this man just believes what he hears or sees and does not research or study... all these faults in the fossil record arent even used in the evolution of man... i can see he clearly does not understand certain theories by the claims he makes
atheists and religious people are both hypocrits since they both CANT 100% explain the beginning of life and what happens after death. Atheists say they dont believe in faith yet they have faith that nothing will happen after they die and cant prove that god doesnt exist. A religious group will say their religion is right but yet there are lots of other religions out there that give the same messages but teaches in a different way depending on their interpretation of what the bible says.
@bigbugbog Jesus Y'hoshua Christ is the messager of Hell on Earth. Jesus Y'hoshua Christ is truly the child of evil, the child of ruin, Jesus Christ is the deadly opponent against knowledge, wisdom and truth, and the opponent against love, peace, respect and harmony. It is the Anti-Logos in manifold form. It is the force of evil, the 666, which is against the truth of Creation, against the truth of the Spirit and against the obedience to the laws and commandments. No MORE LIES!!!
You said that evolutionists didn't stay within the bounds of the empirical science, ironic considering the Christianity hasn't been proven by empirical science, yet you teach it like truth. Moral of the story, you're a hypocrite.
the god one dose not sound logical to me at all, you can ask me why if you want. notice your 2nd main reason is death. why jump to that? i think fear of death is the main reason why any one really believes.
I can only assume that your "facts" all come from christian "scientists" Nothing in the bible has been proven fact absolutely NOTHING. in fact off the top of my head there is no one person professed that fits the jesus of the bible to have ever existed. and incase you had not heard we (humans) have created life last year. single cell granted but a new form of life non the less. And both the historians you mentioned. Gave their "first hand" accounts hundreds of years after the "events" (cont)
@zenguyh (cont) And finally christianity is in fact a very young religion compared to many that are worshiped today which have many more followers than christianity. and which of the 30,000 or so sects of christianity many with their wildly differing beliefs is it that you speak of when you say christianity is the one?
@zenguyh On that creating new life, the lead scientist admits "They did not create life from scratch". What they did was take bacteria and inserted man made DNA to create a new artificial life form. No different than the process they use for cloning, just using aritificial DNA.
Granted, the Bible is a very well written book, though one of my question is this, wouldn't the same effect be given if six very talented authors writing the same story then compiling them all together into one book but removing the bad bits?
@sdingle100 The bible says that God was and it was always God. So to answer your question God and his whole being (energy, body, soul) has always been. The bible clearly says this. The universe never has made a claim to always exist which is why for centuries people thought it always did exist. The big bang theory changed science as well as Hubbles Law that stated there was a start to the universe as it is expanding.
@GodIsReal101 the big bang wasn't the start simply a big event that occurred many scientists say that before the big bang the univers was just compressed.
@GodIsReal101 Jesus Y'hoshua Christ is the messager of Hell on Earth. Jesus Y'hoshua Christ is truly the child of evil, the child of ruin, Jesus Christ is the deadly opponent against knowledge, wisdom and truth, and the opponent against love, peace, respect and harmony. It is the Anti-Logos in manifold form. It is the force of evil, the 666, which is against the truth of Creation, against the truth of the Spirit and against the obedience to the laws and commandments. No MORE LIES!!!
you're wrong. Actually it matters if you believe in God. I don't believe in God and I'm sure I won't go to hell for this also because i don't believe in heaven or hell. The question is "does God really exists?"...i say no and you say yes, but the truth is that we're both wrong cause we don't have any proofs of his existence.
@GodIsReal101 Is a non-belief in santa claus, pixy fairies, bigfoot, chupacabra a blind choice? Their claims have no evidence and more in the lines of mythology than fact. There are atheists that dont believe in evolution and or abiogenesis. It would be a personal choice. Again atheism is NOT a belief but a lack thereof. Remember Atheism = no belief system. You could say we share the same non-belief in God like we share the same non-belief in unicorns.
How can you say there are unexplainable Gaps in the fossil records if you just don't tell the whole story.
How comes that you demand science to have the whole explaination with all the evidence needed to convince even those who are willfully ignorant. But on your own you don't give any evidence.
You constantly say there are only two options. But that is a lie. Even if you flip a coin there are more than two options.
@HiltownJoe So I presented huge Gaps in the fossil record and the fact that science has declared many times over that the missing link has been discovered and yet they were wrong you are saying you agree with me? Ok then I guess we have nothing to argue about you agree or are stating both are false.. Once again you are stating that evolution is false then right? Case in point som crazy man can state he found life in a meteorite and get everyone excited and find out he is way off but its science
@GodIsReal101 You did not present a huge Gap you just ignored the fact that this gaps you claim to be unpassable allready have been filled with some more transitional forms. And archeologists continue to find more.
By the way, I am not stating both "sides" are false. I say both options you present are false, because your claim that evolution is a random process is wrong. NEVER evolution was understood as a random process.
@HiltownJoe So please help us all to understand the huge difference in random, natural unguided selection, BTW I can name some major scientist that are atheist that have called the process random and unguided. There is is no reason or purpose for the selection in global view. So please explain where I am so far from the teachings or the prophet Darwin...
Ok 1st, random does not equals unguided. If i let drop a stone it doesnt act random but is unguided.
2nd Random Evolution: Any Mutation happens on random. It happens all the time wich leaves us with a huge variatiy of mutations.
3rd Unguided Natural Selection: If a mutated Individual is able to pass it genes to the next generation is determined how usefull or harmful these mutations are.
There is not necessarily an inteligence needed to drive this process.
@HiltownJoe So was Hitler. And so does Hitler. Yet I tend to not follow that flock... BTW many atheist scientist are turning their back on Darwin as what they believe new evidence has come to light. Also he proved that their are many kinds of species and that small changes happen within them. This was known before he wrote it down. The fairytale that he did not observe is why science is turning their back on him now.
@HiltownJoe Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun.. I have a list of 700 PHD Scientist if you would like to review them. More and more each day are seing the lies in macro evolution
@GodIsReal101 Most of them died before Darwin was born. So how can they object his therory?
You probably did not check your list on your own. So I probably should get more specific. Name a publication from the last 10 years which has not been disproven by peer review
@HiltownJoe Now this is what we call changing the focus and is not a good logical way to argue. You simply stated name three scientist so I named more than three. Yet you are raising the bar now becuas I have done as you asked. I fear if I answer the next question which I can as there are many cration scientist young earth and old earth alike that don't support macro evolution on the scale Darwin spoke of. Along with his orgin and tree of life. They just are not proven scientifically. Thanks
@GodIsReal101 The only difference between micro and macro evolution is timescale, therefore possible. The phylogenic tree has been proven simply by looking at our genome. There are many examples of evolution taking place and new species being formed. It all matches up perfectly with the different fields of science with not one thing out of place. I do not know how anyone can dispute that.
@chrisinsocalif Great I appreciate your words of wisdom. Now just share with the class your proof of a species changing from one kind to another. Show us a positive effect from genetic mutation. I challenge that you can't and will never. As to the past and time. You should have a tremendous amount of transitional species in the strata but yet we have all but yet found that missing link. Why is that??? Was the billion years and 1000000's of transitions not enough to leave one good lasting fossil
I am not changing the focus. YOU claimed that atheist scientists are turning their back on darvin because NEW evidence has come to light. When I asked who is turning their back on him you named ones who died before Darwin lived. Therefore I ask less misunderstanable for the NEW evidence and the scientists who NOW turn their back ond darvin.
so the first half of the video is you slating evolutionists and saying they have no proof of their claims, then you start churning out all this shit as if it is pure fact based on nothing more than it is in the bible?! i mean is this some kind of you rage you lose video or are you actually THAT fucking stupid?
@CnilaTorzvlp666 Just because someone claims to be christians doesn't mean they are. Don't be quick to disregard Jesus's message of love for humanity because of a few people, who taint it's lifestyle.
just like how you can't say how the universe came around randomly you can't also say how a god came around randomly, its the same thing. This guy is really ignorant and thats why i am agnostic because you can't prove or disprove a god and vis versa
@Darthlisp God always was, is and forever will be. That is why Jesus claims to be the "I Am". He never was created because he always was. There is no beginning or end to Him.
Very well done. This is a wonderfully concise apologetic for Christianity. Each subject discussed can be explored in great depth, but this gives an overview that many Christians would do well to see. In fact, I am going to show it to my Sunday School class. The Peace of the Lord be with you, brother.
@MetalHeadTwins Let me get someone who met Shakespeare to see if he wrote any plays... or King Richard to see if there were really Crusades going on. If you don't want to believe in God I would like you to explain the existence of the Jewish people. Then why millions of Christians were murdered for there beliefs throughout history.
misfortune distress tumor for those who have in youtube: all forms of sex; horror; satanism; metal; vulgarity. I'm "Rei Unius" in Jesus' name I command that:the first dangerous will disease to which their thinking think? is own by receive: that leading to death: loved the curse? Falls on him! Drink your poisons made by yourself ♰PAX♰ amen ✙Halleluja✙ ♥ ♔ consecration to the Heart of the whole human race ✙ ♥ ♔ CSPBCSSMLNDSMDVRSNSMVSMQLIVBMENETECHELPERES
I don't mind someone finding philosophical support for a God centered universe, but when people lie and present those lies as facts I will not stomach it. Boo!
I'm sure you mean well, but when people research this stuff themselves, and find that everything you've said about what science says isn't true, don't you realise they'll stop trusting you? It doesn't matter if you think you're telling the truth; the fact is, you are saying things which are verifiably untrue (the whole 'random chance' thing, for one). If people can't trust what you say about evolution, why should they believe what you say about Christianity?
