It just occured to me..according to religion, dinosaurs never existed They say the garden of Eden was populated by snakes,lions, spiders,cows,etc..explain dinosaurs,earlier time period, drastically different climate/habitat before evolution kicked & introduced mammals the smartest yet dumbest creatures to ever walk the earth yet all life just magically popped up in a garden.
I will never understand WHY religious nutcases believe in another countries religion, especially one we are at war with.
Earth formed about 4.6 billion years ago, and life began early as 100 million years to 1 billion years later. Either way, it's fairly evident that life came into being almost immediately after the conditions were right. This implies that life isn't some fluke but that it just may be a very common natural occurrence, like any other chemical process. It's kind of funny to think that way, contrasted against the way so many people here on earth try to explain it as having supernatural origins.
Holy crap, what a tool. He was so confident he actually figured out that god exists that he called a little atheist show to break the news, instead of writing a thesis and heading over to the lab.
what a nutjob. he wants to spew his insanity w/o being questions. As soon as matt questions, he's all hot under the collar and ALREADY doing the apologist tapdance! hahahahaha
the atheist says they have been demonstrated that life can come from nothing. how could they have observed that? wouldnt it take super long considering we've only had such technology to observe life form for like maybe 20 yrs at the MOST?
Dang. Another book. So many. But I gotta at least check it out. Im sure the argument is based off the idea that God always was and that everything around us couldn't have just came from nothing. But the counter argument for that would be, "if you can say that nothing was needed to create God, then how come its not okay for us to say nothing was necessary to create the big bang or that the universe always existed?" But I'll check it out.
@AK33M because the universe needs a cause. God doesnt. think about a place before anything was created. it was just God. their were no laws of physics, no matter no anything but God and his power. When he created the universe, he created the laws of physics and everything possible. And i thank you for not rejecting my evidence before trying to read it :)
@JellayToasT that still fails to explain the origin of your god, your argument falls in on itself because if you claim the universe needs a cause then so does your god.
You need to prove that God exist and that he doesn't need cause in order to make this claims otherwise your claim and claim that that universe doesn't need a cause is equally valid .
@zoltan6561 ive answered that question to like 3 other people, but i will explain it again, now this is not a 100% assertion that Jehovah is real, but it supports my claims on the universe, whether or not u take that proof is not my problem, i am simplily answering your question. Now, in the sake of arguement, lets say there's absolutely nothing except Jehovah. no physics or anything, so everything is possible. Jehovah created the laws of physics then he created the earth. Im not typin this agan
"no physics or anything so everything is possible. Jehovah created the laws of physics then he created the earth"
Existence is not based on laws of physics. Our universe's laws of physics could be radically different and all the energy would still exist. There is no way to bypass this dilemma, even by saying time and space didn't exist, because everything in our universe DID exist before it blew up. That state of existence was a singularity (analogous to a black hole)
"If we cant comprehend it how can we make the assumption?" "Okay, but let me turn to something completely unrelated and not answer your question first"
Matt you make a half ass good argument, but listening to you for over a year now I can see you are hostile toward any proof of a God. Also you lean on science to prove your hostility toward a prime creator and it is science who will bring you down. You are in a hatred movement against Yahweh and so be it but you will see there is a life after this one and that is where I would loved to be when it happens to you Mr. smarty pants. It is your show for now. Until then fuck off yourself.
You guys do know that this Chris from Boston is right about Robert Lane?
He covers his tracks pretty well, but not well enough if you know where to look...because afterall, he needs to use the internet for contact....I'm not saying anymore here.
@JMUDoc I think he intended to say was that time was quantated. It's a part of string theory that time is segmented into quanta of plank time durations (~1x10^-20 of a sec or something like that). As you point out, this doesn't imply that time has a begining and an end.
It's the same as saying photons are quantated into minimum packets of energy. It hasn't been verified and is simply a requirement of string theory ( or m-theory) to make the maths work.
Does Chris realise that when elements form a compound they often have different properties to that of the forming elements? For example under his logic:
1 - Oxygen helps fire burn.
2 - Water contains oxygen.
3 - Therefore pouring water on fire would increase the strength of the fire. Fail. Learn something about chemistry before making bold faced assertions.
@MrOjones2 LOL, exactly, Hydrogen is explosive in the presence of oxygen, too, so according to Chis, water should be about the most volatile substance on Earth!
Time no more has a beginning and end than do length, width, or volume. These are only measures of spacial and temporal dimensions. The caller doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
@SRogg1226 Atheists have one thing in common, and ONLY one thing: the rejection of claims to a God or gods. Your statements make zero sense. Learn what a term means before you copy and paste from an apologist's site.
Not one person in this video, caller OR host, address the fact that physics and biology have absolutely NO explanation as to why Matt, at the end of the video clip, is spontaneously engulfed in a giant flaming vagina.
these morons rationalizing in vain attempt to prove there is a god invoking their so called knowledge of science mumbling scientific language as if they really know what they are saying.pathetic these christians..
When Chris says oxygen is the enemy of nucleotides, is he referring to the oxygen atoms in nucleotides? Yes I am a Chemist shaking my head... @MunkyDragOn
Caller: "hey, man, I'm just taking a break from delivering pizzas at my job, so since I drive around stoned all day while I'm working, I suddenly thought I should call in and take a shot at being a biologist..."
He is not pizza delivery boy he has data he owns data recovery business in Belmont Massachusetts and he is also a famous prank call victim nicknamed "Chris the hacker".
That guy should study some chemistry. Is he talking about Oxygen atoms or oxygen molecules (O2)? Oxygen atoms in O2 have completely different chemistry than those in H2O. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is poisonous, Does that mean that carbon and oxygen are harmful completely and always harmful? No, of course not! We're made of primarily carbon and need to breathe in oxygen to obtain useful energy through cellular respiration. DNA and amino acids also contain many oxygen atoms by the way.
I like this show because it reassures me that, even though I feel stupid sometimes, I still have a better grasp of reality than a lot of other people.
This guy not only failed to prove God through physics and biology, but also pissed off many chemists who are probably also shaking their heads while watching this pitiful attempt.
