves are green, some cars are green that doesnt mean some cars are leaves.
KowBoySpace 10 hours ago
@KowBoySpace Find me the equivalent theist, who advocates death, suffering etc. because he is a theist. Not because he happens to be a theist through whatever religion he follows, but because he is a theist. There is no atheist manifesto, but there is no theist manifesto either.
Gilmaris 9 hours ago
@Gilmaris The Quran is a theist manifesto. The bible is a theist manifesto. Both have been used as justifications for slavery, killing, etc. The crusades didn't occur because of 2 peoples that hated each other...but just happened to be different faiths. They occurred specifically because of religion. Because their books said they wanted that land, not because that land was any more special. As evidence, look how hard the Christians tried to hold onto it. Did they settle there?
Enginmaster 8 hours ago
@Gilmaris I think Enginmaster answered the question pretty much as I would have.
KowBoySpace 8 hours ago
Isnt it amazing that everyone gasps when she makes her point, "Idiot" is not the worst you might call a person. Nobody gasps when religious people say something like "you will burn in hell" or any other horrible statement. Thats why religion is intolerant, disgusting and demands respect from people where it has not been earned.
KowBoySpace 11 hours ago 4
@KowBoySpace Are you serious? For one thing, most religious people don't tell others that they will burn in hell.Only the extremists tell people that and when do, they are shunned by atheists AND most theists. As to why everyone gasps when she "makes her point"...I don't know...do YOU take kindly to be called an idiot? It's perfectly understandable why the crowd was offended,because she was being a rude bitch.It's ok to think that we are wrong,but calling us idiots crosses the line.
Velayasha 11 hours ago
Comment removed
haddii2324 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Velayasha You are idiots. You have faith and therefore by definition are idiots. Idiots know nothing and so do you. Faith means having no proof for something and still believing in it. This argument will go on for eternity ( by eternity I of course mean up until the point where the smart people wipe you out ) so why bother arguing? Just ignore each other until you go away. ( Yes that was a reference to Firefly :D ).
haddii2324 10 hours ago
@Velayasha well the books they worship do. And the people they look too for guidance come to your death bed. Last thing you need. And nobody gasps at Christians running about with "Gays will go to hell" an Atheist would just say, oops there goes the god squad. It is not rude to say that believing something without evidence makes you an idiot. Many things make you an idiot, it just so happens religious people have a protection racket that it cannot apply to them or they will be furious
KowBoySpace 10 hours ago
@Velayasha put it this way. If the conservative manifesto said, if your not a conservative, you will burn in hell. Next time you saw a conservative, since they have aligned themselves with that policy, you are perfectly entitled to assume they are saying you will burn in hell.
KowBoySpace 10 hours ago
@Velayasha "most religious people don't tell others that they will burn in hell."
Nah, they just discuss it among themselves behind their backs. Much better. The holy books of the 2nd and third abrahamic faiths DO declare others will go to hell. Nothing rude about saying that she's not an idiot. Nothing rude about saying that this is the reason she doesn't believe things without evidence. And they said nothing to rebut her argument.
Enginmaster 9 hours ago
@Enginmaster By saying that she was not an idiot, she accused all the faithful of being idiots. The implication was clear as day. And it was rude.
Gilmaris 9 hours ago
@Gilmaris If they're idiots, that's not rude to point out either. It's not rude to point out that a bucket full of iron oxide powder is a rust bucket. It's not rude to say belief without evidence is stupid.
Enginmaster 9 hours ago
@Enginmaster It's not rude to call people idiots? Ok, you're a stupid, idiotic buffoon who should one day try using some brain cells...that is, if you have any.You have not proven there is no God, therefore you have not proven your hateful, position. And don't say you can't prove a negative. Atheists try to do exactly that every day. Did I mention you're an idiotic, buffoon? Remember, according to your own flawed logic, I am not being rude at all. According to you, manners don't matter.
Velayasha 8 hours ago
@Velayasha Firstly, she didn't directly say it. To imply something isn't rude is it? If it is, then just saying "I'm going to heaven, and not to hell because I accept Christ" is INSANELY more rude than saying "I don't believe in things without evidence because I'm not an idiot" Secondly, no, it's not rude to call you an idiot. You've demonstrated the dictionary definition of being an idiot. So it's not an insult. Just honesty. Don't need to prove a negative. We're not making the claim.
Enginmaster 8 hours ago
@Velayasha Manners don't matter to the truth, that's true. Believing ANYTHING without evidence is absolutely stupid. You've not proven there's no monkey statue made out of egg whites on Neptune's moon Triton either, but it's STUPID to believe in such things until there's evidence. Get over it. Not hating anyone. I'm just stating the truth. You should demand evidence if you're asked to believe something.
Enginmaster 7 hours ago
@Enginmaster Yes, you ARE making a claim. Not only do you claim there is no God, you imply others are idiots for believing in Him. And who cares if she didn't directly say it? We know what she meant. Do you know why? "Because we're not idiots". You can't piss on our legs and then convince us that it's just raining.
Velayasha 7 hours ago
@Velayasha YOU are the one saying you don't have evidence for a god, by NOT presenting anything. I made NO claim. It would be stupid of me to say "I 100% believe there is no god" without evidence. I don't. It is absolutely stupid of you to say you do believe there is a god without evidence too. So yes, you are an idiot. And if you find it insulting, how much more insulted would you be if I condemned you to eternal torture, idiot?
Enginmaster 7 hours ago
@Enginmaster I have enough evidence for God both visible and invisible, therefore I am not an idiot. It is not my fault that you are blind. And when did I ever condemn you to Hell? Only God can make that call. Any theist who tells you that you are going to Hell, has over stepped their bounds. However, if you do end up there, the fault is your own. Not God's. If you fall in the river, but refuse the life jacket offered to you, and die from drowning or impact against rocks, it's your fault.