Random Chance is exactly what had to happen if there was no being behind creation. You can call it natural selection or the big bang but it still is without reason making it random. Show me one proof of evidence that states different and I will remove this video. 100% proof of reason and not random acts...
Are you saying that 'random' and 'unguided' are the same thing? Be careful here. If I drop a stone to the ground, it is 'unguided', but its path is certainly not random. It follows a well-defined law.
Similarly, the formation of galaxies is not 'random'. Those spirals are the result of physical laws.
If you want to claim that 'random' means 'unguided', then you cannot also claim that it means 'improbable'. You have yet to show that 'unguided' means 'improbable'.
I am saying that science has never been able to describe the law giver. If you say a law sets the stone down it's path then I would ask where did that law come from? Can we see this law or is it non material if it is non material then what do we call this? Where did the stone come from did it always exist if not what created it? You will find that these answers lead to a finite moment and that bang is directed by a law or system. I say what is that system? To many holes in your law theory.
I note you're not answering the question. It's an important one.
Do you think 'unguided' means the same as 'random' (as in 'by pure luck')?
If so, then the existence of physical laws refutes that easily. Planets form into spheres because of gravity (unless you believe that all the atoms 'randomly' form a sphere?). Evolution postulates that animals evolve by these same natural laws, not 'randomly'. Do you agree with that?
As for science not being able to describe the law-giver, it's not relevant. If you want me to say it's God, fine. God made the laws of the universe. It makes no difference to the processes that follow those laws, such as evolution.
That is what I'm criticising: by characterising evolution (or whatever) as 'random', and pretending that there is no process behind it, you're hiding the fact that it works on physical laws. What happens when people find out you've been holding back the truth?
My main point is this: you don't know what you're talking about.
I understand you want to evangelise; however, what good do you do by spreading things which you don't know the truth of? Some people will be convinced by the untruths because they don't know science, and others will turn away when they see the bad argumentation, or when they find out what science really says. Doesn't that concern you? Is the business of saving souls really such a shotgun process?
Your argument is self refuting. I 100% believe that this world is guided that is what believing in a creator is all about. The problem which I pointed out is this. If you are a materialst then you fail. You must end up believing in something you can not see or understand or in your case borrow from my world view to make your world view valid. Case in point you admit that the same law that guides the stone would have to exist before the stone and you are ok with calling that existence God.
Your video says that science says that the first cell came together purely by trillions molecules arranging themself into a cell by random chance.
This is false. Because YOU don't understand how physical laws work, or what the difference between 'random' and 'unguided' is, you have misrepresented what science actually says. And it only takes seconds for a kid to read it for themself and find they've been lied to.
a) That's not how creationists put it. If they really believed that, they couldn't make ridiculous 'this is SO improbable!' arguments.
b) Why, and why? You need to do more than just assert that they're impossible. I would argue that macroevolution is perfectly possible (and, even better, well evidenced). I would also argue that abiogenesis is at least possible. Why do you think they're not?
@HawthornOwl perfect! Creationists constantly seem to equate "unguided" with "pointless," as if the intentionality of a process dictates the worth of the result of that process. Nobody "built" the mountains that I can see out my window in Alaska, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly not beautiful.
And another comment: Creationists keep repeating the word "accidental," as if the supposedly "accidental" nature of the big bang or of evolution somehow invalidate the theories.
Look at how stupendously "accidental" each of us is, in that history had to have unfolded exactly as it did, for millions of years, for each of us to come about. Just because our births were enormously unlikely in the scope of history, doesn't somehow mean we suddenly don't or can't exist.
I never know what to make of these videos. There's this mantra "there's no evidence, there's no evidence, there's no evidence" that just keep getting repeated. And yet every bookstore is stocked with books that explain how the mechanics of physics and evolution. The evidence behind the big bang and of evolution is utterly massive and, though the details are often debated, uncontroversial.
The "big bang theory" (which, by the way, was first proposed by Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest) is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. The reason that there's debate on the details is that the birth of the universe was a hugely complex phenomenon. The big bang theory isn't a piece of religious dogma.
@GodIsReal101 Because unlike Chrisitians, we question everything around us. We don't believe in something because everyone else does and because we fear punishment to disobey. The bible has many flaws and inconsitancies that you ignore. Whereas science is always questioned and improved upon so that it removes inconsitancies. By the way, I am a theistic Satanist, which I found through much questioning of my self. Theistic Satanists strive for truth, knowledge and self empowerement
@tankintummy By believing in something metaphysical weather it is the created or the creator then you prescribe to a thinking that must break away from conventional science so where is the argument except the God you serve and the God I serve?
@GodIsReal101 Unlike monotheistic religions, Satanists do not argue against science. In fact they encourage it. Scientific theory does not conflict with these ideals. A metaphysical realm is just another Universe, as physics shows we live in a "multi-verse" not a "uni-verse". By changing the frequency of our brainwaves from alpha through delta, we are able to look into the other realms. String theory suggests that everything is made up of vibrating strings, where the vibrations attune
@GodIsReal101 to different Universes. By meditating we can change the frequency of our vibrations to see into the other Universes. The pineal gland in our brain is unactive from birth, due to being deprived from spirituality. When activating the pineal gland (done through much meditation) can allow you to adapt your sensory organs. The old pagan religions refered to it as opening the "third eye." It is only the mono-theistic religions that have inconsistancies with science
you can talk about a fatty acid bubble breaking into two parts over and over again for billions of years until you by accident hit on the on a combination that could even remotely be called life
not just accidentally split the bubble but all it's contents
and accidentally bump into new contents
because the wrong bump might change alkali and even a slight change and the bubble could just desolve
As a small aside, if there is no evidence of Jesus' remains (and no historical reference to Jesus outside of Christianity itself), then how do we know he even existed? The bible cannot be taken as just on it's own in that regard, because other historians would have for certain made some sort of reference to him. It was supposedly a large world event, yet has no historical reference from uninvolved historians.
And they are disputed, often. Many of the Jesus accounts are circumstantial at best, and can apply to a variety of people at the time claiming to be a messiah.
It is also not faith to take Abiogenesis and the Big Bang as the best explanation for phenomena we cannot directly test. That is what theory is for. Theories can be updated, revised, or even scrapped altogether. They are not however, intellectually weak. Theories are subjected the greatest possible criticisms, and have a long life before they become accepted.
The Big Bang is proposed under strong astronomical evidence. Abiogenesis follows that same logic, using current evidence as support.
Your argument is because science call a guess a name like theory then it has some truth?? Under what standard are they the best explanations? If they can be wrong or change then what are they? The same amount of evidence for the big bang exist for the answer of God. It is the measure of cause and complexity. The how science has 100's of theories from seeding, multiverse, singularity, and nothing from something, to always was. None of them are any closer than there first initial guess.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that big bang theory is as much guesswork as god is.
Do you understand spectroscopy? More importantly, red-shifting and blue-shifting? Do you understand stellar parallax (oddly enough it's how our eyes perceive depth)? What about total and apparent magnitudes, along with stellar drift?
These are principles that have been tested through observation that all together point towards a picture that the universe is expanding from a single point.
You still can't see that your theories are just words that are not empirical. Because they are produced by men you are more apt to believe them. I believe in the one who created those men. Here is a question for you. What was the scientific experiment that established epirical science as the only way to be sure something is truth? You see it all comes down to faith my friend and once again your argument is that you feel you have more evidence for your faith. I would argue your wrong. That is it.
If observation is not reliable, then nothing in existence is reliable. If our eyes, ears, mouths, nose, and skin do not act consistently as a species, then it doesn't matter at all if there's a creator or if science is even right.
But again, it's through understanding that we all see, speak, listen, taste, smell and touch using the same physiology that makes observation true.
Knowledge accumulates from prior knowledge. If what we knew is correct, what we find out will be too on principle.
So is it not true that what I view green you may see as a light green? Is it not true that things can feel different to other people? Is it not true that smell can be different to others. Who decides what the term and outcome is? Before we ever laid eyes on an atom we knew it existed. Why none of the senses you just listed could be used. We also used our brain and thought to determine that atoms existed. So we can't do the same thing in the case of God? Your argument is self refuting.
The problem is that you don't provide a better argument. You simply say you'd argue otherwise. We cannot observe a god, so there is no reason to suppose there is one. There's a book written by a committee of bronze-age shepherds, and that's it. We don't have a touchable, seeable, smellable, audible, and tasteable evidence. It is silly to even suggest there is one.
I am still waiting for an answer. What was the scientific experiment that established that empirical science or the scientific method proves something is true? If you can't point to an experiment then is it not just man saying this is the process of truth?
It is NOT left to chance. Chance was part of the mechanics of some of the earliest life forming, but the cards were stacked in favor of Abiogenesis anyway. Electrical charges already existing in the atmosphere, combined with all of the organic molecules and elements (in large abundance) and the energy necessary for life to form, are more than enough reasons to understand why it's likely.
But even then, evolution is nothing chance-related. Natural selection is not chance.
Wow here is your number one mistake. Abiogenisis is something that scientist today 2009 can't create in a controlled lab. So your saying that in a chaotic enviroment (the earth at the time of this supposed miracle) non living materials and chemicals became life and then had enough time to not be destroyed in this chaotic enviroment to advance. Yet once again in a perfect and controlled enviroment we still can't make it happen today? That would be reverse Entropy. It does not make sense.
No. Such environments are complex and chaotic. We can find similar environments near deep sea ocean vents. While we can't replicate it in a lab easily, it is nonetheless more observable than some sort of god.
You invoke entropy fallaciously. It is non sequitur to use it as part of that particular argument.