33% of water IS NOT made of oxygen. Hydrogen atoms are much smaller (MW in H2O = 2 amu's) Oxygen is 16 amu's, so oxygen is about 88-92% of H2O, whereas the H2 makes up about 12-13% of the molecule.
Chris actually had to explain him that oxygen is a molecule! Chis then outlined what is now an accepted scientific fact that the mere presence of the oxygen molecule is destructive to amino acids. In the Miller experiment they had to use several chemicals to counteract the presence of oxygen in the oxygen in the water. The experiments showed amino acids can form, but also that they could not have formed in natura water. It had to be treated before they could form.
@colliric Poor Chris also had to explain that it was the presence of FREE oxygen in the water...
Oh wait... he didn't. It's accepted scientific fact (and has been for decades) that it is FREE oxygen that is the problem, not the oxygen that is bonded to the H2 top make the water... and if he'd listened to what was said, he'd have learned that!
You DO realize that oxygen molecule has to be on its own, not bonded, right? Water has an oxygen atom, but because it's bonded, it doesn't have the same chemical properties that oxygen alone would have. If that wasn't the case, we'd be able to breathe under water and set water on fire, since we can breathe oxygen and burn hydrogen. Opting out of science class for religious purposes isn't gonna get you far, ya know.
Sorry my sentence was a bit odd, but I was referring to the discovery by the Miller experiment that the mere presence of the molecule(even in water) reduced the likelyhood of Amino Acids forming.
I am also going to point out that oxygen has always existed on the molecular basis under simular overall levels, in water, air and other forms, as it still does today(although form fluctuates). Plant life does not create the molecule itself.
The Hydrogen-Oxygen molecules are self-extinguishing on most fires, based on general tempreture. Hydrogen and Oxygen can both fuel a fire, even when they are combined as Water. But the general lower tempreture of water is an effective extingusher on most fires. However, don't pore boiling water on any fire... it won't work as well! You pour cold water on a fire to put it out! Hot water won't work as well and may end up fueling it.
@colliric it requires more energy to boil water than to heat it from 0C to 100C. When water is dissociated in a fire, and then reignited (hydrogen+oxygen explosion) no net energy is generated = water does not fuel a fire.
But, water on a very hot fire will boil very rapidly and cause an explansion (it expands about 1400 times when it boils) and this expansion can cause alot of problems. However, most of the cooling effect is from the water boiling, soo hot water is still a good firerepellant.
Amino acids struggle to form with the presence of the Oxygen Molecule. It was actually proven by the experiement Matt actually mentions. Water on it's own isn't a sufficient incubator for amino acids.
What Matt fails to mention, is that studies have shown it's more evidenced that early Life came down from space than it did form in the oceans due to this "problem", that was actually proven by the Miller experiment.
@colliric my point is quite simple, oxygen atoms behave differently if they are attached to 2 hydrogen atoms (thus forming a molecule of water)
this is quite observable, see you breath oxygen (lucky for us approx 20% of the atmosphere is oxygen), now although 33% of water is made of oxygen you can not breath water, when you try to you drown.
same with other things too, see sodium likes to fizz and catch fire in water but sodium attached to chlorine (salt) does not.
@colliric Miller-Urey experiment only showed that aminoacids can form, not that it was more likely that life came from space. Early earth had very little free oxygen, because oxygen is fairly reactive, and unless replenished it reacts with surroundings (forming oxides).
So to be an Agnostic means you reject the belief that knowledge should be worshipped. You believe you don't have the right to lay claim to secret knowledge, primary to do with the religion of Gnosticism.
No, you're wrong... Gnosticism is a Religion with followers, to be a Gnostic means you are following that worships secret knowledge. A common form of Gnosticism today is found in the book called "the secret". It has nothing to do sureties at all. You cannot be a Gnostic atheist... unless you worship the "secret knowledge" of atheism!
If you recalled Anthony Flew's excerpts such as "Theology and Falsification", it states, 'God is a vague concept. You can't see God nor touch God.' Therefore we cannot study God. In all sense we cannot disprove God's existence or prove God's existence because he is labeled as invisible, intangible. It's complicated really to find out if God is real or not. It's a bit of a mixed complex.
But unfortunately for him, the majority of his followers insist on using "Atheist" despite his own protests that it's not the right word by it's definition. In reality his ideas are best described as "Religious Skepticism", and he admits it.
No, you're wrong. Atheist means by dictionary definition "A person who does not believe in the existence of a God". Which is of cause the opposite of a thiest. Even Christopher Hitchens doesn't believe "Athiesm" should be used because he understands the dictionary definition defines Agnosticism as a seperate ideal altogether.
@colliric Wrong. Angostic is not separate. Gnostic means you are 100% sure about something. (I am Gnostic that 1 + 1 =2).
Agnostic means you are Not 100% sure about something. (I am a vegetarian but I am agnostic about it).
Same with atheist. If you do not accept the claims of God exisitng, then you are an atheist. If you are 100% sure you are "Gnostic atheist". If you are not 100% sure, then you are a "Agnostic atheist".
To reject the claim that God exists is to claim that God does not exist. Thiest = believes in God. Athiest = does not beieve in God. So fuck off you illogical idiot.
Atheist means they don't accept the claim, "God exists".
There is not satisfactory evidence for Santa, therefore I don't accept the claim of it. Same with God, no evidence, therefore I don't accept the claim of it.
If evidence can ever be shown to me I will instantly change.
Gnostic means ur sure about something, Agnostic means ur not sure.
Gnostic atheist = 100% sure theres no god, thats just as delusional as christians
@mysql0 It shouldn't be this complicated. The prefix "a" means about the same thing as "non". Asexual reproduction doesn't mean they don't accept the claim of "sex exists." It means they don't sexually reproduce. A-sexual. The same goes with the word, "atheist." And atheist is an a-theist. It shouldn't be any more complicated than that, considering we're dealing with English and one of the simplest prefixes.
@punchdrunkatheist You are wrong. The prefix "a" does mean "non", yes. So if we applied it to the word sexual, (asexual) it would mean non-sexual.