Velayasha 7 hours ago
@Velayasha Then PRESENT IT, my fine idiot. Don't just say "i have evidence, I just ain't gonna show you it." that's stupid. Just as stupid as it is to believe in your god without evidence.
Enginmaster 7 hours ago
@Velayasha That's like saying before a judge "I have proof I didn't commit the crime" And when he/she asks you to present it you just say "man, if you can't see why I didn't rob that store, you're just blind, not my fault!" Just see how that works out in real court. That's not convincing. You're not convincing me. Say in a round-about way what you consider to be your evidence. I can easily outline the evidence for ANY thing I believe within a youtube comment box. Are you so dumb you can't?
Enginmaster 7 hours ago
@Enginmaster You will get the same proof that people in the days of Noah got. But you will not have an Ark. Your hatred and snobbery will not save you. Your calamity will be the only proof you get. That is what I have to present to you. If you don't like it, then tough shit....idiot.
Velayasha 7 hours ago
@Velayasha I'm asking for corroborating evidence of the supernatural parts of your holy book. What evidence do YOU have, my fine idiot? I'm not asking for what your fictional book said someone had. That's not evidence, that's further unbelievable claims. It's written in a book that says there was a talking snake, a mud brick building to "heaven" and a global flood for which there is no corroboration, and much refutation in the geological record. What is YOUR evidence, else you're an idiot.?
Enginmaster 7 hours ago
@Velayasha Since when did I condemn you to idiocy, only your lack of evidence can condemn you. That's the hilarious part. The people in the audience, without being told directly that they did believe without evidence, automatically declared themselves to be offended, and to say by implication, they WERE idiots. They're the ones that say they have no evidence. All Kate was saying is that she refuses to believe without evidence because she's not an idiot. But yeah, you seem an idiot now.
Enginmaster 7 hours ago
@Enginmaster The funny thing about haters like you, is that you demand material proof for things that are immaterial. What do you expect for your so called "evidence"? A photo of God? His DNA? You cannot lab test, weigh and analyze God. If we could, He would not be God. But He has given us enough to believe without being subject to our limited instruments. The idea of a Creator makes a whole lot more sense than believing the computer you use [the Universe], just kind of "made itself".
Velayasha 7 hours ago
@Velayasha I hate nothing. And I don't make any positive claims about the universe's creation. No scientist does. But YOU are making positive claims without evidence, and that's incredibly stupid. Any evidence you have. You're the one who said you had a lot of evidence. Only you know what your evidence is. Present it. The book doesn't count, because it's the only thing claiming a god like that. What evidence surpassing the evidence for other gods? Nothing in the bible says "untestable god"
Enginmaster 6 hours ago
@Velayasha If it did say he's untestable, then it's further proof that it's a stupid thing to believe in. God used to moon prophets. Moses saw his ass! Clearly he had two legs, and a pair of buttocks connected. If he could create ALL the rest of the stars and planets in 1 day, surely he could send us a text message, could he not? Neutrinos don't even do that much, but we can detect them! Describe your evidence you claim is "enough to believe" not credulous people like all other faiths.
Enginmaster 6 hours ago
@Velayasha "It is obvious to those who have not closed their minds. "
That's like saying, "well gee, anyone who looks at titan should clearly see there's a monkey statue made of egg whites there. If you're closed minded you won't see it, but the evidence is there"
Bullshit! You present no evidence. You point at trees that we know evolved to get here and pretend that implies an invisible bearded magic skydaddy. Absolutely stupid, by anyone's standard. It needs to be said.
Enginmaster 7 hours ago
@Enginmaster Triton*
Enginmaster 7 hours ago
Comment removed
Velayasha 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Enginmaster And who says we have no evidence for God? You do. That's like asking a blind man if there is evidence that color exists. God's existence is evident in nature. It is obvious to those who have not closed their hearts and minds. To those who have, you will not see God.
Velayasha 7 hours ago
@Enginmaster U're STILL not saying anything that isn't polemical. WHERE'S THE SCIENCE 4 EVOLUTION? 4 SPECIES CHANGE? It should be THROUGHOUT THE STRATA? How do u "explain" Gould's "PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM" nonsense, then have evolutionists mouth off a LOT about "millions & millions & millions" of years? :) What about Fred Hoyle & the impossible MATH of evolution? :)
Dawkins even tried 2 resurrect Hoyle's "PANSPERMIA" BS 4 evolution! Hoyle was a most devout atheist:)
4zX289 4 hours ago
@4zX289 Hey look, the bigot's back! Hows your hatred doing? Still fermenting inside that cesspool you call a mind, eh? Dude, if you failed to even graduate middleschool level biology, that's really not my responsibility. Gould was wrong. It was good that scientists considered his hypothesis...but it didn't stand up to studies. If you're still 20 yrs behind the times, I'm sure your comment would seem less stupid. Dawkins did not "try to resurrect" panspermia. You are stupid.
Enginmaster 4 hours ago
@4zX289 "It should be THROUGHOUT THE STRATA" It is throughout the strata. Age of earth is corroborated through several techniques. The same physics that allowed us to detonate nukes allowed us to know the age of various minerals. You sad about that? You wishing there were a talking snake and magical tree? Flat earth so your god could have a mountain/tree to see "all the kingdoms of Earth"? Too bad. The evidence will not bend to your wishthinking. Earth is round. You are dumb.
Enginmaster 4 hours ago
@4zX289 You do not seem to understand what punctuated equilibrium means, nor do you seem to understand its place among the theories of evolution. You also fail to realize that Hoyle is not in the mainstream and his stats are not supported by most scientists.
littlemoretime1 3 hours ago
@littlemoretime1 ROTE: "You do not seem to understand what punctuated equilibrium means, nor do you seem to understand its place among the theories of evolution."
