And furthermore, the ontological argument for God proves everything and nothing. Allow me to explain
1. I can think of Allah and I can imagine unicorns, are THEY real too?
2. Only God can know the true character of god, it says so in your bible, therefore people who think they have an idea of god do not truly know the characteristics and nature of god, the only person whom the ontological argument proves god to is god himself.
Oh, and on "I think therefore I am therefore God", Rene's idea of God was instilled in him by society, religion and the catholic church household he was brought up in, atheism is the default position of belief until the idea of a god is introduced to a person.
AAAAAAAAND it's intellectually dishonest of you to say "She's an atheist, of course she believes in evolution" because not all atheists accept evolution to be true, and the only generalisation you can honestly make about an atheist group is that they all reject theistic claims of the existence of a god. I will nit-pick the shit out of your videos, if it takes me 5 comments per video, bloody character limits...
Inability for your brain to comprehend how complexity can arise is NOT proof that it didn't happen, in the exact same way that my brain's non-comprehension of how people can believe in god does NOT disprove god (sadly)
"things are complex, how could that happen naturally?"
well, go read a book about evolution, cell biology, the natural world, anything and you'll find out and it's also not implicit of a creator even if you HAD a point to substantiate
You're right, I did pause it, and there is no absolute impossibility of the contrary so uhhh, f*ck off.....also, Buddha is not a deity nor is he attributed as the creator of existence -.-
Also, comparing non-life to life in your "design implies designer" argument is dishonest and a logical fallacy, because they're not the same thing, it's a straw-man argument and furthermore "it's logical to imply designer from design" is true, except there is no evidence the world was "designed"
You, people are always saying that there are so many more theists than athiests, but theres always more dislkies than like on theist videos and more likes than dislikes on atheist videos :L
So let me get this straight. You find a painting on a tree and admit somone must have painted that. Then the next logiclal step is to look around you as say well if that's true then somone must of made this whole forest. It didn't arise because a bird was flying by years ago and a seed droped from its beak and germinated in the first tree. Then the seeds from that tree made others and so on. Oh! and bill gates said DNA is like computor code.
... your own reasoning, a designer as well- as did the painter which designed the painting (at least according to this argument from design). Congrats- you "solved" a mystery with an even bigger mystery. Welcome to the infinite regress, by the way.
Oh boy... After hearing you equate atheists and "evolutionists" I know it is pointless to bother commenting here since you, as this clearly demonstrates that you don't understand either of these terms.... but nevertheless... why do people not realize that this argument gives itself the proverbial shot in the foot? Even if you accept this platitude as an argument (which you shouldn't since it commits an equivocation fallacy), the proposed designer would require, by ...
I think you are missing the point. The painting has a painter but the tree is a whole different story. Incredulity is only evidence for your inability to grasp the concepts you throw away. So the painting had a painter therefore the process behind the origin of species is wrong? How trite! Platitudes don't equal evidence.
"Is it possible that god exists in the other half"???!! you have got to be kidding.
You don't have a clue about evolution, your ignorance is staggering. Do cell phones have sex and make baby cell phones, that are slightly different then their parent cell phones? A cell phone is NOT a biologically system. At least Behe's arguments that got shot down in a court of law were about biological systems. Behe also accepts common decent, therefore do you accept we are related to monkeys?
This is nothing new. You're just parroting the same old stuff. I must say you're ignorant and not educated about evolution. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. If you accept, not believe or have faith in, the current theory of gravity is the best explanation of the evidence of what happens when you drop an object you're not known as a gravity(ist) and lumped in with everyone else's world views who accepts the theory of gravity.
I used to think that it was ironic that a person trying to force "evolutionists" to be more moral would lie while doing so. But now, based the actions of people like you and other fundamentalists, lying is pretty much to be expected from you.
All of Behe's arguments have been destroyed by "evolutionists". Read the transcripts from the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.
I call BS on your discussions with atheists and their reactions to your revelations.
You should take your own advice and actually listen to the "atheist" arguments. Many atheists don't deny the existence of god because they don't want to, the argument is that there is no evidence.
Based on your comments, it's obvious that you know nothing about evolution.