Now let's look at the word THEIST - someone that accepts the claim of a god. As surprising at this may seem, when the "a" prefix is added here, to create aTHEIST - it means someone that does NOT accept the claims of a God - the basis for this non acceptance is the same basis for our non acceptance of unicorns, there is no evidence to justify th claim
@roxtar55 You realize Chris isn't really contradicting anything, right. Even if he was right that that particular set of circumstances couldn't produce life (which I am not saying he is), that isn't to say that no circumstances exist in which life could be produced.
@roxtar55 Sorry pal. If you can't demonstrate the reality without 4 years of research, then it's not worth entertaining. Contradict what I just said, then maybe you have some grounds for your nonsense.
@roxtar55 I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I'm almost certain you aren't trying to defend Chris anymore, since if you were, you wouldn't be making these posts.
@GlorifiedTruth not necessarily. many scientists postulate that RNA, not proteins, were the first to form and reproduce. And because we know very little.... VERY LITTLE... about the RNA landscape of every individual cell we haven't been able to elucidate how exactly it does it. I would think that there are certain specific RNA molecules that when formed are able to reproduce themselves, which is probably how life in fact began. We will probably figure them out within 100 years.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I don't think that anyone would disagree with the fact that water isn't oxygen. What's important is that water no longer has the properties of oxygen.
Ughh the people on this show are SOO rude and disrespectful. It's making me angry. I'd never want to be an atheist because that is exactly how you turn out.
@Updownaroundtown I became an atheist and i don't consider myself very rude. Neither does my sorroundings. :) And atheism does not define your attitude towards people. It is simply put: That you don't accept the existens of a god since there is a lack in evidence. It is that simple. Then you can be an asshole or whatever as a person. The same with religious people. they believe in a god but can still be everything from a rude person to a nice person. ;)
@MrMiriland It's actually a lot more complicated than that. I do believe in God, and without God, I cannot control, and change the flaws that I have. He has to be there helping me. All the tiime.
@Updownaroundtown oh, really?how is it more complicated? Thats great by the way. :) If you have something that can help you be a better person than that is good. :)
@Updownaroundtown Its terrible, isnt it? I mean, when we christians disagree we are SOO much more respectful and kind. We would never do anything so awful as to hang up on someone. We might stone them to death or burn them at the stake but that's ok because its in the bible.
People like that caller go to Christian web sites, And copy & paste things the site says to stump a "Atheist" or Buddhist, or Muslim etc. They say things they have been reading, yet have no idea what the meaning is.
@Anunnaki12P you have no idea what God is....he is everything....he is the beginning and end. God is god, he is not a creation.....explaion to me how our universe came out of nothing?
@dhide14 First of all, the universe didn't come from nothing. No one claims that it came absolutely nothing. Just because we cannot explain, at the moment, how the universe came to be does not prove a god. If you believe in a god that is "everything," you must be able to prove it. If a god affects the physical world, there must be some sort of consistant way to prove its affect. The argument that we can't explain it therefor god, is invalid. I can use that argument for any un-disproved
@bmparks5150 being. The burden of proof lies with the group making the claims. If I believed bigfoot was real, you would not think it was a valid argument if I said, "you can't DISPROVE bigfoot, therefor he has to be real." Most atheists I know are not against the idea of a god (and I think that is how most of the people on TAE feel) but we have not had any hard proof that there is one.
Wrong, the burden of proof lies with both sides. If a third person was watching the arguement and they were open to both sides, both must defend themselves. If I put that answer diffrently "You can't disprove Bigfoot, therefore he MIGHT exist", you have to proove me wrong conclusivly by providing evidence that Bigfoot in fact does NOT exist. If I put it in your words, I would have to prove he does, but If I choose MY words wisely, YOU would have to proove he did not exist!
This is why the OJ simpson trial was fucked up... because they couldn't conclusively proove beyond doubt that he was the killer to the third party, the Jury, that he killed his wife. It does not mean that he didn't do it, but it did mean he was found "innocent".
He had to prove it wasn't him, and they had to prove it was him. They couldn't prove he did it, so he "won" the case... not by proving conclusively it wasn't him, but because they didn't prove it was.
@colliric The burden of proof in any trial lies with the prosecution. In America, any person is considered innocent until proven guilty. This means that if the prosecution does not come up with absolute 100% proof, the defense is innocent. The defense does not actually have to say anything and can, if they choose, waive their side. If the prosecution tries this, the defendant is automatically innocent. Meaning, the defense does not actually have to "prove" anything at all.
@bmparks5150 I think the argument against God's existence is a SCIENTIFIC argument, meaning if Science is to accept a truth it must be provable, not a legal one. Don't mistake the two. And not every legal system is so clear on proof of guilt as North American/European legal systems are.
This, however means that you also cannot disprove God. So you have backed yourself into a corner, you cannot prove that God does not exist because you cannot explain how the universe came into existence. Therefore, you cannot be an athiest and must be at least an Agnostic.
If God does not affect the physical world, there must be some sort of consistant way to prove he does not affect it. Ergo, if you believe that God does not exist, you must be able to prove it beyond doubt.
@colliric I am agnostic, but that has no bearing on whether I'm Atheist or not. Agnostic means I do not know the answer whether there is a god. Atheism is just a rejection of the beliefs. I am all for there being a god if someone can show me there is, but no one has yet.
@colliric Also, the burden of proof does not lie with the side that does not believe the claim. For example, we can not disprove that there is a Bigfoot. Exactly what evidence can come up that would disprove it? There is almost certainly nothing that would. I can say that I, nor the scientific community, can come up with any evidence to disprove god. That does not mean it has to exist. I have never seen a serious scientific study that has come out that has disproved anything at all.
@dhide14 You are right, I have no idea what a God would be because I have not seen any sign of one, Why not pray to Odin, or Thor, or Ra, our any one of 1,000's of Gods? You can no more Prove a Christian God, them a Norse Viking could prove Odin, It is a Question of "Faith" faith is saying I think something is real with "NO" profe. Even in your Bible God created man from dirt, & had to use his rib to make Eve, So even your god can't create something from nothing. so who made him? You Did...
OMG this guy is dumb. Please southern christians go back to school.