Yes but we don't see new life springing up from this area do we? Which leads to a good question. This first lucky start why has nothing like it been seen or reproduced since? It is faith that you believe it. They can make life from life but to date in a lab they can't make non life into life. So idea or theory is just a guess and takes faith or any other word you would prefer to believe it at this time. If we can't see this event how observable is it then? oh you mean the cartoons they make.
Theories are not guesses. Theories are subject to the highest possible level of criticism and scrutiny. If even one piece of evidence directly counters it (see: bible does not count as evidence as it is merely a piece of literature that doesn't justify a god), the theory is completely scrapped. That is why theories are very powerful and influential. It's damn hard to make one.
A guess though, is a hypothesis. We have many of them. Once you make one, you test it. It's rather simple.
Animals can still be identical today from fossils if there has been no large change in environment. Lets say a population exists at a stable level (no growth or shrinking, essentially equilibrium). Now lets say that mutations that are negative will be selected against (because those organisms will fail in competition with similar but better organisms). Positive mutations will survive, but because the environment isn't changing, large changes are not necessary. Not identical, but close.
GodIsReal101: 1. Earth was assumed and proclaimed to be the center of the U, by the church. Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth. " Zero else up to this point. The assumption is the earth is at the center, because it is the point of interest. 2. Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 3. Mat 2:13 4. Your view NOT mine. 5. Ditto 6. Science CAN prove the "how" we get sick and others. You mean "Why" are there organisms that cause the disease? Ask God. See BibleGateway.
1. To understand the text you must understand context. In Hebrew what word did they have to describe any planet? Also assumed by you not me.
2. Do not allow a sorceress to live. which is someone who practices in pagan rituals and calls upon dead spirits to speak to them. This was a law for the Jews at this time as they could not have anything to do with evil ways.
3. You never answered my question.
4. Correct
5.Ok
6. What about the why, where, and when. God gives us the answer to all.
1. You ask me a question. I give you an answer you don't like or understand and ask me another question.
They did not have a word for planet, because they thought that NOT ONLY was the earth FLAT, but ALSO the SUN AND THE MOON. Why didn't God reveal to them that it was a sphere?
2. The CHURCH interpreted it as WITCHES/SORCERER That is why they tortured and burned WITCHES.
Each era interprets the Bible to fit their present knowledge and word use. This era does the same. cont.
STUDY PAST Christian beliefs to understand how present beliefs have morphed to fit new knowledge. This requires YOU to study CHURCH/SCIERNCE HISTORY instead of just the Bible .
4. The belief was that GOD INFLICTED Disease. YOUR belief?
3. I missed this. I referenced The question as DO YOU BELIEVE in DREAM REVELATION? THE BIBLE TELLS YOU to.
JEWS HOME? NOMADS, in Egypt and surrounding areas. Originally Stole a Home, and did it again.
5. You belief that God inflicted Disease and natural disasters on man for sin, is based on the primary lie that man "originally" sinned: Adam and Eve.
But before eating from the tree, they could NOT have KNOWN right from wrong prior to.
They were blameless.
The idea of THIS sin is a FAIRY TALE people bought into because they have been led to BELIEVE they are BASICALLY BAD.
You were doing good until you started to use opinion and non empirical beliefs to explain your empirical physical world. You see the only way you can try to prove my God does not exist is by using my God as your example this is a circular world view and science is just knowledge not a world view to live by, So the question is what world view do you live by? You have already answered this with your humanism view points. Ask me not to use the bible to prove God. I ask you not to use your worldview
You say it doesn't prove God. But millions of people who have read it and believe it would say your wrong. Many I might add that were born in countries where they could be killed for this conversion. Science can not explain this.
And with that in mind even works more against your argument that there is no God. As there is just a small poplulation that is atheist. I might add that this has always been the case.
The earth was a molten mass at one time void of life. Now it has life. Where did it come from? The changing and diverse environments reacting on the non-living elements, powered by the sun.
Life sprang from the "non-living."
How? That is the mystery.
Can science answer that question?
Maybe, if it can create life in a laboratory.
Microbiology has only come into its own in the last century, and you expect it to answer ALL the questions? Give it more time.
I have checked my facts. Come to find out atheist nations have some of the highest Suicide numbers. Maybe because there is nothing to fear so ending it all is the next best thing. Japan has an extremely high abortion rate. China has a low rate as well both nations have strict laws that they enforce. It is funny how laws work don't you agree? So I pointed out that science can't answer many questions without using the metaphysical. Are you going to adress that other than directing me to a plug?
Your right I agree my views are based on faith it sounds like your saying science for the major questions of orgins are using the same faith but they call them theories. The scientific method starts with a guess so one must already be thinking of a outcome first. It would be there feeling or thought that started the method. So your following a belief system that is unseen when we discuss orgins. You just think your faith is better than mine.
The USA, the most christian nation in the world has the highest abortion rate, along with incredibly high rates in nearly every preventable disease and disorder.
Atheism plays no more a role in death than christianity, unless you account religious intolerance coming from christians as a cause of death.
China has not released their abortion rates ever so I think it is safe to say with their laws and ratio they are number one. Abortion is a bad thing and most Christians fight for this not to be legal in the USA. But we are a free nation therefore the law has made it legal due to non Christian views and agendas.
You don't have to explain to me why the political system has allowed for abortion. That one is pretty simple.
However, the right to choose is something that you label bad even if there are people who view it as good. There are no universal morals that can't be argued. There is no infallibility in morals. Given the right situation, just about anything can be justified (even when we disagree).
China is somewhat irrelevant as they impose population control. We still have the highest rate.
You find wisdom and truth in the Bible. I find it in the writings of men like ML King, Gandhi, Rousseau, Michal de Montaigne, Mark Twain, Nietzsche, Carl Sagan, Thomas Paine, Einstein, and the like. And SOME of the things attributed to Jesus, but not ALL.
I believe that these men were created by a mighty God and that God gave us brains and we are FREE to write and think. Science can't explain the arts in full why we enjoy to write or why you like these readings and some others don't. The complex world and our complex thinking ability is what makes no sense without the metaphysical.
Science can't answer the why and how without using the metaphysical. Why are we here, How did we get here. The orgins of the universe and mankind science can't answer without using ideas to answer them. The big bang life starting from non life are two things that can't be proven without faith or belief in something not seen or even tested. Yet both are taught as truths today. Why do we love? What is our purpose? What happens when we die? How come the universe looks designed? No empirical answers
Correct, science can not answer all these questions, and much including the Big Bang is speculation, but speculation from observed data.
NOT being able to answer a question like "Why are we here?" and then injecting God as the answer is an ancient idea and a proven fallacy.
Each generation should be satisfied with the answered questions and remain in awe of the unanswered, but there is no reason to believe in fantasy, just because it makes one feel good.
You just said your belief is speculation. How is that not faith. I have many reasons to believe there is a God and then I have 3500 year old documents that add to my reasons. How is that different that your observed data (Which by the way no one has observed these events we are all looking at the aftermath) So by your own words you believe or have faith in the current views and if they change because a man tells you new data that you won't ever see shows something different you will believe it.
GodIsReal: I see you have changed the subject and ignored my reference to predominantly Christian Lithuania's high suicide rate.
I don't consider my beliefs speculation, because my beliefs are not based on guesswork. Guesswork infers no evidence, and more of an opinion.
I have searched out the evidence and I have studied many of the past and present religions. You are stuck on one religion, without investigating the others evidence. I believe you are the one speculating.
There are more atheist countries with high suicide rates than that of theist it is a fact. I am not just looking at males I look at the whole population. You assume I have spent my life as a Christian or that I have not searched all religions or that I have always lived in the United States. So it is you who speculates. But I will end our conversation as I believe we have both stated our opinions no need to repeat the same views. If you would like to chat feel free to send me a message anytime
GodIsReal: If the age of the documents is your priority for believing in a religion, you should check out the 5000 year old Egyptian Book of The Dead, much of which is carved in stone.
Buddhism predates Christianity, as does the Hindu religion. So does Ancient Greek and Roman religions.
Also you speak of dead religions which leads one to believe that they are false. But a religion that has lasted is amazing. The vedas are nothing but pagan polytheism that changed over time. The dead sea scrolls proved the amazing translation of the bible and the oral torah before its day. Also the bible mentions events that can be proven before the 3500 years. So yes it is extremely reliable
GodIsreal: There is much data and evidence we will never test, but we use it every day, in our TV sets, phones, computers, medicine, etc. Your doctor says take these to get well, are you going to go and get a medical degree before you believe him? I don't think so.
Yes, I take the answers of people who are more educated on a subject as fact, realizing that science still has a lot of questions.
Science does not claim to have all the answers, if it did there would be little need to study it.
Dude spiritualism and science can absolutly go together.Thats how we get Quantum Physics...The main problem with King Jame's Bible is that its written by the vatican they took out alot of things out of the original text. Reincarnation should be in the bible, the last pope that died when he was on his Death bed he admitted that Hell is something they made up to control people, they purposely left out multiple text..I actually read Gnostic texts, in there they also tell you hell does not exist
What is so hard to believe that we have no reason to exist, is there a point of existence for mentally challenged children or parasitic animals? I have no desire to be in religion, by your standards I should be a christian, myself being in Afghanistan with 2 terms, I had no christianity or religion.
in the middle eastern religions of cyclical existence you are punished by being reborn as a parasitic or other such lower existence. I think the point of existence of the mentally challenged is to expand the awareness for those around them. We all have to find our own reason for existence.
It is no accident that you are viewing this video. I was just talking to someone that you influenced to follow you here as we were talking about the very subject yesterday. Many of the same thoughts in detail where touched upon. There is order, reason and purpose in the universe... even though our own minds may not understand at this movement. We live in a fallen world... but in the midst can become regenerate creatures to show what was lost in rebellion to a watching lost world.