@panterguy You're hurting yourself by saying that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by using something simple, like a painting. You are saying, by your own statement, that you do not believe a painting could evolve by random chance, but you DO believe that a painting, which has trillions of intricate complex pieces, and has the ability to construct more of itself, can evolve on its own by random chance. If you want to believe that, great. Enjoy yourself. But that's a religion, not science.
@creationliberty Yes, if the painting can replicate itself then it's alive. No, it is not based on random chance. Evolution is based on enviromental and population pressures. I wish you would learn something on your own, instead of parroting the words of a well known con-man like ray comfort.
Your designer from design argument is flawed. Look at crystals. They *look* designed. But really they're a pretty but natural arrangement of molecules.
Read up on the Puddle of Water story. You said "WHO" created the universe = huge assumption. This restricts the possibilities tremendously. The truth is we don't know how the universe was really created. We should try to figure it out instead of just saying "god did it" and closing the case.
@eproulx You're assuming that saying "God did it" means the case is closed. "The sky is falling! We need evolution!" -- That's ridiculous, but that's exactly what that implies.
Sodium Chloride forms naturally into perfect cubes because the molecules are designed that way with a specific purpose. You're arguing that crystals have geologically evolved order on their own from chaos.
Your words: "They look designed." No kidding? But you still have extraordinary faith to believe otherwise.
@creationliberty Typical creationist mistake. I was talking about the creation of the universe and you equate that to evolution. The big bang is NOT abiogenesis and is NOT evolution.
The difference between you and I is, I DON'T know how the universe began, but I'd love to find out. You, you're not certain, but you pretend you are. One of us is deluded and closed minded.
Faith=belief without evidence=gullability. If I have evidence, I don't need faith.
@creationliberty: are you saying that you are actively surveying physicists news, looking for information about the big bang? I didn't think so. That's what I mean by "case closed." (BTW, me, yes, read scientific news all the time.)
Crystals don't evolve because they're not alive and can't make babies.
That cell phones original designer also took key from the original cell phone and created a cell phone lifemate. And they will pro-create own their own.
I know, I was just pointing that out. Also, not all atheists are morons who think that cell phones could possibly come out of the ground given enough time. That may be what she believed or maybe she was just getting defensive, I don't know. However I can assure you that's not what "they" as in all atheists believe. They believe that life can evolve, not toasters and such. I see where you were going with you're cell phone designer analogy and that was pretty good.
You listed Buddha as one of the "creators" that people believe in and that's false. I'm not a Buddhist but here's my understanding of it from what I've read. Buddhists do not believe that Buddha is a God or that he created anything. They don't believe that there was a beginning. They follow Buddha as a wise teacher and want to also attain enlightenment. They don't seem to have a creation story and don't feel that it matters how things started.
@jalbroven91 I understand what you're saying, but like I said, this was not the topic at hand. I've read and listened to Buddhist arguments, and they don't even have evidence that Buddha even existed. However, I'm not familiar enough with their religion to post a video topic on it. Nonetheless... this video was only concerning evidence of a Creator. All that is outside of this specific topic.
Atheism is the absence of Faith, you like so many believe that every one has faith.
to me there is only Facts and Fantasy. God is a Fantasy. Facts are Truth.
you know that there is a higher possibility that we are just a code in a computer then that there is a god. as for Wikipedia, the Roman catholic Church is one of those that Corrupt information there.
a Question for ye Is your Faith(fantasy) your Shield ?
@creationliberty Also in the Bible the bad guy is GoD and the good guy is the Fallen Angel. im not a Satanist but dude the Fallen angel questions everything god does and never kills any one on the other hand GoD does some very Wicked evil shit all the time. and fucking Kill Innocent kids all the time. That is not a god of mercy or a god of forgiveness but a god more wicked then any other god in history.
@krnr This is a good example of what I see in the atheists and evolutionists all the time. It is the arrogance in believing they have more knowledge of good and evil than the all-knowing, all-powerful, Creator. Not only do they believe it, but they do so without having any definition of what good and evil is. Without God, there is no definition for right and wrong. It shouldn't, but their arrogance still surprises me sometimes.
See my videos on "What is Liberty?" for more details on that topic.
Ok, there's actually one more thing- Even if there is no explanation for something, doesn't mean you can insert "God" in the gaps of knowledge. Absence of explanation and nonexistence of explanation are completely different. There are many things that as of today are no fully understood, but may definitely become more understood in the future.