I DO KNOW it's PROPER PLACE -- "among the theories of evolution." I am ALSO familiar with the "place" of the various theories of communism. :) I put such BOTH, in the SAME PLACE. :)
U rote: "You also fail to realize that Hoyle is not in the mainstream"
Ah! SACRED DEMOCRACY eh?! :) Very good! Let's VOTE on it! :)
4zX289 3 hours ago
@4zX289 Saying you know what something means does not in fact prove you know what it means. & suggesting that every theory involving evolution is correct just to make evolution as ridiculous as possible does not support ur cause. That scientist is not the in mainstream bcause his ideas are not widely supported by other scientists based on evidence/logic. This is not democracy in a pure sense as scientists are meant to let the evidence speak for itself.
littlemoretime1 3 hours ago
@littlemoretime1 ROTE: "U also fail 2 realize that Hoyle is not in the mainstream & his stats are not supported by most scientists"
By BIOLOGISTS? -- BY EVOLUTIONISTS? :) So far, there's NO data that disproves his calculation of chemical evolution. NONE! Still "shooting" 4 "PANSPERMIA" eh?:) Like Richard Dawkins recently did? :) Hmm.... Dawkins ain't much on that there numbers stuff much, IS HE? :)Hoyle & his (almost as brilliant in his own sphere, C. Wickramasinghe can count.
4zX289 3 hours ago
@4zX289 Hoyle's stats that suggest 10 to the 400th chance r not logical. Hell, there is a wiki page entitled "Hoyle's fallacy" because his analysis is illogical and assumes that things are entirely due to chance. All evolutionary biologists will tell u this isn't the case. &on that site, it states explicitly that ur among the many creationists who latch on to this hypothesis to disprove evolution without actually understanding it
littlemoretime1 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@littlemoretime1ROTE: "Hoyle's stats that suggest 10 to the 400th chance r not logical."
LOOK AT THE EQUATIONS! AMINES! Fuck wiki's VERY BS "Hoyle's fallacy" SHIT - written by an UNEDUCATED DUDE from INFIDEL.NET btw, U DIDN'T KNOW THAT, DID U?
"Hell, there is a wiki page entitled "Hoyle's fallacy" because his analysis is illogical and assumes that things are entirely due 2 chance."
How EASILY U R IMRESSED! Ah! WIKI SEZ!.. "I READ THAT (barely) SO THERE! :) Wiki "science"? :)
4zX289 1 hour ago
@littlemoretime1 "because his analysis is illogical and assumes that things are entirely due to chance. All evolutionary biologists will tell u this isn't the case"
CHANCE IS THE BASIS OF EVOLUTION -REMEMBER? No God right? :) "&on that site, it states explicitly that ur among the many creationists who latch on 2 this hypothesis 2 disprove evolution without actually understanding it"
I used 2 TEACH it! & YOU? Remember what I said about "punctuated equilibrium"? :)
HORSESHIT!
4zX289 1 hour ago
@4zX289 "CHANCE IS THE BASIS OF EVOLUTION"
Wrong.
"I used 2 TEACH it! & YOU?"
Apparently not very well, retard.
Punctuated equilibrium was a hypothesis to deal with what turned out to be a collection artifact. It's not real. Gradualism has the evidence on its side.
"u DISMISS HOYLE et al, the ASTROPHYSICIST & MATHEMATICIAN so EASILY? ON WHAT?"
Evidence. He was demonstrably wrong. Enough said.
And you accept magic skydaddy myths for what reason? Oh yes, you're retarded.
Enginmaster 44 minutes ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Enginmaster "Punctuated equilibrium was a hypothesis to deal with what turned out to be a collection artifact. It's not real. Gradualism has the evidence on its side."
It's STILL "evolution" -- still BS! "Punctuated equilibrium" was AND STILL IS, an anti theist "defense" to "cover" WHAT GOD DID, so much for "millions & millions of years"
when inconvienient! :) U IGNORANT SICKLY COCKSUCKER:) Go suck more assholes, inevitably, eating more bits of shit:) YUMMY, eh faggot? :)
4zX289 27 minutes ago
@Enginmaster You've been sucking too many dicks! :) Drinking too much sperm... it's gone, not only up your floppy asshole, but in your brain :)
Yum! Yum!
An atheist and a faggot! :)
Stupid as shit of course!
Or, will you try and tell me that it's GENETIC for you to have a dick up your @sshole?
Maybe it is ... for YOU! :)
A MUTATION! :) An "evolutionary climb up!" More then just dicks up your @ss and mouth?
4zX289 18 minutes ago
@4zX289 Only religious minded morons think of individuals like Hoyle or Gould as "holy" and therefore impervious to the mountains of evidence that accumulate against some of their ideas. But at least you finished your bigoted hate speeches for now, and are instead ranting like a tinfoil hat wearing psycho instead. Good night, psycho.
Enginmaster 43 minutes ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Enginmaster - "Only religious minded morons think of individuals like Hoyle or Gould as "holy" and therefore impervious to the mountains of evidence that accumulate against some of their ideas."
BOTH Hoyle & Gould were atheists you IGNORANT FAGGOT!
"But at least u finished ur bigoted hate speeches 4 now, & are instead ranting like a tinfoil hat wearing psycho instead. Good night, psycho."
Thought so.. IGNORANT FAGGOT ATHEIST ON MEDICATIONS! Suck any @ssholes lately? YUM! YUM!
4zX289 35 minutes ago
@littlemoretime1 MOST STUPIDLY SAID (but it WAS a great truth - but VERY STUPID!):
"All evolutionary biologists will tell u this isn't the case"
Yes they ALL INDEED WILL! :)
But a person that can think and IS NOT A REPEATING FOOL OR ROBOT WON'T!
I didn't care if- "ALL the communists say.."
NOT AT ALL THE MOST IMPRESSIVE LOGIC! Except for YOU of course! Fuck cares what communists, MORONS or "ALL EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS" -- "SAY".