Nice video, and your absolutely right! Nothing can dispute bible prophecy. Consider Isreal, no other nation in the history of the world has been reborn having previously been occupied by the same ethnic people. They were crushed by the Romans, dispersed for about 2000 years, and then were reborn in a single day JUST as the Bible said it would! God cannot lie, or go back on his promises. Thank you Lord for prophecy, tangible evidence that no one can deny.
That's interesting. We are SMARTER than Chimpanzees, we have technology and ability to learn who knows how many things and the interesting thing is. We BELIEVE in God, some in other "gods". Don't you think that itself has something to say? The lower and less intelligent species don't even have a concept of God and yet we do. Why is that? Could it be because Human Nature accepts the existence of God? The NEED for God? Or maybe God programmed it into us... Ohwell, go back to being a monkey
Real, I am sorry. I had to block A1Mint from posting on my channel. He is now looking at my tracking and following me to other pages and posting hate messages. I am sorry that he followed me to you page. God bless you, CV08.
we dont need a reason to exist-sorry to tell you that. We are no more important than any other animal on earth-we are not special, we just have a higher intelligence. Yet sometimes i believe monkeys are smarter because they don't beleive in bronze age gods. Listen, I have as much reason to believe in a god as to believe in santa claus- they are both dogmatic, cant be proven real or unreal and have around the same amount of proof for their existence. Science has given us much more than religion
Explain how the universe began?Explain how mankind began? How do you know these things? What makes you so sure that what man has told you is true? Has Santa claus ever fullfilled prophecy maybe you would believe in him if he did. The bible has my friend I hope one day you open your eyes to this truth. Your evidence is weak your argumen is tired where is your smoking gun that proves the bible is false? You can't disprove God but I can prove evidence for him what can science offer you in the end?
and yes, we can prove evidence against god, such as the theory of evolution, which is constantly obtaining more and more evidence. Try and find me evidence-AND THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE-for god. Dont quote scripture. Remember, all god is is a simple explanation for the creation of the universe for the dimwitted. Just because we dont know what created the universe doesn't mean its god. And there is a lot of evidence for the big bang anyways such as the star systems moving away from a core.
See my video Prophecy proves the bible is divine. Tell me how vague those are.... Look at the probabilty and see if you are still willing to stand behind that comment. This video points out how time and time again Science changes its views so I guess its alright to be wrong until your right. The big bang theory is not empirical and changes every five years. No one has ever concluded what exactly happend yet you believe whatever they throw your way. How is that not faith???
Interesting to note in your comments here that you state the THEORY of evolution which is...a THEORY, so not proven, not fact. You state you DON'T KNOW what created the universe yet are so positive it wasn't God, even though you admit you DON'T KNOW. Finally you talk about the star systems, big bang THEORY (again not fact or proven) but you don't give ANY explanation or proof for where they come from? I'll answer that...GOD CREATED EVERYTHING...FACT! Bible has NEVER been proved wrong! FACT!
So if you are a non believer (assuming you are) then by your standard you must of had someone influence you into non belief right? If you say no then it should work accross the board. If you say yes then you are a puppet like the rest of the world. Which is it?
you fail. the bible was written by man first of all. and if god is omnicient why would he create a world that he KNEW would eventually disobey him.
DrummingKid78 1 month ago
this man just believes what he hears or sees and does not research or study... all these faults in the fossil record arent even used in the evolution of man... i can see he clearly does not understand certain theories by the claims he makes
randallfe 3 months ago
atheists and religious people are both hypocrits since they both CANT 100% explain the beginning of life and what happens after death. Atheists say they dont believe in faith yet they have faith that nothing will happen after they die and cant prove that god doesnt exist. A religious group will say their religion is right but yet there are lots of other religions out there that give the same messages but teaches in a different way depending on their interpretation of what the bible says.
xqwzuos 4 months ago
lots of lots of lies
7lllll 5 months ago
This is stupid.
MoffattMetal 5 months ago
Jesus was a good human. He lived. Then died. End of Story.
bigbugbog 6 months ago
@bigbugbog Jesus Y'hoshua Christ is the messager of Hell on Earth. Jesus Y'hoshua Christ is truly the child of evil, the child of ruin, Jesus Christ is the deadly opponent against knowledge, wisdom and truth, and the opponent against love, peace, respect and harmony. It is the Anti-Logos in manifold form. It is the force of evil, the 666, which is against the truth of Creation, against the truth of the Spirit and against the obedience to the laws and commandments. No MORE LIES!!!
Barreto7x7x7 6 months ago
You said that evolutionists didn't stay within the bounds of the empirical science, ironic considering the Christianity hasn't been proven by empirical science, yet you teach it like truth. Moral of the story, you're a hypocrite.
sigm0id 6 months ago
the god one dose not sound logical to me at all, you can ask me why if you want. notice your 2nd main reason is death. why jump to that? i think fear of death is the main reason why any one really believes.
muaythaijunky 7 months ago
I can only assume that your "facts" all come from christian "scientists" Nothing in the bible has been proven fact absolutely NOTHING. in fact off the top of my head there is no one person professed that fits the jesus of the bible to have ever existed. and incase you had not heard we (humans) have created life last year. single cell granted but a new form of life non the less. And both the historians you mentioned. Gave their "first hand" accounts hundreds of years after the "events" (cont)
zenguyh 7 months ago
@zenguyh (cont) And finally christianity is in fact a very young religion compared to many that are worshiped today which have many more followers than christianity. and which of the 30,000 or so sects of christianity many with their wildly differing beliefs is it that you speak of when you say christianity is the one?
zenguyh 7 months ago
@zenguyh On that creating new life, the lead scientist admits "They did not create life from scratch". What they did was take bacteria and inserted man made DNA to create a new artificial life form. No different than the process they use for cloning, just using aritificial DNA.
whitenight003 3 months ago
Granted, the Bible is a very well written book, though one of my question is this, wouldn't the same effect be given if six very talented authors writing the same story then compiling them all together into one book but removing the bad bits?
SKELLIGON 8 months ago
BTW, you are proving revolution wrong but not necessarily proving christianity right
MetalGearSEAL4 8 months ago
All religion is complete crap. I'm a nihilist when it comes to religion. Everything is proven wrong in one way or another
MetalGearSEAL4 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
666 SATAN SATAN 666
DEATH TO JESUS
FUCK GOD
But wait... I DONT'T BELIVE IN GOD, JESUS AND SATAN!
FUCK RELIGION
TheAndy13tv 9 months ago
who made god whats gods purpose why was he made everything had to be made right then who made god?
sdingle100 9 months ago
@sdingle100 The bible says that God was and it was always God. So to answer your question God and his whole being (energy, body, soul) has always been. The bible clearly says this. The universe never has made a claim to always exist which is why for centuries people thought it always did exist. The big bang theory changed science as well as Hubbles Law that stated there was a start to the universe as it is expanding.
GodIsReal101 9 months ago
@GodIsReal101 the big bang wasn't the start simply a big event that occurred many scientists say that before the big bang the univers was just compressed.
sdingle100 9 months ago
@GodIsReal101 Jesus Y'hoshua Christ is the messager of Hell on Earth. Jesus Y'hoshua Christ is truly the child of evil, the child of ruin, Jesus Christ is the deadly opponent against knowledge, wisdom and truth, and the opponent against love, peace, respect and harmony. It is the Anti-Logos in manifold form. It is the force of evil, the 666, which is against the truth of Creation, against the truth of the Spirit and against the obedience to the laws and commandments. No MORE LIES!!!
Barreto7x7x7 6 months ago
@GodIsReal101 the big bad was not an explosion... i can see you do not know what the theory of the big bang is
randallfe 3 months ago
@GodIsReal101 just because there is no purpose in athiesm tha doesn't mean that there is a god
randallfe 3 months ago
Comment removed
EYEMCANADIAN 10 months ago
@EYEMCANADIAN
you're wrong. Actually it matters if you believe in God. I don't believe in God and I'm sure I won't go to hell for this also because i don't believe in heaven or hell. The question is "does God really exists?"...i say no and you say yes, but the truth is that we're both wrong cause we don't have any proofs of his existence.
MissiBGoode26 8 months ago
@GodIsReal101 Is a non-belief in santa claus, pixy fairies, bigfoot, chupacabra a blind choice? Their claims have no evidence and more in the lines of mythology than fact. There are atheists that dont believe in evolution and or abiogenesis. It would be a personal choice. Again atheism is NOT a belief but a lack thereof. Remember Atheism = no belief system. You could say we share the same non-belief in God like we share the same non-belief in unicorns.
chrisinsocalif 11 months ago
How can you say there are unexplainable Gaps in the fossil records if you just don't tell the whole story.
How comes that you demand science to have the whole explaination with all the evidence needed to convince even those who are willfully ignorant. But on your own you don't give any evidence.
You constantly say there are only two options. But that is a lie. Even if you flip a coin there are more than two options.
HiltownJoe 11 months ago
@HiltownJoe Sorry for using the law of non contradiction. Would you have me state that A and B both can be right when B is false as well?
GodIsReal101 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101
I never said both are right. I said you claim that it is either all God or all totally random.
None of it is right.
The argument that Evolution is a totally random process is just a straw-man designed to let creationism look like the reasonable choice.
It doesn't violate the law of non contradiction if i say both of the two options you presented are false, because you created a false dilemma.