I think I lost count of the number of Logical Fallacies in this ludicrous video after about 2 minutes. You actually compared a cellphone to evolution, I refuse to believe you are that dumb. Thats like me saying potatoes dont grow underground because I saw apples growing on a tree, therefore potatoes must grow on trees as well... but this will be a GREAT video to use when I need to give people examples of logical fallacies, cause you use almost every one that exists in this 1 video. Thanks.
Cell phones, paintings, Coke cans or any other example like this are not self replicating organisms therefore the way we would determine based upon their complexity whether they were built by a man or a man-like being or if it had evolved in the Darwinian sense is entirely different from how we would when looking at life. I can't believe how many times this has to be said.
Read this book, 'Why Evolution Is True' by Jerry Coyne and then debunk it, not with just "I think" but with genuine scientific, peer reviewed, evidence. Of course, you do have that, don't you?
And don't forget to cite your sources and where they can be verified.
And no, you can't use the bible!
What d'you think? Should be a piece of cake for someone as scientific adept, as yourself.
Ah yes, the old "Stumbling Upon a Human-Made Artifact in the Jungle" analogy. Which proves -- with thundering finality -- that human-made artifacts were, in fact, made by humans.
Or, as we say in first-year logic: A = A .
This has zero to do with the question of whether DNA is artificial or natural, but hopefully will confuse you enough not to notice the Begged Question which follows: "DNA can't be natural, because no natural phenomenon can be as weird as DNA."
@axisoffeeble Which means you believe that dropping random scrabble letters will make webster's dictionary? If you want to believe that, fine, I don't care what you believe, but that's your religious worldview, not science.
@creationliberty "Randomness" is a human mathematical abstraction which has no meaning in nature, but in any event; If these scrabble letters had codons and hydrogen bonds, then yes, I imagine they'd lock into a predictable set of patterns.
@axisoffeeble As I said, if you want to imagine that, as you so adequately put, that's perfectly fine. You can believe whatever you want, but that's a religion.
i stopped the video @ 2:27. there's no need to listen to such nonsense.
you actually said that, comming to the conclusion that a painting hanging from a tree was designed, and not there naturally, is reason to reject evolution.
For physical evidence of God.... To the calmly curious- For physical evidence of a second intelligence within yourself-Vivid Dreams onset in 7 days, plus repeatable handtingles- search YouTube on LAY GNOSIS 1 BEGIN HERE site truebluehealerDOTcom-Regardless of beliefs-Even atheist testimonials, including doctors from 4 countries. 10-20 mins gets you started. A growing list of triggered 12 month gnostic veterans contactable. And its FREE
In order for a god to exist as posited it must exist in 11 dimensions (outside time). If a god outside of time entered into time to make a change it will leave a ripple or wake through time to the point where the change was made. If this ripple cannot be shown then a god has not interacted with the world.
The cellphone is a product of human evolution. Humans evolved as tool users and the cellphone is a tool made by tool users.
@PinkProgram "In order for a god to exist... it must exist in..." Stop right there... you're setting up a Straw Man Argument. You're already applying your human limitations to God. If God is limited in time, space, and matter like we are, he's not God.
The cellphone is a product of science, not evolution. But that's the problem with your thinking: You assume evolution is part of science. Evolution is a religious idea, and you're welcome to believe that, but don't call that science.
Your response tells me your God absolutely does not exist. Notice I said "exist as posited." which means in order for your definition of God to be accurate the only possible scenario is the one I have listed. Why should I care if you apes aren't smart enough to be able to follow along? I wasn't saying God was limited. I said if God was outside of reality but still could interact with it then it must by necessity exist on the 11 dimensional axis. I was showing how to prove it can exist. ^_^
8. Are you aware of the old VenomFangX? (hate to break it to you, you're not the first Dr Dino parrot)
9. Would you admit that looking solely at physical observation, God does not "exist" inside this world, physically and detectably? (given that you just said God's not IN his creation)
10. DesCartes was known for existentialism, the quote you presented, seems to suggest he was afraid of falling into absurdism (fear of something doesn't make it false though!)