Your degree was in what now? :)
Logic? :)
4zX289 1 hour ago
@littlemoretime1 I AM AMAZED! How DULL U indeed ARE! U had the AUDACITY to READ WIKI AND TELL ME WHAT THAT *IDIOT* from INFIDEL.NET "rote" there & CITE THAT?! AS AN ARGUMENT?! WOW!
Fuckin' *IGNORANT* ROBOTS! AMAZING! Did YOU look at the equations? Have YOU *EVER* taken a stat class? Do U KNOW *ANY* chemistry? Taken a SINGLE COURSE IN ORGANIC CHEMISTRY? Do you KNOW what a titration IS? An AMINE? & u DISMISS HOYLE et al, the ASTROPHYSICIST & MATHEMATICIAN so EASILY? ON WHAT?
4zX289 1 hour ago
@littlemoretime1 U R a RELIGIOUS FANATIC! Scientifically UNTUTORED! Tell me, without looking it up, what an AMINE IS!
U know how difficult it is to SUSTAIN a COMPLEX reaction?
"because his analysis is illogical"
WHERE in the equations is that the case? DID U *READ* THE PAPER?
"and assumes that things are entirely due to chance. All evolutionary biologists will tell u this isn't the case."
So is it - "spontaneous _abiogenesis_" - As ALL evolutionary "biologists" say? :)
4zX289 51 minutes ago
@4zX289 "U know how difficult it is to SUSTAIN a COMPLEX reaction?" Apparently very easy. Read up on oscillatory reactions.
PS: Loose the caps-lock. It gives away your retardedness. Oh, and have your tourettes treated.
TomFynn 1 minute ago
@littlemoretime1 YOU MUST BE "HIGH" ON DRUGZZZ! No one, no one could be so STUPID! Could "reason" like this! Are you on SSRIs? Benzos? WHAT? NO ONE COULD BE THIS STUPID -- NATURALLY! That ROBOTIC! That ILLOGICAL!
4zX289 45 minutes ago
@littlemoretime1
Sir Fred Hoyle... What got him into trouble & denied him the Nobel Prize was his "math hit" on evolution.. It's ALL ABOUT those pesky amines, isn't it now? :) ..recombining & all "over millions & millions & millions of years" So I'm told :) SUDDENLY.. best get that there "punc-tu-ated equilibrium" thing out! :) Uh huh.. yeah... sure.. 4 YOU maybe! :)
Hmm... Fred Hoyle's Boeing-story in the Evolution/Creation literature
home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm
4zX289 3 hours ago
@littlemoretime1 But I like Fred Hoyle :) FLAMING ATHEIST, but I like him anyway. :) Good astrophysicist, good math dude. To think .... :) I used to teach evolution... Like Fred Hoyle would have - did the legalities... but also *TRUTH* WITH IT -- ABOUT IT! Didn' give a fig about people's RELIGION... Don't give a fig about yours either. :)
To think! I used to be like u :) my, my!
Wanna hear the 747 & the tornado in the junk yard story? :)
Or do u prefer "PANSPERMIA!"?
4zX289 2 hours ago
@4zX289 Still haven't looked up RNA world, have you? No, you're too busy repeating yourself to read anything anyone types.
Enginmaster 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Enginmaster SHAT: "Still haven't looked up RNA world, have you?"
No. Why should I?
"No, you're too busy repeating yourself to read anything anyone types."
Oh? Care to prove that?
So what DID (if you did?) get your degree in? :)
Why do u NEVER make a point except to speak in generalities?
Why did u MOST STUPIDLY, *claim* that "evolution is the basis of all modern medicine"? :)
THAT was EXTRAORDINARILY STUPID! AMAZING INDEED! I was most impressed! Tell that to a surgeon! :)
4zX289 1 hour ago
@4zX289 Are you a bit wasted right now? Your points are so broken up that you never actually defend your opinion beyond stating it. And then you try and stick like 8 tangents within a single post.
littlemoretime1 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@littlemoretime1 Rote: "Are you a bit wasted right now?"
Nope! I seldom (very) drink alcohol.
"Your points are so broken up that you never actually defend your opinion beyond stating it. And then you try and stick like 8 tangents within a single post."
Oh?
Perhaps because in many of them I try to crowd data. Nor is it mere polemics. READ the points, goggle and/or see the links if u so wish. Nor at all, is the reasoning tangental. If so, WHERE?
Prove ur contention! Or YIELD!
4zX289 1 hour ago
@KowBoySpace that and christians calls people who believe in aliens, or are muslim, or are mormon, idiots all the time for their beliefs, yet there is no uproar...
leafs3113 3 hours ago
@KowBoySpace btw, I don't believe in any of them lol
leafs3113 3 hours ago
Ouch!
uzideath 14 hours ago
ha, nice job lady
wearethemusicyoumake 17 hours ago
she must not enter the debate because she is mentally, spiritually, morally, etc handicaped, she is actully idiot n know it not. May |God Guide her of perish(kill her) ameen
beggarsuleman 17 hours ago
@beggarsuleman You call unto your God to kill other people? Go away and be an embarrassment to the 21st century elsewhere.
TomFynn 16 hours ago
@beggarsuleman Well, your mind is a disgrace, thats all I can say to you, you're crazy and stupid in equal measures. Solipcistic and ignorant.
Konicava 16 hours ago
It's worrying that in this day and age, people still believe in religion.
ElvisLivesUpstairs 18 hours ago
Are they seriously saying at the end that believing in money is the same as believing in God? Yeah... I don't think I want to live on this planet anymore.