TugsN 17 hours ago
Oxygen existed later, after the first plants long after first life.
Tophir1 6 days ago
Chris should not have called because now he just fueled the prank callers even more LOL
xam10000hehe 1 week ago
He really shouldn't be putting his name out over the line...
2010Barbon 2 weeks ago
lol you
thegreattuck 2 weeks ago
your just meen oxygen is diffused in water. He is still an idiot just point out his stupidity for LOLs
thegreattuck 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oxygen makes us high
I'm drinking water made partly from oxygen
why am I not high?
WeGameAlotSir 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
WeGameAlotSir 3 weeks ago
Only with the first part after tht idk wat ur sayin
aaronkempster1 4 weeks ago
@hybrid I agree
aaronkempster1 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It just occured to me..according to religion, dinosaurs never existed They say the garden of Eden was populated by snakes,lions, spiders,cows,etc..explain dinosaurs,earlier time period, drastically different climate/habitat before evolution kicked & introduced mammals the smartest yet dumbest creatures to ever walk the earth yet all life just magically popped up in a garden.
I will never understand WHY religious nutcases believe in another countries religion, especially one we are at war with.
HybridAres 1 month ago
Comment removed
HybridAres 1 month ago
Earth formed about 4.6 billion years ago, and life began early as 100 million years to 1 billion years later. Either way, it's fairly evident that life came into being almost immediately after the conditions were right. This implies that life isn't some fluke but that it just may be a very common natural occurrence, like any other chemical process. It's kind of funny to think that way, contrasted against the way so many people here on earth try to explain it as having supernatural origins.
BilboHalfling 1 month ago 4
wow- this one is particularly pathetic
dancingnancy09 1 month ago
Holy crap, what a tool. He was so confident he actually figured out that god exists that he called a little atheist show to break the news, instead of writing a thesis and heading over to the lab.
shabido1 1 month ago
what a nutjob. he wants to spew his insanity w/o being questions. As soon as matt questions, he's all hot under the collar and ALREADY doing the apologist tapdance! hahahahaha
TruthSurge 1 month ago
the atheist says they have been demonstrated that life can come from nothing. how could they have observed that? wouldnt it take super long considering we've only had such technology to observe life form for like maybe 20 yrs at the MOST?
JellayToasT 1 month ago
Nonesense. DNA in our cells has water molecule all around it.
I'll try to make it simple as possible :
There is oxidized oxygen atom (active) and there is reduced oxygen (non-active) atoms. Oxygen "likes" to be in the reduced (non-active) form.
molecular Oxygen (O2, what is in the air) is in the oxidized form. It can oxidate our DNA.
Oxygen in water (H2O) is already reduced (non active) thus it cannot oxidate our DNA.
tombenarye1234 2 months ago
@tombenarye1234 Very much correct.
The caller displays his complete ignorance about chemistry by not understanding this simple fact.
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
synergise proteins? What the hell does that mean? Crackhead.
breaneainn 2 months ago
Creationist. For some reason they feel that if they prove one theory or idea wrong, that it automatically means God did it...
AK33M 2 months ago
@AK33M no, theres evidence on our side prooving it, read a book called "it couldn't just happen, knowing the truth about God's awesome creation"
JellayToasT 1 month ago
@JellayToasT
Dang. Another book. So many. But I gotta at least check it out. Im sure the argument is based off the idea that God always was and that everything around us couldn't have just came from nothing. But the counter argument for that would be, "if you can say that nothing was needed to create God, then how come its not okay for us to say nothing was necessary to create the big bang or that the universe always existed?" But I'll check it out.
AK33M 1 month ago
@AK33M because the universe needs a cause. God doesnt. think about a place before anything was created. it was just God. their were no laws of physics, no matter no anything but God and his power. When he created the universe, he created the laws of physics and everything possible. And i thank you for not rejecting my evidence before trying to read it :)
JellayToasT 1 month ago
@JellayToasT that still fails to explain the origin of your god, your argument falls in on itself because if you claim the universe needs a cause then so does your god.
eddiedenied 1 month ago
@eddiedenied like i said, God created physics, so before, everything was possible, so God could have created himself or could have always existed.
JellayToasT 1 month ago
@JellayToasT so god could of created himself or always existed, so tell me why the same isn't possible for the universe.
I don't really expect you to give a good answer though :p
SuLLyZorZ 1 month ago
@JellayToasT
You need to prove that God exist and that he doesn't need cause in order to make this claims otherwise your claim and claim that that universe doesn't need a cause is equally valid .
zoltan6561 1 month ago
@zoltan6561 ive answered that question to like 3 other people, but i will explain it again, now this is not a 100% assertion that Jehovah is real, but it supports my claims on the universe, whether or not u take that proof is not my problem, i am simplily answering your question. Now, in the sake of arguement, lets say there's absolutely nothing except Jehovah. no physics or anything, so everything is possible. Jehovah created the laws of physics then he created the earth. Im not typin this agan
JellayToasT 1 month ago
@JellayToasT
Your claim just isn't valid because there is no evidence that Jehovah is anything more than a deity made up by middle eastern desert dwelling nomads.
zoltan6561 1 month ago
@zoltan6561 fine, then i will use God instead of Jehovah, does that make you happier?
JellayToasT 1 month ago
@JellayToasT no, God is nothing more than a deity made up by christians. It doesnt really matter what diety you use
doubledutch6rudder 1 month ago
@doubledutch6rudder actually it is made up by jews. christians and muslims believe in a imaginary jewish deity. oh, the irony!
Meskiagkasher 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JellayToasT
"no physics or anything so everything is possible. Jehovah created the laws of physics then he created the earth"
Existence is not based on laws of physics. Our universe's laws of physics could be radically different and all the energy would still exist. There is no way to bypass this dilemma, even by saying time and space didn't exist, because everything in our universe DID exist before it blew up. That state of existence was a singularity (analogous to a black hole)
confettibrains 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
"If we cant comprehend it how can we make the assumption?" "Okay, but let me turn to something completely unrelated and not answer your question first"
IricForset 2 months ago
nucleotides can't survive in water?? our bodies are 70% water...
fndalves 2 months ago
looks like borat...
fndalves 2 months ago
:facepalm:
hilliuno 2 months ago
Foolish Christian, nucleotides contain oxygen too.
vytah 2 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Sperctumglare, you are a troll!