HiltownJoe 11 months ago
@HiltownJoe So I presented huge Gaps in the fossil record and the fact that science has declared many times over that the missing link has been discovered and yet they were wrong you are saying you agree with me? Ok then I guess we have nothing to argue about you agree or are stating both are false.. Once again you are stating that evolution is false then right? Case in point som crazy man can state he found life in a meteorite and get everyone excited and find out he is way off but its science
GodIsReal101 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101 You did not present a huge Gap you just ignored the fact that this gaps you claim to be unpassable allready have been filled with some more transitional forms. And archeologists continue to find more.
By the way, I am not stating both "sides" are false. I say both options you present are false, because your claim that evolution is a random process is wrong. NEVER evolution was understood as a random process.
HiltownJoe 11 months ago
@HiltownJoe So please help us all to understand the huge difference in random, natural unguided selection, BTW I can name some major scientist that are atheist that have called the process random and unguided. There is is no reason or purpose for the selection in global view. So please explain where I am so far from the teachings or the prophet Darwin...
GodIsReal101 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101
Ok 1st, random does not equals unguided. If i let drop a stone it doesnt act random but is unguided.
2nd Random Evolution: Any Mutation happens on random. It happens all the time wich leaves us with a huge variatiy of mutations.
3rd Unguided Natural Selection: If a mutated Individual is able to pass it genes to the next generation is determined how usefull or harmful these mutations are.
There is not necessarily an inteligence needed to drive this process.
HiltownJoe 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101 Oh and by the way Darwin is not a prophet. He was just a guy who had a great idea on which many people today agree.
HiltownJoe 11 months ago
@HiltownJoe So was Hitler. And so does Hitler. Yet I tend to not follow that flock... BTW many atheist scientist are turning their back on Darwin as what they believe new evidence has come to light. Also he proved that their are many kinds of species and that small changes happen within them. This was known before he wrote it down. The fairytale that he did not observe is why science is turning their back on him now.
Peace
GodIsReal101 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101
Name 3 Scientists who say Darwin was wrong.
I mean you must really desperate to pull Hitler out of your hat.
I am going to call Godwins Law on this.
HiltownJoe 11 months ago
@HiltownJoe Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun.. I have a list of 700 PHD Scientist if you would like to review them. More and more each day are seing the lies in macro evolution
GodIsReal101 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101 Most of them died before Darwin was born. So how can they object his therory?
You probably did not check your list on your own. So I probably should get more specific. Name a publication from the last 10 years which has not been disproven by peer review
HiltownJoe 11 months ago
@HiltownJoe Now this is what we call changing the focus and is not a good logical way to argue. You simply stated name three scientist so I named more than three. Yet you are raising the bar now becuas I have done as you asked. I fear if I answer the next question which I can as there are many cration scientist young earth and old earth alike that don't support macro evolution on the scale Darwin spoke of. Along with his orgin and tree of life. They just are not proven scientifically. Thanks
GodIsReal101 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101 The only difference between micro and macro evolution is timescale, therefore possible. The phylogenic tree has been proven simply by looking at our genome. There are many examples of evolution taking place and new species being formed. It all matches up perfectly with the different fields of science with not one thing out of place. I do not know how anyone can dispute that.
chrisinsocalif 11 months ago
@chrisinsocalif Great I appreciate your words of wisdom. Now just share with the class your proof of a species changing from one kind to another. Show us a positive effect from genetic mutation. I challenge that you can't and will never. As to the past and time. You should have a tremendous amount of transitional species in the strata but yet we have all but yet found that missing link. Why is that??? Was the billion years and 1000000's of transitions not enough to leave one good lasting fossil
GodIsReal101 11 months ago
@GodIsReal101
I am not changing the focus. YOU claimed that atheist scientists are turning their back on darvin because NEW evidence has come to light. When I asked who is turning their back on him you named ones who died before Darwin lived. Therefore I ask less misunderstanable for the NEW evidence and the scientists who NOW turn their back ond darvin.
Oh and the tree of life was not Darwins
HiltownJoe 11 months ago
@HiltownJoe Michael Behe, Duane Gish, Henry Morris There are three scientist for you who believe in creation not evolution at a macro level.
GodIsReal101 11 months ago
so the first half of the video is you slating evolutionists and saying they have no proof of their claims, then you start churning out all this shit as if it is pure fact based on nothing more than it is in the bible?! i mean is this some kind of you rage you lose video or are you actually THAT fucking stupid?
lalalala4231 11 months ago
There is no evidence to back up the existence of God. Except the bible, which is just a story. I could write a story.
Milnersmithj 11 months ago
Christianity is just a bunch of bullshit, almost all christians are snob-nosed bitches that think there better than everybody
CnilaTorzvlp666 1 year ago
@CnilaTorzvlp666 Just because someone claims to be christians doesn't mean they are. Don't be quick to disregard Jesus's message of love for humanity because of a few people, who taint it's lifestyle.
deftonesfanatf 1 year ago
@CnilaTorzvlp666 not true at all
BornAgainBeliever15 1 year ago
Hahaha...i laugh at this shit.
MultiDarklord13 1 year ago
@MultiDarklord13 ignorance is bliss? Keep on running or laughing it will get you no where soon.
deftonesfanatf 1 year ago
just like how you can't say how the universe came around randomly you can't also say how a god came around randomly, its the same thing. This guy is really ignorant and thats why i am agnostic because you can't prove or disprove a god and vis versa
Darthlisp 1 year ago
@Darthlisp God always was, is and forever will be. That is why Jesus claims to be the "I Am". He never was created because he always was. There is no beginning or end to Him.
deftonesfanatf 1 year ago
00:42 you cant come up with more then 2 possible beginnings of the universe? I can think of a million, you sir are wrong!
0:50 what seems more logical? the one based on evidence!
1:41 maybe you have to look up the definition of atheism because you are hella wrong there.
02:00 bla bla evolution bla bla, talkorigins(.) (o)rg has got the answers (and more letters then 500 to explain it so, good luck with that)
lnmylife 1 year ago
Very well done. This is a wonderfully concise apologetic for Christianity. Each subject discussed can be explored in great depth, but this gives an overview that many Christians would do well to see. In fact, I am going to show it to my Sunday School class. The Peace of the Lord be with you, brother.
drewas55 1 year ago
You arguments were excellent until you denied evolution. Even Sarah the dumb bitch Palin believes that evolution should be taught in school.
fredjustsucks 1 year ago
ok, let me go ask someone if they met Jesus and shoke his hand. this is a load of Bull.
MetalHeadTwins 1 year ago
@MetalHeadTwins Let me get someone who met Shakespeare to see if he wrote any plays... or King Richard to see if there were really Crusades going on. If you don't want to believe in God I would like you to explain the existence of the Jewish people. Then why millions of Christians were murdered for there beliefs throughout history.
deftonesfanatf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
misfortune distress tumor for those who have in youtube: all forms of sex; horror; satanism; metal; vulgarity. I'm "Rei Unius" in Jesus' name I command that:the first dangerous will disease to which their thinking think? is own by receive: that leading to death: loved the curse? Falls on him! Drink your poisons made by yourself ♰PAX♰ amen ✙Halleluja✙ ♥ ♔ consecration to the Heart of the whole human race ✙ ♥ ♔ CSPBCSSMLNDSMDVRSNSMVSMQLIVBMENETECHELPERES
ShalomGerusalemme 1 year ago
Born again? Excuse me for getting it right the first time. I don't need your god, or your dead Jewish cultist.
HoundofOdin 1 year ago
I don't mind someone finding philosophical support for a God centered universe, but when people lie and present those lies as facts I will not stomach it. Boo!
AlexanderDGraham 2 years ago
You had me when telling the Bible is the bestseller, gonna believe now!!!!11!
wikuk 2 years ago
I believe the only independent variable in this universe is Free will. But I don't think free will is a biological thing. It's our souls.
OpenTheo 2 years ago
I'm sure you mean well, but when people research this stuff themselves, and find that everything you've said about what science says isn't true, don't you realise they'll stop trusting you? It doesn't matter if you think you're telling the truth; the fact is, you are saying things which are verifiably untrue (the whole 'random chance' thing, for one). If people can't trust what you say about evolution, why should they believe what you say about Christianity?
HawthornOwl 2 years ago
Random Chance is exactly what had to happen if there was no being behind creation. You can call it natural selection or the big bang but it still is without reason making it random. Show me one proof of evidence that states different and I will remove this video. 100% proof of reason and not random acts...
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Are you saying that 'random' and 'unguided' are the same thing? Be careful here. If I drop a stone to the ground, it is 'unguided', but its path is certainly not random. It follows a well-defined law.
Similarly, the formation of galaxies is not 'random'. Those spirals are the result of physical laws.
If you want to claim that 'random' means 'unguided', then you cannot also claim that it means 'improbable'. You have yet to show that 'unguided' means 'improbable'.
HawthornOwl 2 years ago
I am saying that science has never been able to describe the law giver. If you say a law sets the stone down it's path then I would ask where did that law come from? Can we see this law or is it non material if it is non material then what do we call this? Where did the stone come from did it always exist if not what created it? You will find that these answers lead to a finite moment and that bang is directed by a law or system. I say what is that system? To many holes in your law theory.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
I note you're not answering the question. It's an important one.
Do you think 'unguided' means the same as 'random' (as in 'by pure luck')?
If so, then the existence of physical laws refutes that easily. Planets form into spheres because of gravity (unless you believe that all the atoms 'randomly' form a sphere?). Evolution postulates that animals evolve by these same natural laws, not 'randomly'. Do you agree with that?
HawthornOwl 2 years ago
As for science not being able to describe the law-giver, it's not relevant. If you want me to say it's God, fine. God made the laws of the universe. It makes no difference to the processes that follow those laws, such as evolution.