there is not just two possible explanations and the painter did not make the atoms just the painting with the atoms and the is not design if something is good to live in its habitat it will survive look im open minded i dont think there is a god evolution is obviously true that does not disprove god just most of them y dont u look at the evidence for evolution and all body parts are irriducibly complex
2. "Impossibility of the contrary" is meaningless as you've not defined what are the 2 options (and that it's a true dichotomy)
3. Did you just recommend a book whose ideas can't be defended in court by the author himself?
4. "Design must have a designer" is tautology, saying "evolution's product must've happened by evolution" in response is no different (and makes no testable claim)
And furthermore, the ontological argument for God proves everything and nothing. Allow me to explain
1. I can think of Allah and I can imagine unicorns, are THEY real too?
2. Only God can know the true character of god, it says so in your bible, therefore people who think they have an idea of god do not truly know the characteristics and nature of god, the only person whom the ontological argument proves god to is god himself.
OpinionatedAussie 6 months ago
Oh, and on "I think therefore I am therefore God", Rene's idea of God was instilled in him by society, religion and the catholic church household he was brought up in, atheism is the default position of belief until the idea of a god is introduced to a person.
OpinionatedAussie 6 months ago
AAAAAAAAND it's intellectually dishonest of you to say "She's an atheist, of course she believes in evolution" because not all atheists accept evolution to be true, and the only generalisation you can honestly make about an atheist group is that they all reject theistic claims of the existence of a god. I will nit-pick the shit out of your videos, if it takes me 5 comments per video, bloody character limits...
OpinionatedAussie 6 months ago
Inability for your brain to comprehend how complexity can arise is NOT proof that it didn't happen, in the exact same way that my brain's non-comprehension of how people can believe in god does NOT disprove god (sadly)
"things are complex, how could that happen naturally?"
well, go read a book about evolution, cell biology, the natural world, anything and you'll find out and it's also not implicit of a creator even if you HAD a point to substantiate
OpinionatedAussie 6 months ago
You're right, I did pause it, and there is no absolute impossibility of the contrary so uhhh, f*ck off.....also, Buddha is not a deity nor is he attributed as the creator of existence -.-
Also, comparing non-life to life in your "design implies designer" argument is dishonest and a logical fallacy, because they're not the same thing, it's a straw-man argument and furthermore "it's logical to imply designer from design" is true, except there is no evidence the world was "designed"
OpinionatedAussie 6 months ago
You, people are always saying that there are so many more theists than athiests, but theres always more dislkies than like on theist videos and more likes than dislikes on atheist videos :L
TheAstroSteve 6 months ago
So let me get this straight. You find a painting on a tree and admit somone must have painted that. Then the next logiclal step is to look around you as say well if that's true then somone must of made this whole forest. It didn't arise because a bird was flying by years ago and a seed droped from its beak and germinated in the first tree. Then the seeds from that tree made others and so on. Oh! and bill gates said DNA is like computor code.
ptango101 8 months ago
We know the painting was painted because we have seen a people make paintings.
This in no way gives evidence towards a creator. What evidence do you have towards a creator?
freakincampers 9 months ago
... your own reasoning, a designer as well- as did the painter which designed the painting (at least according to this argument from design). Congrats- you "solved" a mystery with an even bigger mystery. Welcome to the infinite regress, by the way.
LeonhardEuler1 9 months ago
Oh boy... After hearing you equate atheists and "evolutionists" I know it is pointless to bother commenting here since you, as this clearly demonstrates that you don't understand either of these terms.... but nevertheless... why do people not realize that this argument gives itself the proverbial shot in the foot? Even if you accept this platitude as an argument (which you shouldn't since it commits an equivocation fallacy), the proposed designer would require, by ...
LeonhardEuler1 9 months ago
I think you are missing the point. The painting has a painter but the tree is a whole different story. Incredulity is only evidence for your inability to grasp the concepts you throw away. So the painting had a painter therefore the process behind the origin of species is wrong? How trite! Platitudes don't equal evidence.
"Is it possible that god exists in the other half"???!! you have got to be kidding.
ptango101 1 year ago
You don't have a clue about evolution, your ignorance is staggering. Do cell phones have sex and make baby cell phones, that are slightly different then their parent cell phones? A cell phone is NOT a biologically system. At least Behe's arguments that got shot down in a court of law were about biological systems. Behe also accepts common decent, therefore do you accept we are related to monkeys?
jim6584 1 year ago
This is nothing new. You're just parroting the same old stuff. I must say you're ignorant and not educated about evolution. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. If you accept, not believe or have faith in, the current theory of gravity is the best explanation of the evidence of what happens when you drop an object you're not known as a gravity(ist) and lumped in with everyone else's world views who accepts the theory of gravity.
jim6584 1 year ago
You're a dishonest person.