Jerphun 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matt you make a half ass good argument, but listening to you for over a year now I can see you are hostile toward any proof of a God. Also you lean on science to prove your hostility toward a prime creator and it is science who will bring you down. You are in a hatred movement against Yahweh and so be it but you will see there is a life after this one and that is where I would loved to be when it happens to you Mr. smarty pants. It is your show for now. Until then fuck off yourself.
spectrumglare 2 months ago
@spectrumglare shut youre fucking mouth you dumbass
ladev91 2 months ago
You guys do know that this Chris from Boston is right about Robert Lane?
He covers his tracks pretty well, but not well enough if you know where to look...because afterall, he needs to use the internet for contact....I'm not saying anymore here.
mactavishc 2 months ago
Outside time and space is a good place to hide your god.
The only thing is, these guys don't understand time (5k year old earth) or space, (flat earth covered by ice and water) .
Evolvedprimate 2 months ago
"It has already been conclusively proven, in physics, that time is quantitative."
1. "Time is quantitative" doesn't mean "it had a begining and will end"; if anything, "quantitative" means "measurable".
2. Physics (and, in fact, all science) doesn't "conclusively prove" ANYTHING; science VERIFIES and CORROBORATES.
3. Even if his argument were valid, so what? It's an argument AGAINST a very specific kind of abiogenesis, not an argument FOR god.
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc I think he intended to say was that time was quantated. It's a part of string theory that time is segmented into quanta of plank time durations (~1x10^-20 of a sec or something like that). As you point out, this doesn't imply that time has a begining and an end.
It's the same as saying photons are quantated into minimum packets of energy. It hasn't been verified and is simply a requirement of string theory ( or m-theory) to make the maths work.
AussieAtheist1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...wait, Matt has a doctorate in physics? Seriously?
IoEstasCedonta 2 months ago
Does Chris realise that when elements form a compound they often have different properties to that of the forming elements? For example under his logic:
1 - Oxygen helps fire burn.
2 - Water contains oxygen.
3 - Therefore pouring water on fire would increase the strength of the fire. Fail. Learn something about chemistry before making bold faced assertions.
MrOjones2 2 months ago 2
@MrOjones2 LOL, exactly, Hydrogen is explosive in the presence of oxygen, too, so according to Chis, water should be about the most volatile substance on Earth!
GoblinXXX 2 months ago
Time no more has a beginning and end than do length, width, or volume. These are only measures of spacial and temporal dimensions. The caller doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Kailoa36 2 months ago
@SRogg1226 Atheists have one thing in common, and ONLY one thing: the rejection of claims to a God or gods. Your statements make zero sense. Learn what a term means before you copy and paste from an apologist's site.
RamoneHoffman 2 months ago
@SRogg1226 Problems for christians include.
1) No god.
TeToa 2 months ago 2
@TeToa That's a pretty big one, right there.
GoblinXXX 2 months ago
Not one person in this video, caller OR host, address the fact that physics and biology have absolutely NO explanation as to why Matt, at the end of the video clip, is spontaneously engulfed in a giant flaming vagina.
Visda58 2 months ago
these morons rationalizing in vain attempt to prove there is a god invoking their so called knowledge of science mumbling scientific language as if they really know what they are saying.pathetic these christians..
philippineatheist67 2 months ago
To be fair, this guy was pretty much driven insane by prank calls.
BlackHoleBird 2 months ago
In 2009 scientists made amino acids and RNA with a system so simple, it could occur in nature...FAIL !
TheThunderduck 2 months ago
When Chris says oxygen is the enemy of nucleotides, is he referring to the oxygen atoms in nucleotides? Yes I am a Chemist shaking my head... @MunkyDragOn
dramlee01 3 months ago
Caller: "hey, man, I'm just taking a break from delivering pizzas at my job, so since I drive around stoned all day while I'm working, I suddenly thought I should call in and take a shot at being a biologist..."
instereovideos 3 months ago
@instereovideos
He is not pizza delivery boy he has data he owns data recovery business in Belmont Massachusetts and he is also a famous prank call victim nicknamed "Chris the hacker".
zoltan6561 3 months ago
I like how Matt explodes at the end there.
Enzo012 3 months ago
That guy should study some chemistry. Is he talking about Oxygen atoms or oxygen molecules (O2)? Oxygen atoms in O2 have completely different chemistry than those in H2O. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is poisonous, Does that mean that carbon and oxygen are harmful completely and always harmful? No, of course not! We're made of primarily carbon and need to breathe in oxygen to obtain useful energy through cellular respiration. DNA and amino acids also contain many oxygen atoms by the way.
gnarCR 3 months ago
I like this show because it reassures me that, even though I feel stupid sometimes, I still have a better grasp of reality than a lot of other people.
GuacamoleKun 3 months ago 2
Caller kinda sounds like Tommy Chong, when he was playing in cheech and chong.
TheSatan222 3 months ago
Chris = Fail. LOL
Mimi2591 3 months ago 2
Chris is awsome
B0zz3 3 months ago
Frank Garrett or Rick should call this show. :x
Miseritor 3 months ago 2
define the prank callers and make your point
yanivporzanski 3 months ago
This guy not only failed to prove God through physics and biology, but also pissed off many chemists who are probably also shaking their heads while watching this pitiful attempt.
MunkyDrag0n 3 months ago 41
He can't comprehend god, but he can prove god -What an idiot!
Lennon4ever1 3 months ago 2
33% of water IS NOT made of oxygen. Hydrogen atoms are much smaller (MW in H2O = 2 amu's) Oxygen is 16 amu's, so oxygen is about 88-92% of H2O, whereas the H2 makes up about 12-13% of the molecule.
roxtar55 3 months ago
@roxtar55 HOOORRRRRRYYYYYYYY SHHHHEEEEEEEETTTTT
WonderfulDenmark 3 months ago
Sorry for the obvious typo in my previous posting.
colliric 3 months ago
@RedDaVincy
Ignorant? Matt was the ignorant one.
colliric 3 months ago
@colliric Really? How?