Undertaker3879 18 hours ago
I love it how the believers' only comeback to her was to muddy the already ambiguous definition of faith. Money works and we've all seen it in action, which is a lot more than we can say for god and heaven.
braeduin 23 hours ago
GOD EXISTS BECAUSE.... MONEY!!! Look! You got money! It's a symbol! Therefore God exists! Brilliant argument, really. And with the "Religious idiots" thing that's going on below me. A lot of those geniuses did the things they did, not in the name of religion, but because they wanted more knowledge. Most of the people today who are religious, don't seek further knowledge, they think "God did it" and just stop right there. Those people are the ones who the lady is calling idiotic.
chrism4n14 1 day ago
Sorry lady, sincerity is no accepted... you must comply with the rest of the fucktard people around you -.-
DraskyVanderhoff 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...mentioned in your "post".
Velayasha 1 day ago
Atheists:
1. Are you 100% sure God does not exist? If no, then do you admit God may exist?
2. Do you have proof that God does not exist? If not, then how can you be 100% sure God doesn't exist?
3. Do you admit you could wrong? As a Christian and Creationist, I humbly admit I could be wrong. What about you? Do you admit you could be wrong?
4. If you are right, how am I going to be worse off than you in the grave? But if I am right, are you going to be worse off than me in the grave?
EvangelistEvan 1 day ago
@EvangelistEvan
1. Yes.
2. After some strong deep pondering about it, I've concluded that gods/spirits/angels/demons/etc. are simply the main form of superstition of our times.
3. I'll just say it's incredibly unlikely that I'm wrong, especially as far as a personal god goes. So much so that I do not admit that I could be wrong.
4. You wouldn't be, and it's up for debate if we've be worse off in the grave. There are different religions and different interpretations of religions as well.
233259 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@233259 Who died and made you the arbitrator of what exists and what doesn't? The Universe is so vast, that your "conclusion" that everything mentioned in your psot cannot exist, is like saying the Earth is flat. I know atheist like to lord science over us believers [as if we are against science] but, you could not hold a more unscientific position than you currently are.
Velayasha 1 day ago
@EvangelistEvan 1: No, it is entirely possible He exists.
2: I don't have proof. But no proof has been presented that he does exist, which is sufficient for disbelieving unicorns and dragons. Why make an exception for God?
3: Of course I could be wrong. But considering how many different religions there are, it is more likely that all of them are wrong. I don't have to present evidence to disprove that which has no evidence for it.
4: What about life? Not following crazy gospel?
Imaculata 1 day ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Imaculata "2: I don't have proof. But no proof has been presented that he does exist, which is sufficient for disbelieving unicorns and dragons. Why make an exception for God?"
NOTHING makes "an exception for God". There has been much proof for God's existence. You just don't know it. :)
Goggle Fred Hoyle +evolution WADE INTO THE MATERIAL. He was an atheist by the way. :)
4zX289 1 day ago
@4zX289 Alright, what is the proof? Because if God is real, and we assume he affects the material world, then it should be easy to test right? Anything that affects the material, can be tested through material means. But if your God can easily be replaced by a unicorn and be just as proven, you failed the test clearly. But I'm all ears, lets hear that proof.
Imaculata 19 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Imaculata "Alright, what is the proof? Because if God is real, and we assume he affects the material world, then it should be easy to test right?"
Of course! :) Refer to/goggle: Fred Hoyle +evolution & he was an ATHEIST! :)
He laughed (as does ANY credible scientist, about "evolution" :)
If you prefer PHYSICS, math, etc.. (besides biology) check out William Lane Craig's (others too!) debating atheists. "On you" as is said. I do NOT believe in "religion" - Christ didn't.
4zX289 18 hours ago
@Imaculata Also please refer to my other posts. Some rather contentious with one fellow.
But... if you have a "religious" or non-scientific view, can't help you. Other then VERY committed atheists, biologists KNOW *evolution* (not talking about adaptation or selection) of one species to another - is IMPOSSIBLE! Dna is far to complex! Add to it the cytoplasmic factors! Not happening! :)
4zX289 18 hours ago
@Imaculata "But if your God can easily be replaced by a unicorn and be just as proven, you failed the test clearly." But I'm all ears, lets hear that proof."
Agree!
" But I'm all ears, lets hear that proof."
Gave you some goggle terms. Look 'em up! :)
Well? :) See my other posts in this "forum"
On you! Isn't it? I used to be an atheist... lost my "faith" in such... No choice... LOGIC!
You can check out biochemist Michael Behe... etc..
4zX289 18 hours ago
@4zX289 A bunch of words for me to Google is not proof. Just explain your evidence in a post. Is that so hard? You say there is evidence everywhere for God. Please present it rather than linking to the works of others. BTW Michael Behe is a tool. He works for the Discovery Institute, which is an institution with a pure religious agenda. It has little to do with actual science. His PHD does not buy him any extra credit when he works for such an absurd organisation.
Imaculata 17 hours ago
@4zX289 "Michael Behe"? Fucking Michael Behe? Whose pathetic "irreducible complexity" crap has been debunked by a simple mousetrap? I call bullshit on this.
TomFynn 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomFynn Rote: ""Michael Behe"? Fucking Michael Behe? Whose pathetic "irreducible complexity" crap has been debunked by a simple mousetrap? I call bullshit on this."
Your "call" of "BS" means nothing! Are you a biochemist like Michael Behe is? :)
A biologist as I am? :)
Well then... OK... if not... stop HOOTING out "BS!" on what you do not understand, RIGHT? :)
Behe's work, along with others, on genetics, etc.. statistical analysis of amine recombination by ATHEIST Fred Hoyle? :)
4zX289 14 hours ago
@TomFynn Wrote: "Fucking Michael Behe? Whose pathetic "irreducible complexity" crap has been debunked by a simple mousetrap?"
It has? :)
Since when? How? :)
Rather, QUITE THE CONTRARY! :)
You are speaking rather falsely, aren't you? :)
You evidently have a great need for such, wonder why?