I used to think that it was ironic that a person trying to force "evolutionists" to be more moral would lie while doing so. But now, based the actions of people like you and other fundamentalists, lying is pretty much to be expected from you.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
All of Behe's arguments have been destroyed by "evolutionists". Read the transcripts from the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.
I call BS on your discussions with atheists and their reactions to your revelations.
You should take your own advice and actually listen to the "atheist" arguments. Many atheists don't deny the existence of god because they don't want to, the argument is that there is no evidence.
Based on your comments, it's obvious that you know nothing about evolution.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
I'll except your analogy when that painting in the forest has baby paintings of it's own.
panterguy 1 year ago
@panterguy You're hurting yourself by saying that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by using something simple, like a painting. You are saying, by your own statement, that you do not believe a painting could evolve by random chance, but you DO believe that a painting, which has trillions of intricate complex pieces, and has the ability to construct more of itself, can evolve on its own by random chance. If you want to believe that, great. Enjoy yourself. But that's a religion, not science.
creationliberty 1 year ago
@creationliberty Yes, if the painting can replicate itself then it's alive. No, it is not based on random chance. Evolution is based on enviromental and population pressures. I wish you would learn something on your own, instead of parroting the words of a well known con-man like ray comfort.
panterguy 1 year ago
Your designer from design argument is flawed. Look at crystals. They *look* designed. But really they're a pretty but natural arrangement of molecules.
Read up on the Puddle of Water story. You said "WHO" created the universe = huge assumption. This restricts the possibilities tremendously. The truth is we don't know how the universe was really created. We should try to figure it out instead of just saying "god did it" and closing the case.
eproulx 1 year ago
@eproulx You're assuming that saying "God did it" means the case is closed. "The sky is falling! We need evolution!" -- That's ridiculous, but that's exactly what that implies.
Sodium Chloride forms naturally into perfect cubes because the molecules are designed that way with a specific purpose. You're arguing that crystals have geologically evolved order on their own from chaos.
Your words: "They look designed." No kidding? But you still have extraordinary faith to believe otherwise.
creationliberty 1 year ago
@creationliberty Typical creationist mistake. I was talking about the creation of the universe and you equate that to evolution. The big bang is NOT abiogenesis and is NOT evolution.
The difference between you and I is, I DON'T know how the universe began, but I'd love to find out. You, you're not certain, but you pretend you are. One of us is deluded and closed minded.
Faith=belief without evidence=gullability. If I have evidence, I don't need faith.
eproulx 1 year ago
@creationliberty: are you saying that you are actively surveying physicists news, looking for information about the big bang? I didn't think so. That's what I mean by "case closed." (BTW, me, yes, read scientific news all the time.)
Crystals don't evolve because they're not alive and can't make babies.
eproulx 1 year ago
Buddha isnt a creator..
matirule 1 year ago
That cell phones original designer also took key from the original cell phone and created a cell phone lifemate. And they will pro-create own their own.
bigtwinone 1 year ago
I know, I was just pointing that out. Also, not all atheists are morons who think that cell phones could possibly come out of the ground given enough time. That may be what she believed or maybe she was just getting defensive, I don't know. However I can assure you that's not what "they" as in all atheists believe. They believe that life can evolve, not toasters and such. I see where you were going with you're cell phone designer analogy and that was pretty good.
jalbroven91 1 year ago
You listed Buddha as one of the "creators" that people believe in and that's false. I'm not a Buddhist but here's my understanding of it from what I've read. Buddhists do not believe that Buddha is a God or that he created anything. They don't believe that there was a beginning. They follow Buddha as a wise teacher and want to also attain enlightenment. They don't seem to have a creation story and don't feel that it matters how things started.
jalbroven91 1 year ago
@jalbroven91 I understand what you're saying, but like I said, this was not the topic at hand. I've read and listened to Buddhist arguments, and they don't even have evidence that Buddha even existed. However, I'm not familiar enough with their religion to post a video topic on it. Nonetheless... this video was only concerning evidence of a Creator. All that is outside of this specific topic.
creationliberty 1 year ago
@creationliberty Buddha still has a Higher chance of existence then Jesus.
krnr 1 year ago
@creationliberty if god does exist Solve 0+0=1.