Delinexwow 3 months ago
@Delinexwow
Chris actually had to explain him that oxygen is a molecule! Chis then outlined what is now an accepted scientific fact that the mere presence of the oxygen molecule is destructive to amino acids. In the Miller experiment they had to use several chemicals to counteract the presence of oxygen in the oxygen in the water. The experiments showed amino acids can form, but also that they could not have formed in natura water. It had to be treated before they could form.
colliric 3 months ago
@colliric
You do realize that most interestening organic molecules do contain oxygen, do you?
narutofan9999 3 months ago
@narutofan9999 In fact, every single amino acid contains oxygen.
For that matter, every single organic acid has COOH on the end of it.
gimmethegepgun 3 months ago
@colliric Chris FTW!
roxtar55 3 months ago
@colliric Poor Chris also had to explain that it was the presence of FREE oxygen in the water...
Oh wait... he didn't. It's accepted scientific fact (and has been for decades) that it is FREE oxygen that is the problem, not the oxygen that is bonded to the H2 top make the water... and if he'd listened to what was said, he'd have learned that!
Chris is an idiot, and so are you.
Crazalus 3 months ago 25
@colliric
You DO realize that oxygen molecule has to be on its own, not bonded, right? Water has an oxygen atom, but because it's bonded, it doesn't have the same chemical properties that oxygen alone would have. If that wasn't the case, we'd be able to breathe under water and set water on fire, since we can breathe oxygen and burn hydrogen. Opting out of science class for religious purposes isn't gonna get you far, ya know.
codeythesilent 3 months ago 2
Chris is soooooooooooooo unbelievably ignorant, I'm not sure if it's even funny anymore.
RedDaVincy 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg
Sorry my sentence was a bit odd, but I was referring to the discovery by the Miller experiment that the mere presence of the molecule(even in water) reduced the likelyhood of Amino Acids forming.
colliric 3 months ago
I am also going to point out that oxygen has always existed on the molecular basis under simular overall levels, in water, air and other forms, as it still does today(although form fluctuates). Plant life does not create the molecule itself.
colliric 3 months ago
um, er, pardon me , but I pour water on a fire to put it out. Why doesnt the hydrogen and oxygen cause a huge fire ?
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
I don't care, what's the name of the hotel?
Gmancrap 3 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha
The Hydrogen-Oxygen molecules are self-extinguishing on most fires, based on general tempreture. Hydrogen and Oxygen can both fuel a fire, even when they are combined as Water. But the general lower tempreture of water is an effective extingusher on most fires. However, don't pore boiling water on any fire... it won't work as well! You pour cold water on a fire to put it out! Hot water won't work as well and may end up fueling it.
colliric 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colliric it requires more energy to boil water than to heat it from 0C to 100C. When water is dissociated in a fire, and then reignited (hydrogen+oxygen explosion) no net energy is generated = water does not fuel a fire.
But, water on a very hot fire will boil very rapidly and cause an explansion (it expands about 1400 times when it boils) and this expansion can cause alot of problems. However, most of the cooling effect is from the water boiling, soo hot water is still a good firerepellant.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha
If you poured water that was exceptionally hot, onto a fire it won't put it out, the fire may even end up "eating it".
colliric 3 months ago
thats awesome,
see as the water is 33% oxygen then dive in there and breathe some you prat
Therealmiracleworker 3 months ago
@Therealmiracleworker
Actually Chris is right, and Matt is wrong...
Amino acids struggle to form with the presence of the Oxygen Molecule. It was actually proven by the experiement Matt actually mentions. Water on it's own isn't a sufficient incubator for amino acids.
What Matt fails to mention, is that studies have shown it's more evidenced that early Life came down from space than it did form in the oceans due to this "problem", that was actually proven by the Miller experiment.
colliric 3 months ago
@colliric my point is quite simple, oxygen atoms behave differently if they are attached to 2 hydrogen atoms (thus forming a molecule of water)
this is quite observable, see you breath oxygen (lucky for us approx 20% of the atmosphere is oxygen), now although 33% of water is made of oxygen you can not breath water, when you try to you drown.
same with other things too, see sodium likes to fizz and catch fire in water but sodium attached to chlorine (salt) does not.
Therealmiracleworker 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colliric Miller-Urey experiment only showed that aminoacids can form, not that it was more likely that life came from space. Early earth had very little free oxygen, because oxygen is fairly reactive, and unless replenished it reacts with surroundings (forming oxides).
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
So to be an Agnostic means you reject the belief that knowledge should be worshipped. You believe you don't have the right to lay claim to secret knowledge, primary to do with the religion of Gnosticism.
colliric 4 months ago
@mysql0
No, you're wrong... Gnosticism is a Religion with followers, to be a Gnostic means you are following that worships secret knowledge. A common form of Gnosticism today is found in the book called "the secret". It has nothing to do sureties at all. You cannot be a Gnostic atheist... unless you worship the "secret knowledge" of atheism!
colliric 4 months ago
Chris is about one stewpid bietch!
CootBusiness 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChrisTheHacker
The molecular composition of every one of the 22 known types of amino acids consists of 2 atoms of oxygen.
mynameszz 4 months ago
Comment removed
mynameszz 4 months ago
If you recalled Anthony Flew's excerpts such as "Theology and Falsification", it states, 'God is a vague concept. You can't see God nor touch God.' Therefore we cannot study God. In all sense we cannot disprove God's existence or prove God's existence because he is labeled as invisible, intangible. It's complicated really to find out if God is real or not. It's a bit of a mixed complex.
JaggedSnowWolf 4 months ago
@JaggedSnowWolf
It could all be a misunderstanding 2000 years ago
heathheath90 4 months ago
But unfortunately for him, the majority of his followers insist on using "Atheist" despite his own protests that it's not the right word by it's definition. In reality his ideas are best described as "Religious Skepticism", and he admits it.
colliric 4 months ago
@mysql0
No, you're wrong. Atheist means by dictionary definition "A person who does not believe in the existence of a God". Which is of cause the opposite of a thiest. Even Christopher Hitchens doesn't believe "Athiesm" should be used because he understands the dictionary definition defines Agnosticism as a seperate ideal altogether.
colliric 4 months ago
@colliric Wrong. Angostic is not separate. Gnostic means you are 100% sure about something. (I am Gnostic that 1 + 1 =2).