4zX289 14 hours ago
@4zX289 "How?" Ask, and ye shall be told: watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM
TomFynn 14 hours ago
@TomFynn Thank u 4 ur vid info! However, that LAWYER did NOT at all prove that u can "catch a mouse" by using ur tie/tie clip, in the SAME WAY AS A MOUSETRAP did he? :) & the FLAGELLA?:)
Biochemically, anatomically, 2 achieve the same thing as the flagella does, becomes even a more LUDICROUS concept! The LAWYER should "keep 2 his own level." :)
The logic is fallacious. But thank u!
Behe still stands -flagella 2! U may wish 2 look at the ridiculous concept of "punctuated equilibrium":)
4zX289 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomFynn Ahem! You still didn't reply to my previous questions on: "statistical analysis of amine recombination by ATHEIST Fred Hoyle? :)"
Hoyle, devout atheist that he was... was also against the "Bang Bang" as he mockingly called it, thus inadvertently giving it the name! :)
Bible: "...and He spread the heavens". Thus Hoyle's championing "steady state universe" -no creation, no God:) No expansion! Hoyle did hate BS of evolution though. Even he couldn't take it! BAD MATH!
4zX289 4 hours ago
@TomFynn On a light note.. :)
Fred Hoyle invented the term (2 explain life on earth) "PANSPERMIA"?!? There's a "WTF!" aspect 2 desperate stuff! Yeah, LITTLE GREEN MEN FROM SPACE is responsible for life forming on earth! :)
MOST LOUD ATHEIST Richard Dawkins, C on YOU TUBE SOMEWHERE, tried, when pinned down, 2 resurrect that same concept! :)
When he got sufficiently em-bare-ass-ed 4 making a fool of himself, he made a press release saying he wasn't "advocating little green men.." :)
4zX289 4 hours ago
@4zX289 Did a LOT of reading on Sir Fred Hoyle long ago. Brilliant man actually.. Would've won the Nobel prize BUT that "hit piece" he did on the math impossibility of evolution...Well... angered many people -Dawkins 2. Nobel prize is political at times. Why Obama got "Peace Prize" :)
Concept of "the Big Bang" STAGGERED Hoyle! Recoiled at the thought of -- GOD! Interestingly he eventually concluded, that the universe HAD 2 be "intelligently designed" -but as he put it 4 what purpose?
4zX289 3 hours ago
@4zX289 Thanks for demonstrating why everyone laughs at creationists. They're SO stupid. Just like you.
Enginmaster 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Enginmaster Rote: "Thanks for demonstrating why everyone laughs at creationists. They're SO stupid. Just like you."
Can I be smart like YOU? :)
I can tell by ur comments! That along with ALL ur knowledge of "SCIENCE!" & equally impressive LOGIC! :) So what did u get ur shitty degree in? IF U DID? English? Psychology? Education? Art? :) FAGGOT!
Perhaps u ought 2 take a course in, besides ur previously mentioned "University course in modern physics" :) 1 in "modern biology"? :)
4zX289 2 hours ago
@4zX289 Also to answer your question, no, you cannot be smart like I am, apparently. You still have yet to learn how to spell, much less move beyond severely childish name-calling. You'd have to know PhD level engineering, as well as a minor in paleontology to get anywhere near my level. But thanks for the laughs, moron. Also, you'd have to learn how to READ. And to look up things like the RNA world hypothesis. Beyond that, you'd have to know basic scientific philosophy. You fail.
Enginmaster 37 minutes ago
@TomFynn Funny thing... How RICHARD DAWKINS -tried to ARGUE AGAINST HOYLE'S MATH ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF "evolution"! The guy can barely count! And DAWKINS was going to argue against the math of Hoyle AND his FELLOW MATH "BIGGIE"? :) Well... Dawkins must have large gonads... as a compensation for a small brain... But he does indeed hate GOD! :) Most devout, isn't he? Most religious! Well... I can very well now C Y Christ hated religion. No wonder "religion" annoyed him so. Me too! :)
4zX289 3 hours ago
@TomFynn - If you notice - I use atheists primarily for my comments - check out my posts... Taste and see if it is good!
4zX289 2 hours ago
@EvangelistEvan
1. No, I'm not. But I'm more than 50% sure, so I choose the most likely option.
2. No, I don't. But I have mounds of evidence that directly contradicts various holy books, ergo, if they're lying about other things, why not God too?
3. Yes, I could be wrong, but I'm betting on the most likely option.
4. You only benefit if the Christian God exists. What if the real god is Thor, or Zeus? You'll be as fucked as the rest of us.
fatrussian 1 day ago
@EvangelistEvan
Wrong argumentation!
Your presenting "Pascal's Wager" is not at all necessary. There is rather good (VERY GOOD! -Excellent in fact!) evidence for God. Take a look at Cosmology, and the most dubious Theory of Evolution. If you seek to present an "apologia" for "faith" well... check out the apologetic sites. I have no faith... I have evidence, which I greatly prefer. Your "arguments" are rather 19th century-ish. Sorry! - from an ex-atheist.
4zX289 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4zX289 Why do you always run and hide from my questions with the ""Pascal's Wager" "Pascal's Wager" "Pascal's Wager" excuse? lol
Now don't be frightened, just answer my questions:
Are you 100% sure no life exists anywhere in the entire universe besides Earth? Yes or No?
If no, then how can you count out a God living somewhere in the universe?
EvangelistEvan 1 day ago
@4zX289 There is nothing dubious about the Theory of Evolution, or it wouldn't be a theory. Theory means mountains of evidence, you could literally fill a room with all the evidence for Evolution. It has also been confirmed by other sciences that didn't exist yet during Darwins time, like our knowledge of DNA and genes for example. All of modern medicine is based on our understanding of evolution, which is why we know it to be a fact. You benefit from it every day with through vacines.
Imaculata 19 hours ago
@Imaculata Wrote: "There is nothing dubious about the Theory of Evolution, or it wouldn't be a theory. Theory means mountains of evidence, you could literally fill a room with all the evidence for Evolution."