Atheism is the absence of Faith, you like so many believe that every one has faith.
to me there is only Facts and Fantasy. God is a Fantasy. Facts are Truth.
you know that there is a higher possibility that we are just a code in a computer then that there is a god. as for Wikipedia, the Roman catholic Church is one of those that Corrupt information there.
a Question for ye Is your Faith(fantasy) your Shield ?
krnr 1 year ago
@creationliberty Also in the Bible the bad guy is GoD and the good guy is the Fallen Angel. im not a Satanist but dude the Fallen angel questions everything god does and never kills any one on the other hand GoD does some very Wicked evil shit all the time. and fucking Kill Innocent kids all the time. That is not a god of mercy or a god of forgiveness but a god more wicked then any other god in history.
krnr 1 year ago
@krnr This is a good example of what I see in the atheists and evolutionists all the time. It is the arrogance in believing they have more knowledge of good and evil than the all-knowing, all-powerful, Creator. Not only do they believe it, but they do so without having any definition of what good and evil is. Without God, there is no definition for right and wrong. It shouldn't, but their arrogance still surprises me sometimes.
See my videos on "What is Liberty?" for more details on that topic.
creationliberty 1 year ago
Ok, there's actually one more thing- Even if there is no explanation for something, doesn't mean you can insert "God" in the gaps of knowledge. Absence of explanation and nonexistence of explanation are completely different. There are many things that as of today are no fully understood, but may definitely become more understood in the future.
Matthus8888 2 years ago
Wow. I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. LynAQ and JustNotConvinced have it right exactly.
Matthus8888 2 years ago
I think I lost count of the number of Logical Fallacies in this ludicrous video after about 2 minutes. You actually compared a cellphone to evolution, I refuse to believe you are that dumb. Thats like me saying potatoes dont grow underground because I saw apples growing on a tree, therefore potatoes must grow on trees as well... but this will be a GREAT video to use when I need to give people examples of logical fallacies, cause you use almost every one that exists in this 1 video. Thanks.
LynxAQ 2 years ago
Cell phones, paintings, Coke cans or any other example like this are not self replicating organisms therefore the way we would determine based upon their complexity whether they were built by a man or a man-like being or if it had evolved in the Darwinian sense is entirely different from how we would when looking at life. I can't believe how many times this has to be said.
JustNotConvinced 2 years ago
Comment removed
JustNotConvinced 2 years ago
Here's a video topic for you.
Read this book, 'Why Evolution Is True' by Jerry Coyne and then debunk it, not with just "I think" but with genuine scientific, peer reviewed, evidence. Of course, you do have that, don't you?
And don't forget to cite your sources and where they can be verified.
And no, you can't use the bible!
What d'you think? Should be a piece of cake for someone as scientific adept, as yourself.
unixhead101 2 years ago
edit *scientifically*
unixhead101 2 years ago
Ah yes, the old "Stumbling Upon a Human-Made Artifact in the Jungle" analogy. Which proves -- with thundering finality -- that human-made artifacts were, in fact, made by humans.
Or, as we say in first-year logic: A = A .
This has zero to do with the question of whether DNA is artificial or natural, but hopefully will confuse you enough not to notice the Begged Question which follows: "DNA can't be natural, because no natural phenomenon can be as weird as DNA."
(Except, maybe... DNA?)
axisoffeeble 2 years ago
@axisoffeeble Which means you believe that dropping random scrabble letters will make webster's dictionary? If you want to believe that, fine, I don't care what you believe, but that's your religious worldview, not science.
creationliberty 2 years ago
@creationliberty "Randomness" is a human mathematical abstraction which has no meaning in nature, but in any event; If these scrabble letters had codons and hydrogen bonds, then yes, I imagine they'd lock into a predictable set of patterns.
axisoffeeble 2 years ago
@axisoffeeble As I said, if you want to imagine that, as you so adequately put, that's perfectly fine. You can believe whatever you want, but that's a religion.
creationliberty 2 years ago
Perhaps it is and perhaps it isn't, but holding a dictionary next to a DNA molecule and begging the audience to squint isn't what I'd call science.
axisoffeeble 2 years ago
@ 6:58 "Well let's just say you know half of everything. Is it possible that God exists in the other half that you don't know about?"