That is what I'm criticising: by characterising evolution (or whatever) as 'random', and pretending that there is no process behind it, you're hiding the fact that it works on physical laws. What happens when people find out you've been holding back the truth?
HawthornOwl 2 years ago
My main point is this: you don't know what you're talking about.
I understand you want to evangelise; however, what good do you do by spreading things which you don't know the truth of? Some people will be convinced by the untruths because they don't know science, and others will turn away when they see the bad argumentation, or when they find out what science really says. Doesn't that concern you? Is the business of saving souls really such a shotgun process?
HawthornOwl 2 years ago
Your argument is self refuting. I 100% believe that this world is guided that is what believing in a creator is all about. The problem which I pointed out is this. If you are a materialst then you fail. You must end up believing in something you can not see or understand or in your case borrow from my world view to make your world view valid. Case in point you admit that the same law that guides the stone would have to exist before the stone and you are ok with calling that existence God.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
I note you're still not answering the question.
Does 'unguided' mean 'random'?
Your video says that science says that the first cell came together purely by trillions molecules arranging themself into a cell by random chance.
This is false. Because YOU don't understand how physical laws work, or what the difference between 'random' and 'unguided' is, you have misrepresented what science actually says. And it only takes seconds for a kid to read it for themself and find they've been lied to.
HawthornOwl 2 years ago
As for 'borrowing from your worldview', the reason I can agree that God created the rules of the universe is because
a) it doesn't matter (evolution still works on natural laws, whether God invented them or not) and
b) In this case, 'God did it' is equivalent to saying 'I don't know', or 'magic'.
You're essentially agreeing with me that in this instance, your God is both irrelevant AND meaningless.
Care for another round of confusing the meanings of words and not answering questions?
HawthornOwl 2 years ago
a) There is no such thing as "randomness".
Everything in the universe is calculated.
b) Macro-Evolution is impossible.
Abiogenesis is impossible.
Do more research. How many sides have you seen in this debate?
OpenTheo 2 years ago
@OpenTheo:
a) That's not how creationists put it. If they really believed that, they couldn't make ridiculous 'this is SO improbable!' arguments.
b) Why, and why? You need to do more than just assert that they're impossible. I would argue that macroevolution is perfectly possible (and, even better, well evidenced). I would also argue that abiogenesis is at least possible. Why do you think they're not?
HawthornOwl 2 years ago
@HawthornOwl perfect! Creationists constantly seem to equate "unguided" with "pointless," as if the intentionality of a process dictates the worth of the result of that process. Nobody "built" the mountains that I can see out my window in Alaska, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly not beautiful.
paxson001 2 years ago
And another comment: Creationists keep repeating the word "accidental," as if the supposedly "accidental" nature of the big bang or of evolution somehow invalidate the theories.
Look at how stupendously "accidental" each of us is, in that history had to have unfolded exactly as it did, for millions of years, for each of us to come about. Just because our births were enormously unlikely in the scope of history, doesn't somehow mean we suddenly don't or can't exist.
paxson001 2 years ago
I never know what to make of these videos. There's this mantra "there's no evidence, there's no evidence, there's no evidence" that just keep getting repeated. And yet every bookstore is stocked with books that explain how the mechanics of physics and evolution. The evidence behind the big bang and of evolution is utterly massive and, though the details are often debated, uncontroversial.
paxson001 2 years ago
So we can prove the big bang? Your proof is not material making it what? Why is there such debate among scientist on the actual details?
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
The "big bang theory" (which, by the way, was first proposed by Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest) is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. The reason that there's debate on the details is that the birth of the universe was a hugely complex phenomenon. The big bang theory isn't a piece of religious dogma.
paxson001 2 years ago
@GodIsReal101 Because unlike Chrisitians, we question everything around us. We don't believe in something because everyone else does and because we fear punishment to disobey. The bible has many flaws and inconsitancies that you ignore. Whereas science is always questioned and improved upon so that it removes inconsitancies. By the way, I am a theistic Satanist, which I found through much questioning of my self. Theistic Satanists strive for truth, knowledge and self empowerement
tankintummy 1 year ago
@tankintummy By believing in something metaphysical weather it is the created or the creator then you prescribe to a thinking that must break away from conventional science so where is the argument except the God you serve and the God I serve?
GodIsReal101 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 Unlike monotheistic religions, Satanists do not argue against science. In fact they encourage it. Scientific theory does not conflict with these ideals. A metaphysical realm is just another Universe, as physics shows we live in a "multi-verse" not a "uni-verse". By changing the frequency of our brainwaves from alpha through delta, we are able to look into the other realms. String theory suggests that everything is made up of vibrating strings, where the vibrations attune
tankintummy 1 year ago
@GodIsReal101 to different Universes. By meditating we can change the frequency of our vibrations to see into the other Universes. The pineal gland in our brain is unactive from birth, due to being deprived from spirituality. When activating the pineal gland (done through much meditation) can allow you to adapt your sensory organs. The old pagan religions refered to it as opening the "third eye." It is only the mono-theistic religions that have inconsistancies with science
tankintummy 1 year ago
Good job. I couldnt put it better myself. Good work.
Irishbigdan 2 years ago
islam will save the poor, thank GOD i know the truth
TheKitab5 2 years ago
you can talk about a fatty acid bubble breaking into two parts over and over again for billions of years until you by accident hit on the on a combination that could even remotely be called life
not just accidentally split the bubble but all it's contents
and accidentally bump into new contents
because the wrong bump might change alkali and even a slight change and the bubble could just desolve
and until it is life it can't help
rocks and minerals don't evolve
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
As a small aside, if there is no evidence of Jesus' remains (and no historical reference to Jesus outside of Christianity itself), then how do we know he even existed? The bible cannot be taken as just on it's own in that regard, because other historians would have for certain made some sort of reference to him. It was supposedly a large world event, yet has no historical reference from uninvolved historians.
snoman99991 2 years ago
There are many writings that point out Jesus Christ. Google third party sources on Jesus Christ. Wiki Jesus Christ
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
And they are disputed, often. Many of the Jesus accounts are circumstantial at best, and can apply to a variety of people at the time claiming to be a messiah.
snoman99991 2 years ago
It is also not faith to take Abiogenesis and the Big Bang as the best explanation for phenomena we cannot directly test. That is what theory is for. Theories can be updated, revised, or even scrapped altogether. They are not however, intellectually weak. Theories are subjected the greatest possible criticisms, and have a long life before they become accepted.
The Big Bang is proposed under strong astronomical evidence. Abiogenesis follows that same logic, using current evidence as support.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Your argument is because science call a guess a name like theory then it has some truth?? Under what standard are they the best explanations? If they can be wrong or change then what are they? The same amount of evidence for the big bang exist for the answer of God. It is the measure of cause and complexity. The how science has 100's of theories from seeding, multiverse, singularity, and nothing from something, to always was. None of them are any closer than there first initial guess.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
It is intellectually dishonest to say that big bang theory is as much guesswork as god is.
Do you understand spectroscopy? More importantly, red-shifting and blue-shifting? Do you understand stellar parallax (oddly enough it's how our eyes perceive depth)? What about total and apparent magnitudes, along with stellar drift?
These are principles that have been tested through observation that all together point towards a picture that the universe is expanding from a single point.
snoman99991 2 years ago
You still can't see that your theories are just words that are not empirical. Because they are produced by men you are more apt to believe them. I believe in the one who created those men. Here is a question for you. What was the scientific experiment that established epirical science as the only way to be sure something is truth? You see it all comes down to faith my friend and once again your argument is that you feel you have more evidence for your faith. I would argue your wrong. That is it.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
If observation is not reliable, then nothing in existence is reliable. If our eyes, ears, mouths, nose, and skin do not act consistently as a species, then it doesn't matter at all if there's a creator or if science is even right.
But again, it's through understanding that we all see, speak, listen, taste, smell and touch using the same physiology that makes observation true.
Knowledge accumulates from prior knowledge. If what we knew is correct, what we find out will be too on principle.
snoman99991 2 years ago
So is it not true that what I view green you may see as a light green? Is it not true that things can feel different to other people? Is it not true that smell can be different to others. Who decides what the term and outcome is? Before we ever laid eyes on an atom we knew it existed. Why none of the senses you just listed could be used. We also used our brain and thought to determine that atoms existed. So we can't do the same thing in the case of God? Your argument is self refuting.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
The problem is that you don't provide a better argument. You simply say you'd argue otherwise. We cannot observe a god, so there is no reason to suppose there is one. There's a book written by a committee of bronze-age shepherds, and that's it. We don't have a touchable, seeable, smellable, audible, and tasteable evidence. It is silly to even suggest there is one.
snoman99991 2 years ago
I am still waiting for an answer. What was the scientific experiment that established that empirical science or the scientific method proves something is true? If you can't point to an experiment then is it not just man saying this is the process of truth?
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
It is NOT left to chance. Chance was part of the mechanics of some of the earliest life forming, but the cards were stacked in favor of Abiogenesis anyway. Electrical charges already existing in the atmosphere, combined with all of the organic molecules and elements (in large abundance) and the energy necessary for life to form, are more than enough reasons to understand why it's likely.
But even then, evolution is nothing chance-related. Natural selection is not chance.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Wow here is your number one mistake. Abiogenisis is something that scientist today 2009 can't create in a controlled lab. So your saying that in a chaotic enviroment (the earth at the time of this supposed miracle) non living materials and chemicals became life and then had enough time to not be destroyed in this chaotic enviroment to advance. Yet once again in a perfect and controlled enviroment we still can't make it happen today? That would be reverse Entropy. It does not make sense.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
No. Such environments are complex and chaotic. We can find similar environments near deep sea ocean vents. While we can't replicate it in a lab easily, it is nonetheless more observable than some sort of god.