I have a sci. background - biology in point of fact.DO YOU? Used to TEACH "evolution" :) PLUS CURRENT SCIENCE (non-1860's stuff:) WITH IT :) as a COUNTER to this civil war era stuff :) Please refer to my other posts in this "forum".
From what u posted, you do NOT know!
4zX289 18 hours ago
@4zX289 Your lack of knowledge about evolution kind of shows the contrary, which makes your whole claim to having a sci background dubious at best. Personally, I don't take people's word for it just because they claim to be a scientist or in biology, when they provide to evidence for their claims. I got a vaccine several times in my life, and surprise surprise, it works. That is part of what evolution teaches us. It also teaches us about how you inherit features from your parents.
Imaculata 17 hours ago
@Imaculata "It has also been confirmed by other sciences that didn't exist yet during Darwins time, like our knowledge of DNA and genes for example."
WRONG! Look it up!
" All of modern medicine is based on our understanding of evolution,"
Dead WRONG! WOW
"which is why we know it to be a fact. You benefit from it every day with through vaccines ." (I corrected ur spell. of vaccines)
IGNORANT! Virus NOT considered "living" organisms! "semi-living" - more crystalline in effect...
4zX289 18 hours ago
@Imaculata ""There is nothing dubious about the Theory of Evolution, or it wouldn't be a theory. Theory means mountains of evidence, you could literally fill a room with all the evidence for Evolution."
Sorry... but what you wrote is LAUGHABLE! 1860's "evolutionary science" does NOT hold up 2 CURRENT SCIENCE! Look it up! You just posted VERY BAD INFO. 4 your agenda! LOOK IT UP! Even atheist Jay Gould backed away from "evolution" :)
Empty "talk" can't fight truth of science! Goggle!
4zX289 18 hours ago
@4zX289 What a load of nonsense. You get your answers from truth in science? A page dedicated to nonsense arguments that have been debunked by even people that are not scientists? Evolution still holds up today, which is what makes it a fact. I'm starting to wonder if you even know what evolution is. Do you? I'd like to know.
Imaculata 17 hours ago
@EvangelistEvan Hey Evan!
1. Yes. There is no god.
2. No I do not. Don't need "proof" to disprove a "negative". As in we both do not need "proof" that there is no tooth fairy. So my question to you would be... since you cannot "disprove" the tooth fairy must you claim that it MIGHT exist? The answer is no.
3. I absolutely could be wrong. And it's good to hear a Christian say that. Hope it's genuine.
4. a. You will have missed the meaning of being human.
b. Yes.
JayJayAbels 23 hours ago
@EvangelistEvan
1. A lot of things may exist, what's your point? Poseidon may rule the seas.
2. You are asking to provide evidence to prove a negative. If we took that approach everything would have to be believed until disproven which is just idiotic.
3.Sure everyone can be wrong though I seriously doubt you have ever considered being wrong since your position stands contrary to copious amounts of crushing evidence.
4. Is just Pascal's Wager reworded, terrible argument.
Chinomareno 17 hours ago
I'm an atheist and I was more offended that the man at the beginning at 14 seconds stating 'heaven is real' as though he had some authority on a place that no person in existence has ever seen, or even has proven to exist. Like the woman said the whole reason that it is described as faith is that it relies on a complete lack of evidence to believe.
permedmammoth 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@permedmammoth So did you expect the man who obviously believes in God and Heaven to not say Heaven is real? Of course he will say that! That's what he believes. Methinks thou art offended much too easily.
Velayasha 1 day ago
@permedmammoth
You speak foolish, the man has proof but you blasted Atheist sweep it away called the holy spirit
Revansmask17 1 day ago
@Revansmask17 No. No-one has proof of the divine, this is why it is called faith. No being in living memory has witnessed heaven.
permedmammoth 1 day ago
@Revansmask17 The Holy Trinity (including the holy spirit), was invented and added by the church in the late-fourth century, having been passed into law during the Nicene Council in C.E. 38.
Imaculata 1 day ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@Imaculata "The Holy Trinity (including the holy spirit), was invented and added by the church in the late-fourth century, having been passed into law during the Nicene Council in C.E. 38."
Bzzzzt! Wrong!
4zX289 1 day ago
@Revansmask17 There is no "holy spirit" either. And... that's... okay!
JayJayAbels 23 hours ago
@JayJayAbels
And I say you are foul son or daughter of Adam and Eve, you deniy the holy spirit, deniy Christ and more. Good luck in hell bro, hope you dont scream for the first 100 years there.
Revansmask17 11 hours ago
@permedmammoth "Like the woman said the whole reason that it is described as faith is that it relies on a complete lack of evidence to believe."
That's why I have no faith. I do have evidence. Much more preferred. Look up William Lane Craig debates if you wish to know... even the atheists (infidel.net) acknowledge he wins every debate with atheists. :) You can goggle both terms. If you truly wish to know. Otherwise... that's "on you" as it is said. I would prefer to be sure.
4zX289 1 day ago
It might be rude to call the religious idiots, but that doesn't stop it being an accurate description.
Torquemadia 1 day ago
@Torquemadia It might be rude to call religious people idiots, but that doesn't stop the person who said it from being a fucking asshole...and wrong.
Velayasha 1 day ago
i think it would have been funnier for the woman to say to everyone that she believes in the flying spaghetti monster and have reasons to back it up hence showing everyone how ridiculous it is to go around telling everyone you know what happens after we all die.
TSARMOTAF 1 day ago
Why does being an atheist come with an obligation to be a bitch? I'm not religious or anything...but i don't mock people when it comes to things they find sacred.
semper110289 1 day ago
Agree with her. No evidence, no reason to believe. You believe in unicorns, you're insane, you believe in a man that walks on water, you're faithful. It's utter rediculousness and she's pointing out the truth, whether it hurts your feelings or not. If you choose to believe something, including the Bible, with no proof, that is not intelligent. It's idiotic.
dixonsusa 1 day ago 21
@dixonsusa
Actually Jesus Christ is as real as the keyboard im using to contact you, my realtionship with Christ had been moved beyond belief into reality. Now you sir are on some mest
Revansmask17 1 day ago
@Revansmask17 I'm assuming you didn't mean to, but you just reinforced my opinion.
dixonsusa 1 day ago
@Revansmask17 What evidence do you have for Jesus Christ being alive... right now? I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for your keyboard existing.