Agnostic means you are Not 100% sure about something. (I am a vegetarian but I am agnostic about it).
Same with atheist. If you do not accept the claims of God exisitng, then you are an atheist. If you are 100% sure you are "Gnostic atheist". If you are not 100% sure, then you are a "Agnostic atheist".
Either way you're still an atheist.
mysql0 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colliric does not believe in the existence of a God=don't accept the claim, "God exists".
"the majority of his followers " Hitchens has has followers? He's a great speaker and all but what sort of person devotes themselves to hitchens?
explosivoification 2 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe
To reject the claim that God exists is to claim that God does not exist. Thiest = believes in God. Athiest = does not beieve in God. So fuck off you illogical idiot.
colliric 4 months ago
@colliric Wrong.
Atheist means they don't accept the claim, "God exists".
There is not satisfactory evidence for Santa, therefore I don't accept the claim of it. Same with God, no evidence, therefore I don't accept the claim of it.
If evidence can ever be shown to me I will instantly change.
Gnostic means ur sure about something, Agnostic means ur not sure.
Gnostic atheist = 100% sure theres no god, thats just as delusional as christians
Agnostic atheist=most atheists are this
mysql0 4 months ago
@mysql0 It shouldn't be this complicated. The prefix "a" means about the same thing as "non". Asexual reproduction doesn't mean they don't accept the claim of "sex exists." It means they don't sexually reproduce. A-sexual. The same goes with the word, "atheist." And atheist is an a-theist. It shouldn't be any more complicated than that, considering we're dealing with English and one of the simplest prefixes.
punchdrunkatheist 4 months ago
@punchdrunkatheist You are wrong. The prefix "a" does mean "non", yes. So if we applied it to the word sexual, (asexual) it would mean non-sexual.
Now let's look at the word THEIST - someone that accepts the claim of a god. As surprising at this may seem, when the "a" prefix is added here, to create aTHEIST - it means someone that does NOT accept the claims of a God - the basis for this non acceptance is the same basis for our non acceptance of unicorns, there is no evidence to justify th claim
mysql0 4 months ago
Just pwned the YouTube wigger's ass
roxtar55 4 months ago
good god this guy is a pretentious tard
Swingfinger 4 months ago
Chris has a Master's in applied sciences. Matt has shit. stfu already.
roxtar55 4 months ago
@roxtar55 You realize Chris isn't really contradicting anything, right. Even if he was right that that particular set of circumstances couldn't produce life (which I am not saying he is), that isn't to say that no circumstances exist in which life could be produced.
Stop being such a fanatic.
TheIncognitusMe 4 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe Not at all. Get a masters then talk.
roxtar55 4 months ago
@roxtar55 Sorry pal. If you can't demonstrate the reality without 4 years of research, then it's not worth entertaining. Contradict what I just said, then maybe you have some grounds for your nonsense.
TheIncognitusMe 4 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe 6 years actually. lrn2count
roxtar55 4 months ago
@roxtar55 PS: Nucleotides contain oxygen.
TheIncognitusMe 4 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe lrn2trewl
roxtar55 4 months ago
@roxtar55 lrn2credible
TheIncognitusMe 4 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe lrn2hack
roxtar55 4 months ago
@roxtar55 I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I'm almost certain you aren't trying to defend Chris anymore, since if you were, you wouldn't be making these posts.
I'll go with trolling.
TheIncognitusMe 4 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe lrn2decipher
roxtar55 4 months ago
For that reason, H20 has not been used as a fuel for a car ignition.
roxtar55 4 months ago
Chris FTW! woot woot It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's fuckin Stageman!
roxtar55 4 months ago
Fact: Nearly every important molecule needed for life as we know it contains atomic oxygen.
pipolwes000 4 months ago
u gotta love chris
im2PacsFather 4 months ago
chhhrreeeeese the hoyackerrrrr!!!
your name shall be written in stone for there never was a mistake like you... ever
trufuknplaya 4 months ago
Is the host not overstating the results of Miller-Urey? I thought they just proved that amino acids could form naturally, not life itself.
GlorifiedTruth 4 months ago
@GlorifiedTruth not necessarily. many scientists postulate that RNA, not proteins, were the first to form and reproduce. And because we know very little.... VERY LITTLE... about the RNA landscape of every individual cell we haven't been able to elucidate how exactly it does it. I would think that there are certain specific RNA molecules that when formed are able to reproduce themselves, which is probably how life in fact began. We will probably figure them out within 100 years.
trufuknplaya 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
2:40 and I am going to quit listening. The caller is an idiot, so it purely a waste of time.
psilocyberspaceman 4 months ago
why did cut hair like a boy what a shame for a cutie
enispeni1 4 months ago
Why is he allowed to use science to prove god, is anything he is saying found in his bible?
Evolvedprimate 4 months ago
Matt was on fire this time.
sweetsweatyfeet 4 months ago
that's chriss the hacker
Necroman666 4 months ago
oneness is the only truth....
Hamporkcheese 4 months ago
that guy is an idiot stageman you suck !
AwEoMeGuY1 4 months ago
I don't think that anyone would disagree with the fact that water isn't oxygen. What's important is that water no longer has the properties of oxygen.
Scissorbelly 4 months ago
I wish this baldy would let the other person speak.
'lets look at it logicaly'
'I am!'
what the fuck was the point of saying 'I am'? let the other person speak you bald cunt
digitwoman 4 months ago
@digitwoman
It's probably because the other guy was spouting bullshit
You know, the same thing that you do on a daily basis.
Damarcast 4 months ago
@digitwoman shut up and listen
trufuknplaya 4 months ago
then who taught god physics?
CurseCreep 4 months ago
Ughh the people on this show are SOO rude and disrespectful. It's making me angry. I'd never want to be an atheist because that is exactly how you turn out.