You invoke entropy fallaciously. It is non sequitur to use it as part of that particular argument.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Yes but we don't see new life springing up from this area do we? Which leads to a good question. This first lucky start why has nothing like it been seen or reproduced since? It is faith that you believe it. They can make life from life but to date in a lab they can't make non life into life. So idea or theory is just a guess and takes faith or any other word you would prefer to believe it at this time. If we can't see this event how observable is it then? oh you mean the cartoons they make.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Theories are not guesses. Theories are subject to the highest possible level of criticism and scrutiny. If even one piece of evidence directly counters it (see: bible does not count as evidence as it is merely a piece of literature that doesn't justify a god), the theory is completely scrapped. That is why theories are very powerful and influential. It's damn hard to make one.
A guess though, is a hypothesis. We have many of them. Once you make one, you test it. It's rather simple.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Animals can still be identical today from fossils if there has been no large change in environment. Lets say a population exists at a stable level (no growth or shrinking, essentially equilibrium). Now lets say that mutations that are negative will be selected against (because those organisms will fail in competition with similar but better organisms). Positive mutations will survive, but because the environment isn't changing, large changes are not necessary. Not identical, but close.
snoman99991 2 years ago
This video PROVED nothing, except the gullibility of the people who believe it.
It takes much study to realize all religious roots.
Religion has evolved like all life on earth.
It is still evolving as more scientific discoveries are made, and religion morphs its beliefs to match more of the facts.
gjsterp 2 years ago
such as?
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
GodIsReal101: You have got to be kidding to ask such a question.
1. The belief the earth was the center of the universe. It's not even the center of our galaxy!
2. Belief in witches.
3. Belief in the significance of dreams on prophesy.
4. Belief that disease is the wrath of God, and leave it at that. Science proved otherwise and cured many diseases.
5. Belief that natural disasters are the wrath of God. Science has proved believable natural causes.
6. Morphed into "Intelligent Design."
gjsterp 2 years ago
1. Where does it say that the earth is actually the center of the universe in the bible?
2. Where does the bible say witches?
3. How can you explain the prophesy of the jews returning to their home and becoming a nation again?
4. God is the author of all things so if he allowed disease because of our sin than he could allow man to cure it through science and understanding.
5. God can allow natural disasters but he can intervene as well.
6. Science can't prove how come, why,and where
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
gjsterp 2 years ago
1. To understand the text you must understand context. In Hebrew what word did they have to describe any planet? Also assumed by you not me.
2. Do not allow a sorceress to live. which is someone who practices in pagan rituals and calls upon dead spirits to speak to them. This was a law for the Jews at this time as they could not have anything to do with evil ways.
3. You never answered my question.
4. Correct
5.Ok
6. What about the why, where, and when. God gives us the answer to all.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
@GodIsReal101
1. You ask me a question. I give you an answer you don't like or understand and ask me another question.
They did not have a word for planet, because they thought that NOT ONLY was the earth FLAT, but ALSO the SUN AND THE MOON. Why didn't God reveal to them that it was a sphere?
2. The CHURCH interpreted it as WITCHES/SORCERER That is why they tortured and burned WITCHES.
Each era interprets the Bible to fit their present knowledge and word use. This era does the same. cont.
gjsterp 2 years ago
@GodIsReal101 cont.
STUDY PAST Christian beliefs to understand how present beliefs have morphed to fit new knowledge. This requires YOU to study CHURCH/SCIERNCE HISTORY instead of just the Bible .
4. The belief was that GOD INFLICTED Disease. YOUR belief?
3. I missed this. I referenced The question as DO YOU BELIEVE in DREAM REVELATION? THE BIBLE TELLS YOU to.
JEWS HOME? NOMADS, in Egypt and surrounding areas. Originally Stole a Home, and did it again.
see:
mapsofwarDOTcom/images/EMPIRE17.swf
gjsterp 2 years ago
@GodIsReal101
5. You belief that God inflicted Disease and natural disasters on man for sin, is based on the primary lie that man "originally" sinned: Adam and Eve.
But before eating from the tree, they could NOT have KNOWN right from wrong prior to.
They were blameless.
The idea of THIS sin is a FAIRY TALE people bought into because they have been led to BELIEVE they are BASICALLY BAD.
NOT TRUE.
gjsterp 2 years ago
@GodIsReal101
6. I don't see any "answers" that God has given us. All the answers we have have been bought with hard work by intelligent men.
Science proves the "where": ALL info is for HERE.
"How come" / "why" are the same.
Why: Science discovers the unknown causes of things. MANY WHYS have been answered, but not ALL.
WHY ARE WE HERE? ( What is the meaning to life ) Is what you and every pre-christian philosopher asked.
ALL religion deals with trying to satisfy scared individual EGOs.
gjsterp 2 years ago
@GodIsReal101
HERE IS THE ONLY TRUTH ALL OF US NEED.
Life is SHORT and TRIVIAL.
If you need an explanation:
We believe life to be significant, because it seems important to us, and most can not accept that we as individuals are trivial.
The ultimate non acceptance of this is the belief that we are important to a GOD.
I know I am trivial.
gjsterp 2 years ago
You were doing good until you started to use opinion and non empirical beliefs to explain your empirical physical world. You see the only way you can try to prove my God does not exist is by using my God as your example this is a circular world view and science is just knowledge not a world view to live by, So the question is what world view do you live by? You have already answered this with your humanism view points. Ask me not to use the bible to prove God. I ask you not to use your worldview
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
My empirical world is based on observation, experience, and experiment.
Of all the non-empirical beliefs one can have, the belief in God(s) is probably the least emperical.
I use words and relationships that should help you understand.
Science never tries to prove something does NOT exist, although a process of elimination is used for diseases.
What process can we use for God?.
If the Bible can't prove the existence of God in 2000 years, what chance does it have in the future?.
gjsterp 2 years ago
You say it doesn't prove God. But millions of people who have read it and believe it would say your wrong. Many I might add that were born in countries where they could be killed for this conversion. Science can not explain this.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
GodIsReal: That millions of people believe in Christianity, is the fallacy of ad populum or appealing to the masses.
You might consider, though I doubt you will, that there are a total of billions of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindu, and Jews that would disagree with C.
So, your ad populum argument can work against your "proof.".
gjsterp 2 years ago
And with that in mind even works more against your argument that there is no God. As there is just a small poplulation that is atheist. I might add that this has always been the case.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
The earth was a molten mass at one time void of life. Now it has life. Where did it come from? The changing and diverse environments reacting on the non-living elements, powered by the sun.
Life sprang from the "non-living."
How? That is the mystery.
Can science answer that question?
Maybe, if it can create life in a laboratory.
Microbiology has only come into its own in the last century, and you expect it to answer ALL the questions? Give it more time.
gjsterp 2 years ago
So today it is faith. Correct?
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
GodIsReal: Are you referring to "violence in atheist nations" or the origin or meaning of life?"
For those who can not accept that there ARE and WILL BE unanswered questions, faith is their only course.
They could just try to stop asking the questions and read a science book to get as many questions answered as they can before they die.
gjsterp 2 years ago
You really should check your sources.
Search "atheist nations" and open your eyes and hopefully your mind will follow.
Then check on "violence in atheist nations" that should be another eye opener.
Seems Christian nations ARE more violent.
US is one of the nations that claims the most believers, and we have more murders/ crime here than most.
Japan is mostly atheist and has one of the lowest crime rates.
Go figure...
gjsterp 2 years ago
I have checked my facts. Come to find out atheist nations have some of the highest Suicide numbers. Maybe because there is nothing to fear so ending it all is the next best thing. Japan has an extremely high abortion rate. China has a low rate as well both nations have strict laws that they enforce. It is funny how laws work don't you agree? So I pointed out that science can't answer many questions without using the metaphysical. Are you going to adress that other than directing me to a plug?
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
GodIsreal: What facts are those?
Lithuania has the highest suicide rate for males in the world, and it is predominantly Christian.
Crowded Japan's abortion rate probably reflects the question each parent must ask, "Where do we put the child, and how do we afford to feed it."
Which every parent should ask, but few do.
Some scientists use metaphysical terms to explain some sub-atomic phenomenon which is not understood.
The duality of light is not fully understood.
So?
We don't know, equals God?
gjsterp 2 years ago
Your right I agree my views are based on faith it sounds like your saying science for the major questions of orgins are using the same faith but they call them theories. The scientific method starts with a guess so one must already be thinking of a outcome first. It would be there feeling or thought that started the method. So your following a belief system that is unseen when we discuss orgins. You just think your faith is better than mine.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
The USA, the most christian nation in the world has the highest abortion rate, along with incredibly high rates in nearly every preventable disease and disorder.
Atheism plays no more a role in death than christianity, unless you account religious intolerance coming from christians as a cause of death.
snoman99991 2 years ago
China has not released their abortion rates ever so I think it is safe to say with their laws and ratio they are number one. Abortion is a bad thing and most Christians fight for this not to be legal in the USA. But we are a free nation therefore the law has made it legal due to non Christian views and agendas.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
You don't have to explain to me why the political system has allowed for abortion. That one is pretty simple.
However, the right to choose is something that you label bad even if there are people who view it as good. There are no universal morals that can't be argued. There is no infallibility in morals. Given the right situation, just about anything can be justified (even when we disagree).
China is somewhat irrelevant as they impose population control. We still have the highest rate.
snoman99991 2 years ago
You find wisdom and truth in the Bible. I find it in the writings of men like ML King, Gandhi, Rousseau, Michal de Montaigne, Mark Twain, Nietzsche, Carl Sagan, Thomas Paine, Einstein, and the like. And SOME of the things attributed to Jesus, but not ALL.