But here's the funny and important part about this "conundrum" here.
If you cannot produce legit, unbiased evidence for Jesus Christ existing... right now... then you are forced to conclude that there is MORE evidence for your insignificant keyboard existing than for Jesus. And that's the "funny" part.
:)
JayJayAbels 23 hours ago
@JayJayAbels CHECK OUT EXTRAbiblical sources as well - STUPID! :)
Learn to use goggle! - STUPID!
4zX289 18 hours ago
@dixonsusa ROTE: "Agree with her. No evidence, no reason to believe."
Wrote on that "evidence" OPINION of hers - see my post on it, to another party.
You merely DO NOT KNOW WHAT the evidence is. :) Your ignorance, OF THE EVIDENCE does NOT mean the evidence is nonexistent, does it? :)
How do you explain "prophecy" then? :) But... my post provides more... if u dare that is. UR refusal to ACCEPT evidence, speaks more about you, then your ignorance of it.
Ur choice but of course! :)
4zX289 1 day ago
@4zX289 Your spelling and grammar are horrid, so on top of your condescension and obvious closed mindedness, it makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a religious zealot (which I assume you'd respect more) to recognize that there will be no intelligent exchange with you. So I'm not going to bother. But I will say that you misunderstand the meaning of evidence. A dictionary would at the very least be a good start for you.
dixonsusa 1 day ago
@dixonsusa - again, see my post on EVIDENCE... you have NO science background, DO YOU? :)
So, I am "idiotic"? :)
Ok... wanna place a bet on EVOLUTION? :)
THEY i.e. - "evolutionists" - ALWAYS LOSE PUBLIC debates, wonder why? :)
Atheist vs Theist debates, fairly close to the same results above.. :)
See infidel net on such, -- an ATHEIST WEBSITE by the way... :)
I used to be an atheist... but I lacked the FAITH to continue in it, upon researching the evidence. How about you?
4zX289 1 day ago
@4zX289 ""evolutionists" - ALWAYS LOSE PUBLIC debates"
ROFL! What do you mean... lose? At any intelligence^2 type debate, they definitely win as the votes show. In terms of just about 100% of the relevant scientific community affirming the corroborating evidence for evolution, they win, etc. Wow, you're retarded. You're sure you're not a poe?
Enginmaster 1 day ago
@Enginmaster Argue with the NY Times which (most reluctantly) conceded that. Biochemists, etc. also agree that "the fiction" of evolution is UNREAL... 1860's HORSESHIT! Modern science has gotten a "little bit" further then that. :) LINING UP d-l AMINES & COMBINING BY CHANCE?!! :) OH? :) VERY minor stuff like that! :) Even Fred Hoyle, big time atheist LAUGHED at such- GOOGLE IT! :)
U don' know 2 much, do u? Humanities B.A. if you even graduated... Right? :)
Pig shit IGNORANT!
4zX289 1 day ago
@dixonsusa Just because you're an atheist does not give you license to be a bigot. Peoples' religious beliefs (or absence thereof) should be kept to oneself.
432ps1 1 day ago
exactly, shes not saying all religious people are idiots, shes saying their mindset is idiotic
101andrewj 23 hours ago
I dont have anything against god, its fan club i cant stand with
mojjuzrnejm 1 day ago 5
Typical religious reply here; I feel sorry for you not having that spiritual side < without even asking what she does believe in. I'm an atheist who is spiritual, amazing stuff hey.
TheSulphyr 1 day ago
"God is a god of the defenseless."
What about those starving children in Africa dying from AIDS? Or the millions suffering from leukemia every year? Or the thousands swept away by the 2004 tsunami?
ThePhantom135 1 day ago
@ThePhantom135 That's part of nature. The equillibrium.
Hybridspasser 1 day ago
those morons will clap for anything!
SuperThatgamer 1 day ago
We have a much better means of explaining the universe and its origins using modern technology then ever before. The bible and its lose interruptions of morals and life is incredibly of date. Just give it some time, anyone who wasn't brain washed as a kid to not question faith isn't religious. Funny how that works.
wolf1010 1 day ago
Religion is a joke, God however is not. The true religious man doesn't need religion. God, the source of all matter and consciousness is beyond any label. Want to see god? well it's hard not to. The spark of god is within every atom.
gringolazlo 1 day ago
@gringolazlo you are tottaly right.
lachrise83 1 day ago
LIST OF RELIGIOUS IDIOTS:
Keppler, Picasso, Tolkien, Newton, Kant, Gallilei, Faraday, George Strokes, Kelvin, Max Planck, Descartes, E.T Whittaker, Shakespeare and Carl Gustav Jung. Maybe throw in Einstein too.
Hybridspasser 1 day ago
@Hybridspasser Many of the people you listed died before Darwin's theories. It is apocryphal that they all would have been religious had they lived now instead of when they did.
thirteendays13 1 day ago
@thirteendays13 So remove those if that makes you happy. Instead, add in Niels Bohr (who had yin-yang as his personal coat of arms), Joyce, Watt and Alexander Flemming.
Hybridspasser 1 day ago
@Hybridspasser Not all religious people are dumb.... -_-
chiboy3000 1 day ago
@chiboy3000 I never said they were, quite the contrary :)
Hybridspasser 1 day ago
@Hybridspasser Oh, ok. =)
Oh, you said "list of religious idiots," not "listen, religious idiots."
My mistake. XD
chiboy3000 1 day ago