Updownaroundtown 4 months ago
@Updownaroundtown I became an atheist and i don't consider myself very rude. Neither does my sorroundings. :) And atheism does not define your attitude towards people. It is simply put: That you don't accept the existens of a god since there is a lack in evidence. It is that simple. Then you can be an asshole or whatever as a person. The same with religious people. they believe in a god but can still be everything from a rude person to a nice person. ;)
MrMiriland 4 months ago
@MrMiriland It's actually a lot more complicated than that. I do believe in God, and without God, I cannot control, and change the flaws that I have. He has to be there helping me. All the tiime.
Updownaroundtown 4 months ago
@Updownaroundtown oh, really?how is it more complicated? Thats great by the way. :) If you have something that can help you be a better person than that is good. :)
MrMiriland 4 months ago
@Updownaroundtown Its terrible, isnt it? I mean, when we christians disagree we are SOO much more respectful and kind. We would never do anything so awful as to hang up on someone. We might stone them to death or burn them at the stake but that's ok because its in the bible.
JoeNietzsche 4 months ago
People like that caller go to Christian web sites, And copy & paste things the site says to stump a "Atheist" or Buddhist, or Muslim etc. They say things they have been reading, yet have no idea what the meaning is.
Anunnaki12P 4 months ago
can you athiests tell me how everything was created from nothing? still waiting for the answer..........
dhide14 4 months ago
@dhide14 How was God created from nothing?
Anunnaki12P 4 months ago
@Anunnaki12P you have no idea what God is....he is everything....he is the beginning and end. God is god, he is not a creation.....explaion to me how our universe came out of nothing?
dhide14 4 months ago
@dhide14 First of all, the universe didn't come from nothing. No one claims that it came absolutely nothing. Just because we cannot explain, at the moment, how the universe came to be does not prove a god. If you believe in a god that is "everything," you must be able to prove it. If a god affects the physical world, there must be some sort of consistant way to prove its affect. The argument that we can't explain it therefor god, is invalid. I can use that argument for any un-disproved
bmparks5150 4 months ago
@bmparks5150 being. The burden of proof lies with the group making the claims. If I believed bigfoot was real, you would not think it was a valid argument if I said, "you can't DISPROVE bigfoot, therefor he has to be real." Most atheists I know are not against the idea of a god (and I think that is how most of the people on TAE feel) but we have not had any hard proof that there is one.
bmparks5150 4 months ago
@bmparks5150
Wrong, the burden of proof lies with both sides. If a third person was watching the arguement and they were open to both sides, both must defend themselves. If I put that answer diffrently "You can't disprove Bigfoot, therefore he MIGHT exist", you have to proove me wrong conclusivly by providing evidence that Bigfoot in fact does NOT exist. If I put it in your words, I would have to prove he does, but If I choose MY words wisely, YOU would have to proove he did not exist!
colliric 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheIncognitusMe 4 months ago
@colliric Best comment on here
RonaldhoIsAWanker 4 months ago
@bmparks5150
This is why the OJ simpson trial was fucked up... because they couldn't conclusively proove beyond doubt that he was the killer to the third party, the Jury, that he killed his wife. It does not mean that he didn't do it, but it did mean he was found "innocent".
He had to prove it wasn't him, and they had to prove it was him. They couldn't prove he did it, so he "won" the case... not by proving conclusively it wasn't him, but because they didn't prove it was.
colliric 4 months ago
@colliric The burden of proof in any trial lies with the prosecution. In America, any person is considered innocent until proven guilty. This means that if the prosecution does not come up with absolute 100% proof, the defense is innocent. The defense does not actually have to say anything and can, if they choose, waive their side. If the prosecution tries this, the defendant is automatically innocent. Meaning, the defense does not actually have to "prove" anything at all.
bmparks5150 4 months ago
@bmparks5150 I think the argument against God's existence is a SCIENTIFIC argument, meaning if Science is to accept a truth it must be provable, not a legal one. Don't mistake the two. And not every legal system is so clear on proof of guilt as North American/European legal systems are.
JaytheOstrich 4 months ago
@JaytheOstrich I agree. I was just making a point to the other guy who brought it up.
bmparks5150 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheIncognitusMe 4 months ago
@bmparks5150
This, however means that you also cannot disprove God. So you have backed yourself into a corner, you cannot prove that God does not exist because you cannot explain how the universe came into existence. Therefore, you cannot be an athiest and must be at least an Agnostic.
If God does not affect the physical world, there must be some sort of consistant way to prove he does not affect it. Ergo, if you believe that God does not exist, you must be able to prove it beyond doubt.
colliric 4 months ago
@colliric I am agnostic, but that has no bearing on whether I'm Atheist or not. Agnostic means I do not know the answer whether there is a god. Atheism is just a rejection of the beliefs. I am all for there being a god if someone can show me there is, but no one has yet.
bmparks5150 4 months ago
@colliric Also, the burden of proof does not lie with the side that does not believe the claim. For example, we can not disprove that there is a Bigfoot. Exactly what evidence can come up that would disprove it? There is almost certainly nothing that would. I can say that I, nor the scientific community, can come up with any evidence to disprove god. That does not mean it has to exist. I have never seen a serious scientific study that has come out that has disproved anything at all.
bmparks5150 4 months ago
@dhide14 You are right, I have no idea what a God would be because I have not seen any sign of one, Why not pray to Odin, or Thor, or Ra, our any one of 1,000's of Gods? You can no more Prove a Christian God, them a Norse Viking could prove Odin, It is a Question of "Faith" faith is saying I think something is real with "NO" profe. Even in your Bible God created man from dirt, & had to use his rib to make Eve, So even your god can't create something from nothing. so who made him? You Did...
Anunnaki12P 4 months ago
@dhide14 Not yet and maybe never. But that is no reason to look for answers in a very old book... :P No answer is better then the wrong answer. ;)
MrMiriland 4 months ago
@MrMiriland No answer, is better, then the wrong answer
MrMiriland 4 months ago
@dhide14 we don't know how it all started, and who says it had to be "created".
crass770 4 months ago