My opinion? My world view is quite balanced.
Yours is one sided and biased to the Bible.
gjsterp 2 years ago
I believe that these men were created by a mighty God and that God gave us brains and we are FREE to write and think. Science can't explain the arts in full why we enjoy to write or why you like these readings and some others don't. The complex world and our complex thinking ability is what makes no sense without the metaphysical.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
GodIsReal:
Writing? Art? These are things we just enjoy.
I wouldn't expect science to explain why we like the things we do, but I do know there has been much research on it.
I'm curious.
What other parts of your "complex world...makes no sense without the metaphysical."
gjsterp 2 years ago
Science can't answer the why and how without using the metaphysical. Why are we here, How did we get here. The orgins of the universe and mankind science can't answer without using ideas to answer them. The big bang life starting from non life are two things that can't be proven without faith or belief in something not seen or even tested. Yet both are taught as truths today. Why do we love? What is our purpose? What happens when we die? How come the universe looks designed? No empirical answers
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Correct, science can not answer all these questions, and much including the Big Bang is speculation, but speculation from observed data.
NOT being able to answer a question like "Why are we here?" and then injecting God as the answer is an ancient idea and a proven fallacy.
Each generation should be satisfied with the answered questions and remain in awe of the unanswered, but there is no reason to believe in fantasy, just because it makes one feel good.
gjsterp 2 years ago
You just said your belief is speculation. How is that not faith. I have many reasons to believe there is a God and then I have 3500 year old documents that add to my reasons. How is that different that your observed data (Which by the way no one has observed these events we are all looking at the aftermath) So by your own words you believe or have faith in the current views and if they change because a man tells you new data that you won't ever see shows something different you will believe it.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
GodIsReal: I see you have changed the subject and ignored my reference to predominantly Christian Lithuania's high suicide rate.
I don't consider my beliefs speculation, because my beliefs are not based on guesswork. Guesswork infers no evidence, and more of an opinion.
I have searched out the evidence and I have studied many of the past and present religions. You are stuck on one religion, without investigating the others evidence. I believe you are the one speculating.
3500 yrs old = proof?
gjsterp 2 years ago
There are more atheist countries with high suicide rates than that of theist it is a fact. I am not just looking at males I look at the whole population. You assume I have spent my life as a Christian or that I have not searched all religions or that I have always lived in the United States. So it is you who speculates. But I will end our conversation as I believe we have both stated our opinions no need to repeat the same views. If you would like to chat feel free to send me a message anytime
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
GodIsReal: If the age of the documents is your priority for believing in a religion, you should check out the 5000 year old Egyptian Book of The Dead, much of which is carved in stone.
Buddhism predates Christianity, as does the Hindu religion. So does Ancient Greek and Roman religions.
gjsterp 2 years ago
Go to wiki and look up the oral torah.
Also you speak of dead religions which leads one to believe that they are false. But a religion that has lasted is amazing. The vedas are nothing but pagan polytheism that changed over time. The dead sea scrolls proved the amazing translation of the bible and the oral torah before its day. Also the bible mentions events that can be proven before the 3500 years. So yes it is extremely reliable
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
GodIsreal: There is much data and evidence we will never test, but we use it every day, in our TV sets, phones, computers, medicine, etc. Your doctor says take these to get well, are you going to go and get a medical degree before you believe him? I don't think so.
Yes, I take the answers of people who are more educated on a subject as fact, realizing that science still has a lot of questions.
Science does not claim to have all the answers, if it did there would be little need to study it.
gjsterp 2 years ago
Dude spiritualism and science can absolutly go together.Thats how we get Quantum Physics...The main problem with King Jame's Bible is that its written by the vatican they took out alot of things out of the original text. Reincarnation should be in the bible, the last pope that died when he was on his Death bed he admitted that Hell is something they made up to control people, they purposely left out multiple text..I actually read Gnostic texts, in there they also tell you hell does not exist
ELMOcall911 2 years ago
What is so hard to believe that we have no reason to exist, is there a point of existence for mentally challenged children or parasitic animals? I have no desire to be in religion, by your standards I should be a christian, myself being in Afghanistan with 2 terms, I had no christianity or religion.
FromyColdeadHands 2 years ago
in the middle eastern religions of cyclical existence you are punished by being reborn as a parasitic or other such lower existence. I think the point of existence of the mentally challenged is to expand the awareness for those around them. We all have to find our own reason for existence.
hellodolly2683 2 years ago
It is no accident that you are viewing this video. I was just talking to someone that you influenced to follow you here as we were talking about the very subject yesterday. Many of the same thoughts in detail where touched upon. There is order, reason and purpose in the universe... even though our own minds may not understand at this movement. We live in a fallen world... but in the midst can become regenerate creatures to show what was lost in rebellion to a watching lost world.
thevoiceofalexjones 2 years ago
Fallacies? Where to start?
"God or the Big Bang from nothing, is a fallacy of a False Dilemma. Two choices, no others.
Other Choice? We just can't say: yet.
"Hundreds of men would NOT die for a lie."
Millions of Nazis, Fascists, Communists, and Christians have died for lies. Terrorists still die for lies.
Colossians 1:17
"In him ALL things hold together," which would include evil and sin.
If God is omnipresence He is in ALL things.
Evil and Sin.
More fallacies in this vid than I care to count.
gjsterp 2 years ago
Nice video, and your absolutely right! Nothing can dispute bible prophecy. Consider Isreal, no other nation in the history of the world has been reborn having previously been occupied by the same ethnic people. They were crushed by the Romans, dispersed for about 2000 years, and then were reborn in a single day JUST as the Bible said it would! God cannot lie, or go back on his promises. Thank you Lord for prophecy, tangible evidence that no one can deny.
LoveAndRepentance 2 years ago
That's interesting. We are SMARTER than Chimpanzees, we have technology and ability to learn who knows how many things and the interesting thing is. We BELIEVE in God, some in other "gods". Don't you think that itself has something to say? The lower and less intelligent species don't even have a concept of God and yet we do. Why is that? Could it be because Human Nature accepts the existence of God? The NEED for God? Or maybe God programmed it into us... Ohwell, go back to being a monkey
ViForMe 2 years ago
Lazurus was raised from the dead.
thekingdomathand 2 years ago
Real, I am sorry. I had to block A1Mint from posting on my channel. He is now looking at my tracking and following me to other pages and posting hate messages. I am sorry that he followed me to you page. God bless you, CV08.
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago 2
we dont need a reason to exist-sorry to tell you that. We are no more important than any other animal on earth-we are not special, we just have a higher intelligence. Yet sometimes i believe monkeys are smarter because they don't beleive in bronze age gods. Listen, I have as much reason to believe in a god as to believe in santa claus- they are both dogmatic, cant be proven real or unreal and have around the same amount of proof for their existence. Science has given us much more than religion
MaguireMart 2 years ago
Explain how the universe began?Explain how mankind began? How do you know these things? What makes you so sure that what man has told you is true? Has Santa claus ever fullfilled prophecy maybe you would believe in him if he did. The bible has my friend I hope one day you open your eyes to this truth. Your evidence is weak your argumen is tired where is your smoking gun that proves the bible is false? You can't disprove God but I can prove evidence for him what can science offer you in the end?
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
and yes, we can prove evidence against god, such as the theory of evolution, which is constantly obtaining more and more evidence. Try and find me evidence-AND THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE-for god. Dont quote scripture. Remember, all god is is a simple explanation for the creation of the universe for the dimwitted. Just because we dont know what created the universe doesn't mean its god. And there is a lot of evidence for the big bang anyways such as the star systems moving away from a core.
MaguireMart 2 years ago
See my video Prophecy proves the bible is divine. Tell me how vague those are.... Look at the probabilty and see if you are still willing to stand behind that comment. This video points out how time and time again Science changes its views so I guess its alright to be wrong until your right. The big bang theory is not empirical and changes every five years. No one has ever concluded what exactly happend yet you believe whatever they throw your way. How is that not faith???
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Interesting to note in your comments here that you state the THEORY of evolution which is...a THEORY, so not proven, not fact. You state you DON'T KNOW what created the universe yet are so positive it wasn't God, even though you admit you DON'T KNOW. Finally you talk about the star systems, big bang THEORY (again not fact or proven) but you don't give ANY explanation or proof for where they come from? I'll answer that...GOD CREATED EVERYTHING...FACT! Bible has NEVER been proved wrong! FACT!
stuartj4600 2 years ago
Actually, you can test Santa Clause.
Next year, hide a camera next to your tree. And if wait to see who puts the presents under a tree.
However, you cannot prove, nor disprove God, because the proof is never perfect. But its good enough for me.
ChurchofIDK 2 years ago 2
Thanx for this video, favorited. Good work
civilianlife 2 years ago
at 7:01, at the top left of the picture, you can see an eye.
vitopsp1 2 years ago
its youtube, get ovar ut
u cant even talk proper english
nyjets48 2 years ago
You don't get what brainwashing is, do you? :/
Yaymudkip 2 years ago
I thought I blocked you, and yes, it is when somebody has ideas forced upon them until they believe it.
nyjets48 2 years ago
Therefor that is saying that things dont change and what else changes?
Evalution
nyjets48 2 years ago
So if you are a non believer (assuming you are) then by your standard you must of had someone influence you into non belief right? If you say no then it should work accross the board. If you say yes then you are a puppet like the rest of the world. Which is it?
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
That was just a fail of an argument.
It is just stupid to make an accusation...
nyjets48 2 years ago