What?! The 'God of the Gaps' argument. Really?
helical4 2 years ago
LMFAO!!
i stopped the video @ 2:27. there's no need to listen to such nonsense.
you actually said that, comming to the conclusion that a painting hanging from a tree was designed, and not there naturally, is reason to reject evolution.
you ACTUALLY said that!! LMAO!!!
that's just plain stupid.
Zentz29 2 years ago
For physical evidence of God.... To the calmly curious- For physical evidence of a second intelligence within yourself-Vivid Dreams onset in 7 days, plus repeatable handtingles- search YouTube on LAY GNOSIS 1 BEGIN HERE site truebluehealerDOTcom-Regardless of beliefs-Even atheist testimonials, including doctors from 4 countries. 10-20 mins gets you started. A growing list of triggered 12 month gnostic veterans contactable. And its FREE
kimbo99 2 years ago
In order for a god to exist as posited it must exist in 11 dimensions (outside time). If a god outside of time entered into time to make a change it will leave a ripple or wake through time to the point where the change was made. If this ripple cannot be shown then a god has not interacted with the world.
The cellphone is a product of human evolution. Humans evolved as tool users and the cellphone is a tool made by tool users.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
@PinkProgram "In order for a god to exist... it must exist in..." Stop right there... you're setting up a Straw Man Argument. You're already applying your human limitations to God. If God is limited in time, space, and matter like we are, he's not God.
The cellphone is a product of science, not evolution. But that's the problem with your thinking: You assume evolution is part of science. Evolution is a religious idea, and you're welcome to believe that, but don't call that science.
creationliberty 2 years ago
Your response tells me your God absolutely does not exist. Notice I said "exist as posited." which means in order for your definition of God to be accurate the only possible scenario is the one I have listed. Why should I care if you apes aren't smart enough to be able to follow along? I wasn't saying God was limited. I said if God was outside of reality but still could interact with it then it must by necessity exist on the 11 dimensional axis. I was showing how to prove it can exist. ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
by the way, did anybody notice his biggest fallacy in the cell phone analogy?
A cell phone is not a living thing, nor is it known to reproduce (nor is the material used to make a cell phone in any standards a living thing)
Did life make itself from nothing? No. But can life replicate, mutate, diversify and increase complexity? YEP.
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago
I'll try to make this short
8. Are you aware of the old VenomFangX? (hate to break it to you, you're not the first Dr Dino parrot)
9. Would you admit that looking solely at physical observation, God does not "exist" inside this world, physically and detectably? (given that you just said God's not IN his creation)
10. DesCartes was known for existentialism, the quote you presented, seems to suggest he was afraid of falling into absurdism (fear of something doesn't make it false though!)
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago
there is not just two possible explanations and the painter did not make the atoms just the painting with the atoms and the is not design if something is good to live in its habitat it will survive look im open minded i dont think there is a god evolution is obviously true that does not disprove god just most of them y dont u look at the evidence for evolution and all body parts are irriducibly complex
patrickledford420 2 years ago
@patrickledford420 wow Chris, if a stoner knows more than you!
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago
im not a genious but the ignorance on youtube is unbeleivible
patrickledford420 2 years ago
@patrickledford420 somebody's here to take VenomFangX's empty seat
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago
i know ignorance cant stay gone long knowlege might replace it
patrickledford420 2 years ago
5. DNA is NOT the most complex molecule (anybody knowing microbiology & biochemistry would know)
6. Not even close to understanding it? What would be enough? Do you know what we DO know about DNA?
7. No scientist says that living organisms made itself on its own (but kudos for getting an idiot to say she believes a cellphone could)
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago
1. Define creator & falsifiability
2. "Impossibility of the contrary" is meaningless as you've not defined what are the 2 options (and that it's a true dichotomy)
3. Did you just recommend a book whose ideas can't be defended in court by the author himself?
4. "Design must have a designer" is tautology, saying "evolution's product must've happened by evolution" in response is no different (and makes no testable claim)
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago